Message-ID: <11155350.1075855243962.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:10:42 -0800 (PST) From: stuart.zisman@enron.com To: kay.mann@enron.com Subject: RE: Austin Energy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Zisman, Stuart X-To: Mann, Kay X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_Jan2002\Mann, Kay\Inbox X-Origin: Mann-K X-FileName: kmann (Non-Privileged).pst It may also makes sense to keep the arrangements separate. The City's claim pursuant to its power deal (presumably with ENA) is likely a general unsecured claim that gives them very little hope of actually collecting. Sandhill is not a debtor (not yet anyway) and is an assets/commodity that can be freely assigned. Just a thought. -----Original Message----- From: Mann, Kay Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:23 PM To: Zisman, Stuart Subject: FW: Austin Energy -----Original Message----- From: Clark, Barton Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:42 AM To: Keenan, Jeffrey Cc: Mann, Kay Subject: RE: Austin Energy For now, Kay and I both will be working on this. I learned this am that the desk has a power deal with City of Austin that is in default ( not involving the LCRA hedge), so it may be beneficial to think about some kind of global workout with the City involving the $$ owed, the 8% interest held by Sandhill and the obligations under the power deal. When I have some time to read the project documents, and you get your info, all three of us should meet to formulate a response to the City's letter. -----Original Message----- From: Keenan, Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:13 AM To: Zisman, Stuart Cc: Clark, Barton Subject: Austin Energy Stuart: Here is my shot at your memo. I will have the accounting spreadsheet from Theresa Vox today. Jeffrey << File: Sandhill Memo Keenans makup to Zisman.doc >>