Subject: Re: CA for Henwood engagement
From: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:48:00 -0800 (PST)

Sandeep,

It probably makes sense for you to directly coordinate the signing of the 
contract for Henwood.    Attached is another copy of the earlier email 
containing a draft contract provided by Bonnie Nelson in legal.    She would 
still  like to change section 6 on exclusivity.   Her number in Houston is 
713 646 7712.

Let me know whatever I can do to help.

--Stinson

---------------------- Forwarded by Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT on 01/18/2001 
08:43 AM ---------------------------

Bonnie Nelson@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
01/11/2001 12:51 PM
To: Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandeep 
Kohli/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Re: CA for Henwood engagement  

Stinson,

Attached please find a draft Consulting Agreement for use with Henwood.  

You will want to review it before you send it to Henwood.  Please see Section 
6 in particular.  Also, I put in that arbitration will be in Houston and 
Texas law will apply.  We could move that to New York, with New York law if 
that is better for Henwood.  If pressed, we could make it Singapore or U.K. 
law, with arb in Singapore.  but any other law, including Australian law, 
would mean we would need to get this contract reviewed by foreign counsel--so 
I strongly urge you to argue for Texas or NY law (no other state, please).

I tried to make this Agreement reflect the terms in Henwood's proposal, and 
believe I succeeded.  Our form has some additional terms not contained in 
their Proposal, as well as FCPA boilerplate (ie., the "Business Conduct" and 
"Drug Policy" language).  Also, I just want to point out that this Agreement 
allows them to subcontract the work--but only with our written agreement.  
Under their Proposal, the subcontractor costs will be charged to us at cost 
plus 15%--so you might not want to do it.

Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Bonnie