Message-ID: <29089852.1075842089018.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 04:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: carol.clair@enron.com
To: shari.stack@enron.com
Subject: 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: Carol St Clair
X-To: Shari Stack
X-cc: Sara Shackleton
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Carol_StClair_Dec2000_1\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: STCLAIR-C
X-FileName: cstclai.nsf

Shari:
I am negotiating an ISDA with Dresdner Bank and I have the following 
questions concerning their mark-up of the FX/Currency Option language:

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?

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.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Carol