Message-ID: <16783508.1075852742136.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:03:24 -0700 (PDT) From: t..hodge@enron.com To: rick.antonoff@cwt.com Subject: RE: Bethlehem Steel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Hodge, Jeffrey T. X-To: '"Rick Antonoff" @ENRON' X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JHODGE (Non-Privileged)\Hodge, Jeffrey T.\Sent Items X-Origin: Hodge-J X-FileName: JHODGE (Non-Privileged).pst Rick: Thanks for the information. Lisa forwarded this to me late last night. You should be advised that the termination notice was sent well before this. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: "Rick Antonoff" @ENRON Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:51 PM To: jhodge@enron.com Subject: Bethlehem Steel I sent this to Lisa last night but since she's not in today, you may not have seen it. ----- Forwarded by Rick Antonoff/NY/CWT on 10/19/01 04:49 PM ----- Rick Antonoff To: lisa.mellencamp@enron.com cc: David Mitchell/NY/CWT@CWT 10/18/01 Subject: Bethlehem Steel 08:13 PM I was able to obtain copies of the petition, utility order and other pleadings in the Bethlehem case via the court's internet site. I would like to see the contract(s) that ENA has with Bethlehem to determine whether there is any basis to deem ENA a utility for purposes of section 366. For our conflicts check, I need to know which Bethlehem company(ies) the ENA contract is with. As far as I see in the motion, only ENA is listed as a utility. Interestingly, in the motion, the debtor states: "Nothing contained herein shall constitute an admission by the Debtors that a listed entity is a utility entitled to the protections afforded by section 366 or any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code." Indeed. Nevertheless, for the time being, the order does prohibit the "Utility Companies," which definition includes ENA, from altering, refusing or discontinuing service to, or discriminating against, the Debtors. While arguably ambiguous as to whether ENA is rendering a service or whether closing out the contract is discrimination, prudence dictates complying with the order until we get it changed. What I'm thinking as far as strategy is that if we conclude that the contract is a forward contract, we try to convince Bethlehem's attorneys to remove ENA from the list of utilities and amend the motion and the order accordingly. If they don't and the dollars involved in closing out the contract are significant -- bearing in mind that the order "authorizes" but does not direct Bethlehem to pay postpetition invoices for services rendered by the utilities -- then we move for a declaratory judgment that ENA is not a utility within the meaning of section 366. Regards. ______________ Rick B. Antonoff Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 100 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212 504-6759 Main Fax: 212 504-6666 Local Fax: 212 993-2539 Mobile: 917 287-6391 Email: rick.antonoff@cwt.com ============================================================================== NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. ==============================================================================