Message-ID: <6763096.1075844569191.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: sara.shackleton@enron.com
To: john.greene@enron.com
Subject: Re: Instinet and other platforms in the name of ENA or ECT
 Investments, Inc.
Cc: paul.simons@enron.com, jorge.garcia@enron.com, laurel.adams@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: paul.simons@enron.com, jorge.garcia@enron.com, laurel.adams@enron.com
X-From: Sara Shackleton
X-To: John Greene
X-cc: Paul Simons, Jorge A Garcia, Laurel Adams
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

John:  The "signature block" for ENA and ECT Investments, Inc. trades done 
through the U.K. agent actually looks different.  It should read something 
like "Company X, as agent for ENA", for example.  Therefore, Insitnet needs 
to see the agency agreement between Company X and ENA (which is in the 
process of being drafted).  You are correct in that the original ENA/Instinet 
agreement will be utilized.  However, Instinet needs to review the agency 
arrangement before proceeding.

You are also correct about the ITG agreement.  In fact, ENA DOESN'T have an 
executed agreement with POSIT.  I spoke with the POSIT lawyer several months 
ago and was shocked that the service would operate without anything in 
writing.

Thanks.  Sara



	John Greene
	09/25/2000 02:32 PM
		
		 To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT, Sheila Glover/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laurel 
Adams/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Instinet and other platforms in the name of ENA or ECT 
Investments, Inc.

Sara,

As ENA and ECT Investments, Inc., will be the entities where all trades are 
actually booked, I would not think that any new agreements would need to be 
signed between the new "agent" entitiy and any outside vendors (ie, brokers, 
online trading platforms, etc.)  The new entity will never take actual 
ownership of the securities.  Therefore, I would presume that the Instinet 
agreement should just be an addendum to existing documentation.  The 
Posit/ITG agreement will have to be an entirely new agreement because the 
ownership structure of ITG Europe is different than that of the States.  This 
agreement, however, should reflect exactly the same sort of 
structure/language as was used to negotiate the contract between ITG and ENA 
and ECT Investments, Inc. 

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks and regards,
John


From: Sara Shackleton on 25/09/2000 08:35 CDT
To: John Greene/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: Instinet and other platforms in the name of ENA or ECT Investments, 
Inc.

John:  Hi, there!  As you are aware of the structuring for tax purposes, 
until the U.K. corporate agent is actuallly formed, there is nothing further 
that I can do.  That formation should happen today or tomorrow.  With the 
actual name and agreements with ENA and ECT Investments, Inc., I can provide 
that information to Instinet and the other trading platforms you are 
interested in transacting on.  Just FYI, the Instinet people are merely 
waiting for the agent agreement in order to proceed. 

Please let me know if you have any further questions.  Sara