Subject: RE: Litigation Counsel Approval - Lakeside Packers
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:57:25 -0700 (PDT)

Peter, your proposed counsel picks are fine by me. Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Keohane, Peter  
Sent:	Monday, April 30, 2001 11:26 AM
To:	Derrick Jr., James; Haedicke, Mark; Sanders, Richard
Cc:	Taylor, Mark; Johnston, Greg; Crawford, Sharon
Subject:	Litigation Counsel Approval - Lakeside Packers

We have a counterparty (Lakeside Packers) who refuses to perform to a 5 year fixed for floating power swap which commenced Jan. 01 and is C$2.5MM (US$1.7MM) in the money to us and booked (we would take a hit to earnings by that amount to unwind the deal).  Unfortunately, without the involvement of Legal, the deal was executed without paper, but on the basis that it was subject to our standard ISDA documentation.  The Confirm was sent out on that basis but not executed by the counterparty.  There was some agreement on guarantee support, but as this was less clear to get the underlying deal put in place, with the approval of Credit, we gave up the requirement for the guarantee in our subsequent discussions and demand letter.

We want to pursue the matter by commencing litigation.

Lakeside is traditionally represented by Blakes.

My suggestion would be to use the Duncan McCachen firm, a litigation boutique who we have used in the past (CIBC litigation).  Mike McCachen has a good understanding of the trading business for a litigation lawyer.  Alternatively, I would suggest Clarke Hunter of Macleod Dixon who is currently representing us on the NGX litigation and who also has a good understanding of out trading business.  Mike is a little more aggressive than Clarke, to my preference.

We would like to proceed as soon as possible as our demand letter expired last week, and our calls this morning were not dealt with satisfactorily.

Peter.