Message-ID: <1584959.1075852322952.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: t..lucci@enron.com
To: gerald.nemec@enron.com
Subject: FW: Kennedy Amendment
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Lucci, Paul T. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=PLUCCI>
X-To: Nemec, Gerald </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Gnemec>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \GNEMEC (Non-Privileged)\Deleted Items
X-Origin: NEMEC-G
X-FileName: GNEMEC (Non-Privileged).pst

Gerald,
 
Eric, in structuring, has this question on the wording of the Kennedy Amendment.  I told him you "the master of wording" was ok with it.  What do you think?
 
Paul
 
 
PS   I hope it closes today! 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Moon, Eric 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:29 AM
To: Lucci, Paul T.
Subject: RE: Kennedy Amendment


Paul,
The language regarding the volumes still has the phrase " up to" implying the customer may own some put rights. Can we remove that language and just say 10,000 MMBtu/d, etc?
 
emoon

-----Original Message----- 
From: Lucci, Paul T. 
Sent: Wed 10/17/2001 3:35 PM 
To: Tycholiz, Barry; Reitmeyer, Jay; Williams, Jason R (Credit); Moon, Eric 
Cc: 
Subject: FW: Kennedy Amendment





 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Nemec, Gerald  
Sent:   Wednesday, October 17, 2001 2:11 PM 
To:     Lucci, Paul T. 
Cc:     Tycholiz, Barry; Williams, Jason R (Credit) 
Subject:        Kennedy Amendment 

Here is the latest. 

<<Kennedy Amd2.doc>>