Re: Master Agreements

cc: Mark
---------------------- Forwarded by David Forster/LON/ECT on 06/10/99 13:54
---------------------------

David Forster
06/10/99 13:52
To: Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Master Agreements

I actually meant for new Masters only - not replacing existing ones.

Dave

Justin Boyd
06/10/99 10:10
To: David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Mark E Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Master Agreements

Dave - we did consider this at the time and decided not to proceed on the
basisi of a formal amendment of each of the Masters, for the following
reasons:

It would take considerable time to prepare (particularly in the US where
there are a much greater number of Masters) the necessary amendment
agreements.
Each Master would need to be separately considered and individual amendments
prepared.
The process of securing the agreement of each counterparty to an amendment
would have delayed the Project
In proposing a formal amendment, this would have meant identifying to the
marketplace the Project.

Clause 3 of the ETA sets out how we have dealt with the execution of trades
online wherer existing Masters are in place.

Regards

Justin

David Forster
06/10/99 08:51
To: Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark E Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Master Agreements

Just out of curiosity:

The GTC's state that GTC's will be used "Until a Master Agreement is
executed" . . .

Do we need to modify our standard Master Agreements to be consistent with
either the concepts or terms of EnronOnline?

I realise we are willing to accept variations for existing master agreements,
but I assume we would want to ensure that new Masters are as consistent as
possible . . .

Dave