|
|
Enron Mail |
Francisco,
You should have gotten my email back to Justin. We have two sets of online customers coming thru, one set that originates from Houston Credit and one set originates from London Credit. We are responsible for responding for Houston Credit based customers, and London Legal for London based customers. A side issue to all of this is how we gather legal advice on trading around the world. We don't want to duplicate efforts and costs by having both Houston and London Legal Departments requesting separate advice. Our office is responsible for legal advice in the Americas and Southeast Asia, while London leads the efforts in Europe . After we each receive advice we provide copies and communicate to each other the advice received. Even though we both receive the same legal advice, sometimes we don't always agree on the approach in a particular country, and at the end of the day, each Legal Dept. is responsible for their own clients. As far as the advice on Mexico, Chile and Argentina, as I told Justin, the advice I have received from the Houston lawyers is that although we can transact financial products in these countries, we have certain legal risks in doing so, and we need to do corporate due diligence to check their appropriate corporate documents to see if they are allowed to do these, and further, most of these counterparties have not filed consents to service of process here in the U.S., which we require in order to trade with us. Since what these counterparties usually want to trade are physical products, we don't waste our time doing the due diligence at this point. If a counterparty really wanted to trade financial we would spend the time resolving those issues. As you become the responsible lawyer, first in Mexico, and maybe in the rest of South America, you may have a different opinion on these issues and we can certainly change our policies at any time. All of the above is just what my current direction is from our lawyers. Francisco Pinto Leite@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 01/25/2001 08:34 AM To: Tana Jones@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Femsa Empaques, S.A. de C.V. I can answer this but my only question is whether we also "control" the process when the Enron entity is a UK entity? FPL ---------------------- Forwarded by Francisco Pinto Leite/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 01/25/2001 08:42 AM --------------------------- From: Lara Fields@ECT on 01/25/2001 08:46 AM GMT To: Francisco Pinto Leite/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Enron London - EOL Product Control Group/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Femsa Empaques, S.A. de C.V. Hi Francisco Just so that I can inform the rest of my team and the marketing people - why is it that we require Masters with Mexican counterparties and not with counterparties from other countries? Would it make any difference if the Enron Entity was in the UK like Enron Metals Limited rather than US? Does this apply for offline trading as well? Regards, Lara To: Justin Boyd@ECT cc: Lara Fields@ECT, Tana Jones@ECT Subject: Femsa Empaques, S.A. de C.V. Justin: I am the "new" lawyer in charge of our financial trading operations in Mexico. I am told that we do not trade financial with any Mexican counterparty without going through our normal due diligence process. At the end of the day we need a Master in place with any Mexican counterparty with whom we trade (financial) online or otherwise. I checked and we do not have a Master in place with this counterparty. FPL
|