|
|
Enron Mail |
-----Original Message----- From: Minns, David Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:59 AM To: Timothy, Justin; McBride, Jane Cc: Niesler, Stefan; Aronowitz, Alan; Keogh, Alison Subject: RE: Enron Japan - EOL - Yen denominated WTI swap Jane, happy to work through this with you. In essence there are 2 steps - Firstly there is approving the GTCs and the product description. As Justin said this done by the relevant lawyer for the jurisdiction or more particularly the Enron counterparty. If the decision is to use US law the counterparty would be ENA. In this case an EWS lawyer in Houston would give the signoff to both the GTCs and the product description. (The two are handled together). Conversely if Japanese law is chosen then the Enron counterparty that would do an OTC trade for that product in Japan would be the counterparty. That I assume would be EJ. Which choice of law and counterparty to use? It has been the practice to follow the currency. For example in understand ENA offers Japanese and Australian weather in USD. There is also a final legal signoff given by Mark Taylor. This is generally a formality as Mark would be primarily concerned that relevant lawyer has given their OK. Secondly, each counterparty needs to be approved to trade the product. This is done by the lawyer responsible for the product (ie the one that approved the GTCs) as well as the lawyer where the company is incorporated/resident. Hence I would assume you would be approving Japanese counterparties irrespective of whether EJ or ENA is the counterparty. Give me call -----Original Message----- From: Timothy, Justin Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 5:16 PM To: McBride, Jane Cc: Niesler, Stefan; Minns, David; Aronowitz, Alan; Keogh, Alison Subject: RE: Enron Japan - EOL - Yen denominated WTI swap These are created by legal counsel in the jurisdiction of the Enron entity. So for example if this was for Enron Australia David Minns would be creating the GTC. It appears from your email however that the Enron entity will be ENA hence I would assume that ENA legal counsel would want control over the GTC in this case but obviously you need to clarify. I work for the EnronOnline Product Control Group which basically administers and co-ordinates the EOL website. Regards Justin -----Original Message----- From: McBride, Jane Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 5:10 PM To: Timothy, Justin Cc: Niesler, Stefan; Minns, David; Aronowitz, Alan Subject: RE: Enron Japan - EOL - Yen denominated WTI swap Thanks - I think I have these already from you but my questions are more general - I have never been able to get to the bottom of how EOL is managed from a legal perspective hence the email to Alan. By the way how were these created and who normally creates these; also what is your role in all this? Thanks. Jane -----Original Message----- From: Timothy, Justin Sent: 31 October 2001 15:01 To: McBride, Jane; Musch, Susan; Aronowitz, Alan Cc: Bekeng, Jan-Erland; Hirl, Joseph; Niesler, Stefan; Minns, David Subject: RE: Enron Japan - EOL - Yen denominated WTI swap Jane, Attached is a copy of the existing GTC for the existing USD denominated WTI Crude product type for your perusal. Regards Justin << File: US WTI Fin Swap GTC.doc << -----Original Message----- From: McBride, Jane Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 3:12 PM To: Musch, Susan; Aronowitz, Alan Cc: Bekeng, Jan-Erland; Hirl, Joseph; Niesler, Stefan; Timothy, Justin; Minns, David Subject: Enron Japan - EOL - Yen denominated WTI swap Hi Alan (and Susan), As you may know, Enron Japan is trying to get some yen denominated products onto EOL in an effort to try and pry the Japanese market open a little bit faster. Although this is an Enron Japan initiative, the Enron CP would be ENA, so the governing law should probably not be Japanese (but this is unclear - there is a thought that Japanese CPs may prefer Japanese law, but it is also arguable whether they would know or care - in any case Susan, any tax issues in having ENA doing yen denominated trades over EOL under Japanese law? Anyway the main reason for the email is that I have some very boring questions. Alan, I am not sure (and to be honest have never really been able to figure out) who makes global EOL legal decisions, whether they come out of London or Houston (because seems to be some overlap) - but since the CP would be ENA, Houston legal will have to be involved, so perhaps Mark Taylor, but would you mind forwarding my questions to the right person. 1. Procedure wise - who should draft the GTCs for this new product? 2. If they are done under a US law - who gives legal sign off? 3. If they are done under Japanese law - can I sign off? Very happy to do so but not having any EOL experience I would need to work closely with someone from EOL legal who could confirm that other than any issues of Japanese law, they are consistent with what we want from the EOL GTCs generally. 4. Who signs off on "product descriptions" - what is the formal process - I assume it includes the commercial person - in this case Stefan Niesler, does it also require someone from legal, do I do this as the EJ lawyer - should l also get the ENA lawyer to approve since the CP is ENA. Sorry if these questions seem trivial but I don't know my way on this at all and am concerned that things may fall through the cracks unless we know who will take responsibility for doing what. Thanks very much. Kind regards. Jane McBride Senior Legal Counsel Enron Japan Corp. Tel: +813 5219 4553 -----Original Message----- From: Musch, Susan Sent: 31 October 2001 01:11 To: Niesler, Stefan Cc: McBride, Jane; Bekeng, Jan-Erland; Hirl, Joseph Subject: RE: yen nominated WTI swap Stefan, Sorry I missed your call yesterday. The answer to the question you left on your phone message (i.e., whether there are any tax issues given the current description and facts relating to the WTI product) is no, there shouldn't be any tax issues under the structure described below. Are you going to revise the description for the product that is currently on EnronOnline Datamanager? (It currently has the old description where Enron Japan Corp. was going to enter into these transactions.) Best regards, Susan -----Original Message----- From: Niesler, Stefan Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 4:18 AM To: Musch, Susan Subject: RE: yen nominated WTI swap Susan, Apart from the FX, there will be no involvement of EJ at all. It will all be covered under ENA Corp. as the USD WTI Swap is. Hope that helps. thx. StN -----Original Message----- From: Musch, Susan Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:38 AM To: Niesler, Stefan Subject: RE: yen nominated WTI swap Stefan, Would you please clarify to what extent EJC will be participating in these transactions (other than the FX piece)? Thanks, Susan -----Original Message----- From: Niesler, Stefan Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:32 AM To: Musch, Susan Subject: yen nominated WTI swap Susan, I hope I didn't confuse you too much yesterday night. Here is a quick run down on how we think the Japanese Yen nominated WTI Swap could work: The mechanics remain the same. The US WTI Swap quotes are converted in Yen/KL and posted on EOL. Incoming transaction are hedged out against the US WTI Swap and the FX exposure is hedge out manually. The Enron entity entering into the initial transaction and all subsequent hedges is ENA. (same as for the US WTI Swap). The FX hedging will be done by people here in Tokyo who act as agents for ENA. (That's nothing new, they already do that.) Fair question remaining is what is the rational for the product for ENA and why are we involved in the product development. First of all we are looking for the easiest and most practical solution. ENA is interested because it extends the reach of an exiting product and provides additional deal flow through their books. (No EJ books as touched in this transactions). The rational for EJ is purely marketing relate. We underline our commitment to the market and proof ourselves as competitive and innovative suppliers of financial products for the Japanese Market. It is supporting our overall market penetration effort. The issue that it is not Enron Japan entering into the contract is secondary as the Japanese market is looking at Enron as a group. Possible customer concerns about contracting with a foreign company is something we don't see as material. The customer group we are targeting are international active companies that are used to dealings with non-Japanese counterparties. In addition, the credit rating of ENA is far better the EJ's from a Japanese point of view. I hope this helps to clarify some things. Please feel free to call me if I left anything out or if you need some additional information. Thank you! Regards, StN
|