Subject: FW: Enron Petrochemicals v. Baytank
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT)

Steve,

      1.  With apologies, attached is the redrafted petition, removing the "excessive heat" allegation.

       2.  You told me that the only way to perhaps determine if other Baytank entities were involved was to ask Philchem, who might or might not know, and who would then be asking questions about what we were going to do next.

       Britt

     P.S. to Richard:  I haven't heard back from Baytank's president, even though I left a voice-mail and sent an e-mail, which was shown on my e-mail receipts as having been read on Tuesday of this week.  In the e-mail, I specifically said that we may be filing suit this week if we didn't get an extension.

	For the sake of caution, I think we need to file suit Friday afternoon, for reasons I've mentioned previously.  Shouldn't I send out a GC memo now?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Davis, Britt  
Sent:	Tuesday, October 23, 2001 4:26 PM
To:	Elliott, Steven M.
Cc:	Studdert, James P.; Sanders, Richard B.; Zikes, Becky
Subject:	Enron Petrochemicals v. Baytank

	Steve,

	Per your advice, I have removed the "excessive heat" allegation in the petition.  How does it look to you now?

	Please let me know at your earliest convenience.  You confirmed that while we know for sure that the contamination didn't occur prior to October 28, and that it was discovered on or about November 4, we don't know for an absolute certainty that it didn't occur, say, on October 29, 1999.  Accordingly, if Baytank won't grant us an extension of time to file suit against it (and you, Richard and Jim were bcc'd on the e-mail I just sent to the president of some Baytank entity asking for such an extension), then I want to be ready to file this suit on Friday.

	A related point:  I have included the name of the Baytank entity with whom Philchem executed the Marketing Agreement, which is the only Baytank corporate entity that I know of that had some responsibility for the contamination.  However, the Marketing Agreement does not say whether that Baytank entity owns, leases or operates the facilities in question.  It would be preferable to name any and all Baytank entites that own, lease or operate the facility in question.  Short of calling Baytank and asking, do you know how we could find this out very quickly?

	Many thanks.

	Britt

	P.S.:  Richard,  should I go ahead and send out a GC memo on this suit, in case Baytank doesn't promptly respond to my request for an extension of time?