Message-ID: <7017112.1075845939770.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: kay.mann@enron.com
To: mark.gershon@piperrudnick.com
Subject: Re: Enron - Livingston County PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Cc: fred.mitro@enron.com, rsteven@enron.com, jennifer.walker@enron.com, 
	karen.way@piperrudnick.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: fred.mitro@enron.com, rsteven@enron.com, jennifer.walker@enron.com, 
	karen.way@piperrudnick.com
X-From: Kay Mann
X-To: "Gershon, Mark A. - CHI" <Mark.Gershon@piperrudnick.com>
X-cc: "Fred J. Mitro (E-mail)" <fred.mitro@enron.com>, "Rusty Stevens (E-mail)" <rsteven@enron.com>, "Jennifer Walker (E-mail)" <Jennifer.Walker@enron.com>,  karen.way@piperrudnick.com
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Mark/Karen,

I received your voice mail regarding my comment about substituting the LOC.  
The reason for this suggestion is to provide flexibility in our financing 
structures, depending on which entities own equity in the LLC at the time of 
the posting of the security.  Perhaps language such as  "an appropriate 
payment security" or other similar language can be utilized. Please be 
assured that I have an understanding of the differences between an LOC and a 
corporate guaranty.

The draft responses have been forwarded to the Enron tax department, due to 
the discussions concerning certain tax issues.  I believe it is appropriate 
to get their approval of the language prior to these answers being released.

Also, I don't believe I fully appreciate the context of these questions and 
answers, and how and to whom these answers will be given. A brief explanation 
would be most appreciated.

Thank you,

Kay