Message-ID: <19294688.1075844480056.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: david.minns@enron.com
To: susan.musch@enron.com
Subject: ENA Japanese and Australian weather trades on EOL
Cc: paul.quilkey@enron.com, heidi.mason@enron.com, raymond.yeow@enron.com, 
	morten.pettersen@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: paul.quilkey@enron.com, heidi.mason@enron.com, raymond.yeow@enron.com, 
	morten.pettersen@enron.com
X-From: David Minns
X-To: Susan Musch
X-cc: Jane McBride@Enron, Sara Shackleton@ECT, David Forster@ECT, Mark Taylor@ECT, Paul Quilkey, Heidi Mason, Raymond Yeow, Mark Tawney@ECT, Morten E Pettersen
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

Susan just to confirm our conversation this morning. We have the all clear in 
respects to load up HDD and CDD products with ENA as the counterparty which 
reference temperature readings in Australian cities. The contractual will be 
USD. Trading can commence as soon as they can be loaded. Services provided by 
Enron Australia to ENA associated with this activity be charged under to ENA 
under the EA/ENA  Service Agreement. 

I understand from a tax perspective the situation is essentially the same 
should  weather readings be for Japanese rather than Australian cities. 
However, irrespective of the source of the weather data (Australia, Japan, 
USA etc) Jane has advised there is a level of legal due diligence will need 
to be conducted if a potential counterparty is incorporated in Japan. This 
relates to the ability to enforce a trade through the Japanese legal system, 
which would be necessary should the counterparty only have assets in Japan. 
In other words the legal issue relates to the place of incorporation/business 
of the counterparty not the source of the weather 
readings.