Message-ID: <417908.1075845906495.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: roseann.engeldorf@enron.com
To: kay.mann@enron.com
Subject: RE: LLC structure for power development
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Roseann Engeldorf
X-To: Kay Mann
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

I don't know if you gain anything - the land can be on b/s without putting 
the entire project on b/s, per Herman and Mary Cilia.  My guess is that we'd 
consolidate the other LLC anyway - so the accounting treatment of the land 
would not change by changing the owner of the land, I don't think.   

Rose  
 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay  
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:53 PM
To: Bills, Lisa; Engeldorf, Roseann; Manis, Herman
Cc: Jacoby, Ben
Subject: LLC structure for power development

Question for the team:

If it appears that we may have land which may not be able to stay off balance 
sheet, is it preferable to have the land held by a different LLC than the 
project LLC, with a lease to the E-Next/OBS compliant project co?  

If that is the case, what about the possibility of burdening the land with 
some low dollar hard costs?  I don't have anything in particular in mind, it 
is more of a theoretical question.

Thanks,

Kay