Subject: FW: "SANTA CLARA"
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 10:55:54 -0700 (PDT)

Do you want to handle this, or do you want me to?
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Britt 
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:43 PM
To: Edison, Andrew
Cc: Lachner, George R.; Henking, Paul; Zikes, Becky; Dingeldein, Wietze
Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA"

        This is one of Richard's; you are not having a senior moment.  I figured that it would probably get passed to you, and ask if you wouldn't mind checking on that with Richard.  If you keep reading down this list of e-mails, you will see my blurb on the facts.
 
         Parenthetically, I have been told by Bob Lachner today that Wietze Dingeldein, Enron's internal demurrage expert in the U.K., has at my request recently reviewed Clyde & Co.'s file.  I assume he will be reporting in due course on his analysis.  Bob has contacted Jackie Travis, who is still looking to see if there are any old files that may be of some use to Paul Henking.  Parenthetically, for Paul's benefit, Andrew Bicknell of Clyde & Co. is in fact the U.K. solicitor in charge of the case.
 
         Please let me know if you will in fact be the person to whom I should report.
 
        Britt

-----Original Message-----
From: Edison, Andrew 
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 5:29 PM
To: Davis, Britt
Subject: FW: "SANTA CLARA"

I am getting old.  My memory has failed.  What is this dispute?  Have I heard of it before?

-----Original Message----- 
From: Henking, Paul 
Sent: Tue 8/21/2001 2:08 AM 
To: Davis, Britt; Dingeldein, Wietze 
Cc: Rogers, Daniel R.; Carrier, Lee; Sanders, Richard B.; Edison, Andrew; Zikes, Becky; Carrier, Lee; Lachner, George R. 
Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA"

britt, 

i do recall this incident but not in much detail. i think there was also a counter claim from enron based on the fact the ship could not have loaded the cargo (ie, it was not capable of cooling the cargo - misrepresented by exmar) as well as a claim for some excess tug charges (don't recall what that was about). in the end, the amounts of the two claims offset or almost offset thus our position of dropping the matter.

seemed to recall we had a pretty fair arguement in our position but not sure where all the docs are now. this was in legal for some time in that i think shawn hall or marty penkwitz started the counter. think steve lovelady was also involved and even seem to recall clyde and co were involved.

by copy, bob, would appreciate if you could check with jackie travis whether she has a listing of the files i sent to storage. there may be some info contained there that might help. 

best i can do without reviewing the files to see if can recall more. 

rgds 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Davis, Britt 
Sent: 20 August 2001 22:30 
To: Dingeldein, Wietze 
Cc: Rogers, Daniel R.; Henking, Paul; Carrier, Lee; Sanders, Richard B.; 
Edison, Andrew; Zikes, Becky; Carrier, Lee 
Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA" 

Dear Wietze, 

I greatly appreciate your help on this.  I await your comments. 

Britt 

P.S. to Dan:  given that Exmar's solicitors just got word that Exmar is not willing to do a drop-hands on this at this time, I am not inclined to go back to them unless, for instance, we get some new information from Wietze that really helps us.  If, however, you believe that the business relationship with Exmar, either now or in the future, is such that we need to strike while the iron is hot, please let me know.

P.S. to Paul:  Can you e-mail me and let me know whether this matter rings a bell? 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Dingeldein, Wietze 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:07 AM 
To: Davis, Britt 
Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA" 

Dear Britt, 

Just a short note to let you know that I will give Andrew a call on his return to the office on Monday to make arrangements to go over his file. As soon as I have concluded my review, I will inform you of my findings.

Best regards,   Wietze 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Davis, Britt 
Sent: 06 August 2001 18:23 
To: [email-masked] 
Cc: Sanders, Richard B.; Edison, Andrew; Carrier, Lee; Zikes, Becky; 
Rogers, Daniel R.; Henking, Paul; Dingeldein, Wietze 
Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA" 

Dear Andrew: 

Thanks for the information from Exmar.  Wayne Perry, our chief business contact with Exmar, recently went on consultant status.  I will find out (Dan, can you help?) who the relationship contact will be going forward and see if that person has any cause for optimism. 

You confirmed that no hearing had been set in this very old maritime arbitration, which arises out of the loading in Houston, Texas almost ten years ago of the SANTA CLARA.  The ship had been chartered by ELFI from Exmar to load a cargo of propane.  Loading was delayed and less than the full contractually-committed amount of propane could be loaded.  We believe that this was because the ship had to take so much time to cool off its tanks to compress the propane, even though the propane was delivered at the contractually-required temperature.  Exmar apparently takes the position that this was caused by the lack of back pressure from the shore tanks.  In any case, Exmar reportedly billed ELFI about $165,000 in demurrage as a result. Part of this was apparently deadfreight, a charge by the ship for ELFI not having available all the product that the ship was supposed to load.  To add insult to injury, ELFI also paid off another ship that was in line to get the SANTA CLARA's berth, so that the SANTA CLARA could continue loading and sail within its window of opportunity.  Based on the foregoing, I understand that ELFI has a counterclaim of about $150,000.

You advised that recoverable interest would probably increase the principal of both claims by about 70%. 

You advised that you would send me information regarding your firm's time in this case to date.  You advised that you estimated ELFI spending an additional 25,000-30,000 pounds in this matter, assuming that the arbitration lasted two days, and that under the normal U.K. arbitration rules, the loser would be responsible for the arbitrators' fees and expenses and opposing counsel's fees and expenses.  You did not agree with Exmar's proposal to try this matter solely on the documents, given the fact issues as to what caused the delay in loading, although this would reduce trial costs.

As I mentioned, I am by copy of this e-mail asking Wietze Dingeldein, Enron's U.K. demurrage expert, to give you a call upon your return August 20 and take a look at your file and give his comments as to the strength of the demurrage claim (Wietze, I am thinking particularly about any time-bar arguments, but any ammunition you can give us would be helpful).  Both you and Wietze may want to consider whether the condition of the ship invalidates the NOR under the Glencore Grain v. Flacker Shipping (HAPPY DAY) decision.

I am also asking Paul Henking, who now works in ENA's Singapore office, if he was involved in fixing this ship and remembers anything about it.

I appreciate your help. 

Britt 

P.S. to Richard/Andy E.:  which of you should I be reporting to on this one? 
-----Original Message----- 
From: [email-masked] [ <mailto:[email-masked]>] 
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:41 AM 
To: Davis, Britt 
Cc: Sanders, Richard B.; Edison, Andrew; Carrier, Lee; Zikes, Becky 
Subject: "SANTA CLARA" 

Dear Britt 

"SANTA CLARA" 

Thanks for your e-mail of 11th July and I apologise for the slow response. 

As you know we have suggested to Exmar's lawyers, that in the light of the 
underlying commercial relationship the parties should consider a 
straightforward drop hands settlement. 

We have recently finally heard from our opponents who say that whilst they 
are keen to maintain a good commercial relationship with Enron "they 
nevertheless do wish to obtain an award on this matter." 

They have, however, suggested that in order to reduce costs, the parties 
proceed with a documents only arbitration. 

Whilst, Exmar's solicitors are correct in suggesting this would lead to a 
significant saving in costs, I do not consider we should agree to this and 
that we should have an oral hearing of about 2 days.  I say this because I 
think there is a much better prospect of explaining to the arbitrators that 
this is not a straightforward demurrage dispute, if we present our evidence 
by way of Counsel's submissions and expert evidence. 

I would, however, welcome your views on this. 

I will be out of the office from close of business today until 20th August 
and I have arranged to discuss this matter further with Exmar's solicitors 
on my return. 

Kind regards. 

ANDREW BICKNELL 

********************************************************************** 
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also 
be privileged.  If you are not the named recipient, please notify 
the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. 

In the event of any technical difficulty with this e-mail, please contact 
the sender or the Clyde & Co IT Department on +44 (020) 7623 1244. 

Clyde & Co 
51 Eastcheap, London, EC3M 1JP 
Tel: +44 (020) 7623 1244, Fax: +44 (020) 7623 5427 

Clyde & Co Guildford 
Beaufort House, Chertsey Street, Guildford GU1 4HA 
Tel: +44 (0) 1483 555 555, Fax: +44 (0) 1483 567 330 

E-Mail: [email-masked], Internet: <http://www.clydeco.com> 
**********************************************************************