Message-ID: <31146741.1075859512964.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
To: alan.aronowitz@enron.com, justin.boyd@enron.com, jeffrey.hodge@enron.com, 
	mark.haedicke@enron.com, paul.simons@enron.com, 
	mark.taylor@enron.com
Subject: Contract Review Meeting on Oct. 7th
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Elizabeth Sager
X-To: Alan Aronowitz, Justin Boyd, Jeffrey T Hodge, Mark E Haedicke, Paul Simons, Mark - ECT Legal Taylor
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Elizabeth_Sager_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: Sager-E
X-FileName: esager.nsf

I have scheduled a meeting for October 7th from 8:30 to 2:30 in room 3321 to 
recommence the project we began in January to review the existing 
Houston-based financial, gas and power trading forms.  All of you should have 
received a black binder labelled "Analysis of ECT's Finacial, Power, Gas 
Forms"  which contains all of the long and short forms used for trading (as 
such forms existed in January 1999), as well as my summary comparison as to 
how each of the forms handles certain legal issues (eg, termination, cover, 
assignement, confidentiality ....).  If you did not receive or cannot locate 
this binder, let me know and I will forward to you another copy.  This 
analysis was done in January.   I am aware that some of the forms may have 
changed since then but have not undertaken to "update" the memo as we will be 
able to discuss such changes at the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting is to review how each of the Houston-based 
trading  forms has been structured and to note where there are differences.  
The ultimate goal is to determine what Enron's "model" trading provisions 
should be and to determine a consistent approach unless there is a justified 
rational for treating the commodities in a different manner.  With this in 
mind, I would hope to be able to create a "modular type" contract  whereby 
each legal issue would have a recommended approach, evidenced by language 
that will be approved by the group.  By way of example, Enron's gas contract 
prohibits assignement without consent, which consent can be withheld for any 
reason.  The financial form provides that a party can not unreasonably 
withhold its consent.  At this meeting we would discuss what the preferred 
approach is and then begin the process of drafting appropriate language, 
which language would be approved at a seperate meeting.  This  "modular 
assignment section" could then be dropped into all trading forms unless 
differences were required due to the commodity/product involved.

You will note that the analysis performed to date does not include all areas 
of a trading contract.  Similiar steps will still need to be undertaken with 
other provisions such as credit terms.  At the meeting, I hope to further 
discuss the additional areas everybody believes should be reviewed.

Aron Roffwarg, a lawyer  from Bracewell, will also be at the meeting to 
assist us in this effort.

Thanks