Subject: RE: Flying Crocodile
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT)

I left Skilling a message on this. Lets see what he has to say. Rick

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bradford, William S.  
Sent:	Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:00 PM
To:	Buy, Rick
Subject:	FW: Flying Crocodile

FYI

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rohauer, Tanya  
Sent:	Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:34 AM
To:	Bradford, William S.
Cc:	Wilhite, Jane
Subject:	FW: Flying Crocodile

This counterparty's line of business is the distribution of pornography.  I asked Robbi Rossi her thoughts, and legal is OK with the deal because there is no illegality (as long as it does not involve child pornography).  Jane has the company's tax returns.  It is a 1 year on-net OC-12 from Seattle to San Jose plus local loop with an MRC of 22K per month.  This is a transaction which accoriding to our guidelines we would approve with no credit language in the GTCs due to size.  There is no income being marked on the deal.  I just wanted to be sure all parties are aware of what we are doing (Jim and Paul are aware per below message).  Clearly this is not credit risk; however, it seems plausible that there is the potential for this deal to reflect negatively on Enron if it were to become known in the market that we were selling our network capacity to  customers in this line of business.

Thanks,
Tanya

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Wilhite, Jane  
Sent:	Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:14 AM
To:	Rohauer, Tanya
Subject:	FW: Flying Crocodile

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Garrett, Bryan  
Sent:	Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:10 AM
To:	Wilhite, Jane
Cc:	Bowe, Mike; Abraham, John
Subject:	Flying Crocodile

Jane,

I asked Paul and Jim if there was a problem with doing a deal with Flying Crocodile, and the response was that we will deal with them so long as they contractually agree that they will not use the capacity for any unlawful purpose (which is a standard clause in our agreement).  Therefore, we will move ahead with this.  As I told you earlier, the mark on the long-haul is likely to be negative, and it is an on-net circuit so we can absorb it back if they default.  The local loop is off-net, so I would imagine that you will want some protection on that side.  Let me know if you need anything else from me.

Thanks,
BG

Bryan Garrett
Northwest/Canada Desk
Bandwidth Trading & Risk Management
Enron Broadband Services

Office - (713) 853-7993
Mobile - (713) 256-6668
Fax - (713) 646-8795