Message-ID: <121484.1075853640863.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: peter.keohane@enron.com
To: mark.taylor@enron.com, sara.shackleton@enron.com, brent.hendry@enron.com, 
	mary.cook@enron.com, carol.clair@enron.com, tana.jones@enron.com, 
	william.bradford@enron.com, russell.diamond@enron.com, 
	tanya.rohauer@enron.com
Subject: Cash Collateral
Cc: greg.johnston@enron.com, mark.powell@enron.com, chris.gaffney@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: greg.johnston@enron.com, mark.powell@enron.com, chris.gaffney@enron.com
X-From: Peter Keohane
X-To: Mark Taylor, Sara Shackleton, Brent Hendry, Mary Cook, Carol St Clair, Tana Jones, William S Bradford, Russell Diamond, Tanya Rohauer
X-cc: Greg Johnston, Mark Powell, Chris Gaffney
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Nov2001\Notes Folders\Carol stclair
X-Origin: Shackleton-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

Greg Johnston may have a solution to the limitation on Canadian cash 
collateral.  Without getting into detail, a security interest in an 
"instrument" can be perfected by possession under the Personal Property 
Security Act, and an "instrument" includes a bank draft.  If counterparties 
were to provide bank drafts on the same terms as they provide LCs we could 
rely on perfection by possession.  Is this something we should investigate 
further?  Peter.