|
|
Enron Mail |
Fine - I will follow up with Jennifer and Torrey before convening with the
legal team at 11 am (5 UK). m David Forster 15/09/99 09:50 To: Mark - ECT Legal Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Dilworth/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Long Descriptions - Indexes Thanks for your recent emails. My response to various issues raised: Before Torrey Moorer and Jennifer deBloisBlac Denney met with the confirms people, I said: 1) The GTC + Long Description should cover all of the elements necessary to form an unambiguous contract. The paper confirmation should just be a written record of what has already been agreed and should not introduce any new concepts. 2) The Long Descriptions should cover everything which a trader would (both explicitly and implicitly) discuss over the telephone. At this point, I have received all of Torrey and Jennifer's comments and they have been incorporated. I have also received comments from Andy Thomas, which he says incorporates everything which he received. Therefore, all feedback which was given to any of the above three individuals should now be reflected in the spreadsheet and the database. In some cases, certain items of feedback were ignored because they were incorrect - e.g. the addition of a "price" field to the PAI list. There were also some cases when multiple requests to language changes occurred to a single data item, or certain items of feedback were superceded by others. If someone says that they provided feedback which you believe is valid for inclusion and which has not been incorporated, please let me know the details of the change and who the request was passed to. Thanks, Dave To: David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Long Descriptions - Indexes Dave: One item that was left open after my meeting with Mark D. this morning was what the Index should look like and how much input we have had from the confirm desk. My inclination was that the index should be the same language that we currently use in the confirmation on the theory that the GTC taken together with the long description should result in a complete, unambiguous contract. Mark felt that the index should provide a more complete description than the short description abbreviation but that the full legal text could wait for the paper confirm. Given Mark's view as to how this field should be dealt with, it may be that the confirm desk has in fact looked at all of these and said they look fine as far as they go and has not attempted to correct them with the full legal language. Mark said he would be contacting you himself but I thought it might make sense to give you my version as well. What are your thoughts? If you'd like to discuss, I will be in by 9:00 tomorrow but have a meeting at 10 and then the meeting with all of the lawyers and Mark to discuss the further long description review at 11. Mark
|