Message-ID: <32159080.1075844910342.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:12:00 -0800 (PST)
From: sara.shackleton@enron.com
To: richard.sanders@enron.com
Subject: ENA arbitration language
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Sara Shackleton
X-To: Richard B Sanders
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

Richard:

This is a first for me.  I received the following objection to our standard 
arbitration language:

"The arbitration does not provide for expedited procedures with limited 
discovery and limited live testimony.   This could take as long as in court 
and cost more."

Is this a valid objection?  If so, how should we amend our language?  Or 
should we be silent as to jurisdicition without waiving any objections 
(venue, forum) and waive jury trial?

I look forward to hearing from you.  Thanks.


Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com