Message-ID: <27588832.1075853267471.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 05:27:00 -0800 (PST)
From: richard.sanders@enron.com
To: britt.davis@enron.com
Subject: Re: In re ICTS/Alabama Carriers vs. Scottsboro and ICTS
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Richard B Sanders
X-To: Britt Davis
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

I would leave him a voicemail anyway.



	Britt Davis@ENRON
	12/14/2000 03:52 PM
		 
		 To: Martin Stanley/EU/Enron@Enron, Nicole Dion/NA/Enron@Enron, Marcus 
Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: In re ICTS/Alabama Carriers vs. Scottsboro and ICTS

 This morning, I executed and telefaxed Enron Metals' agreement to defend and 
indemnify Scottsboro in this matter to Scottsboro.  I just received a 
voice-mail from Dean Vanek, Scottsboro's general counsel, who said that the 
agreement looked fine to him.  He has referred me to his attorney, Tom 
Walker, of Walker, Johnston, Barton and Powell, out of Birmingham.  Walker is 
Scottsboro's usual attorney.  I have left an urgent message with Walker, who 
is out of the office in a seminar today, and won't be back in until tomorrow, 
to call me immediately about getting an extension of time to answer in this 
matter from the plaintiff.  The answer date is Monday.

 Richard, given that Walker is not defending us, but Scottsboro, and the 
small size of this case ($15,000), do we need to pass this by Jim Derrick for 
his approval?  Given the short time frame before an answer is due, I will go 
forward with retaining him provisionally, at least to get an extension of 
time.  I would be strongly inclined not to substitute any other counsel in, 
as it might give away that it is Enron Metals who is funding Scottsboro in 
this matter.

 Britt