Message-ID: <28239553.1075844511114.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: shari.stack@enron.com
To: carol.clair@enron.com
Subject: Re: FX/Currency Option Questions
Cc: sara.shackleton@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: sara.shackleton@enron.com
X-From: Shari Stack
X-To: Carol St Clair
X-cc: Sara Shackleton
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

With regard to your questions, I have written my answers in red below: 

1. In the EMU Protocol language they want to add a reference to Section 6.  
I'm not sure why but wanted your thoughts on this.  Are there any 
circumstances under which we do not adopt the Protocol provisions?

This is something that should be run by Paul Simons in London as our EMU 
wording came straight from him. He would know what Section 6 refers to (I 
don't) and whether we should agree to its inclusion.

2. They want to define the FX Definitions as the 1998 FX and Currency Option 
Definitions as amended and supplemented by the 1998 ISDA Euro Definitions.  
Is this okay?  What is the effect of this?  Should we change our form to do 
this?  With respect generally to the FX and Currency Option Definitions, as a 
general rule are they always incorporated by reference into the terms of any 
FX and Currency Option transaction even if it is electronically confirmed?  
They wanted to add language to that section of our form specifically stating 
this.

I didn't even know that the 1998 ISDA Euro Definitions existed and I wonder 
what the purpose is.  Seeing as how the 1998  FX and Currency Option 
Definitions came out in 1998 (the same year as the Euro Definitions) one 
would think that any necessary euro/FX/currency  language would have been 
incorporated in the 1998 FX Definitions, instead of making a separate 
definitional booklet.  You might ask Dresdner what they think it adds to make 
reference to the 1998 ISDA Euro Definitions. You might also look on the ISDA 
Website or ask Paul Simons (in case he knows)  to see if ISDA intended for 
the 1998 ISDA Euro Definitions to supplement the 1998  FX and Currency Option 
Definitions. 

If we did include such a reference to the 1998 ISDA Euro Definitions, then 
they would be deemed to apply to any FX or Currency Option Transaction, where 
relevant.  

With regard to electronically confirmed transactions, this point is addressed 
in clause (a) of our FX language.  This wording is something everyone wants 
to have in their Agreement since most FX trades and some Currency Option 
trades are confirmed over an electronic messaging system that doesn't use 
ISDA style confirms, and thus doesn't refer to any ISDA Definitions. 

Hope this is helpful - call me if you want to discuss anything.

Shari