Message-ID: <2331383.1075845837215.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mitch.robinson@enron.com
To: stuart.zisman@enron.com
Subject: Re: Westinghouse - State Group Claims
Cc: ross.newlin@enron.com, don.miller@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: ross.newlin@enron.com, don.miller@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com
X-From: Mitch Robinson
X-To: Stuart Zisman
X-cc: Ross Newlin, Don Miller, Kay Mann
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

I concur contractually and legally.  However, given that our total claim is 
on the order of $0.4


From: Stuart Zisman@ECT on 04/20/2001 09:34 AM
To: Ross Newlin/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Mitch Robinson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Don Miller/Enron@EnronXGate, Kay 
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron 

Subject: Westinghouse - State Group Claims

I spoke with Kay and she agreed that her interpretation of the settlement 
letter was the same as mine (i.e. no waiver of warranty claims or claims of 
faulty construction/design).  Subject to Mitch's agreement (because he had 
the primary role in the negotiation of that settlement with Westinghouse), we 
would suggest writing a letter alerting Westinghouse of our claim and of our 
desire to meet quickly to discuss this matter.  The letter might also suggest 
that if we are not able to resolve this matter quickly we expect to draw down 
on the letter of credit.  This latter threat might gain the level of 
attention that we desire.  Of course, I would be careful about how it is 
phrased (it might be worthwhile to run it by Andy Edison, the litigator).

Stuart