Message-ID: <276042.1075845053100.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mark.haedicke@enron.com
To: james.grace@enron.com
Subject: Re:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Mark E Haedicke
X-To: James Grace
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Mark_Haedicke_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: HAEDICKE-M
X-FileName: mhaedic.nsf

Yes for the choice of law but not for jurisdiction.  We could agree to 
non-exclusive jurisdiction in Ohio.

Mark



	James Grace@ENRON
	10/03/2000 01:22 AM
		 
		 To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: 

Mark:

I am reviewing a CA that has an Ohio choice of law provision and an Ohio 
exclusive jurisdiction provision, although this latter provision would only 
apply to any injunction actions since the CA has our standard arbitration 
provision.  The opposing side has already rejected New York as the governing 
law.  Can we live with Ohio?

Jim