Message-ID: <15247503.1075845880281.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: barton.clark@enron.com
To: kay.mann@enron.com
Subject: Murtha Cullina Conflict Waiver request
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Barton Clark
X-To: Kay Mann
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Fuel cells
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

FYI
----- Forwarded by Barton Clark/HOU/ECT on 09/12/2000 10:19 AM -----

	Barton Clark
	09/01/2000 01:41 PM
		 
		 To: Sharon Butcher/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Daniel Allegretti/HOU/EES@EES
		 Subject: Murtha Cullina Conflict Waiver request

The request that I look at or find the proper person to review a conflicts 
waiver to be executed by Enron Corp. came to me from Daniel Allegretti as I 
am the lawyer working for ENA ( power assets group) in the fuel cell project 
referred to in the attachment. Sheila Tweed advised me you were the proper 
person to be looking at this matter for governmental affairs. I went ahead 
and yesterday did a markup of the requested conflicts waiver from Murtha 
Cullina to keep the ball moving and distributed that markkup internally via 
the attachment, but nothing more has happened since then. The revised waiver 
letter appended to the attachment is marked to show changes to the original 
Murtha request, so I won't forward that document to you unless you want it. 
Please give me a call at your convenience to discuss.
----- Forwarded by Barton Clark/HOU/ECT on 09/01/2000 01:34 PM -----

	Barton Clark
	08/31/2000 02:18 PM
		 
		 To: Daniel Allegretti/HOU/EES@EES
		 cc: Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Murtha Cullina Conflict Waiver request

Attached is a suggested markup of the requested conflicts letter. Candidly, I 
don't see how Murtha can continue to represent us in lobbying for the subject 
transactions and represent CRRA in lobbying and legal representation for the 
same transactions without conflicts or creating the appearance of 
impropriety, and the markup reflects that scepticism by trying to segregate 
out the representation cleanly. Also, to the extent the original draft 
indicated Murtha had represented both CRRA and Enron re the transactions 
until now, we need to make sure that we are OK with waiving that conflict as 
a substantive matter. I'm not familiar enough with the representation to know 
if Enron's interests could have been compromised during that period of dual 
representation, and I do not think we should agree to the waiver until we are 
comfortable on that score.The letter also now  makes clear that Murtha will 
not be able to represent either party or their affiliates in litigation 
involving them. Since the letter requires the signature of Enron Corp., I'm 
trying to find out what clearance is required, as I customarily do not review 
or initial Corp. documents for signature.