Message-ID: <10647971.1075858614533.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:31:30 -0700 (PDT) From: diane.anderson@enron.com To: legal <.taylor@enron.com> Subject: The Chase Manhattan Bank - EOL Cc: sara.shackleton@enron.com, s..theriot@enron.com, patrick.mulvany@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: sara.shackleton@enron.com, s..theriot@enron.com, patrick.mulvany@enron.com X-From: Anderson, Diane X-To: Taylor, Mark E (Legal) X-cc: Shackleton, Sara , Theriot, Kim S. , Mulvany, Patrick X-bcc: X-Folder: \MTAYLO1 (Non-Privileged)\Taylor, Mark E (Legal)\Inbox X-Origin: Taylor-M X-FileName: MTAYLO1 (Non-Privileged).pst Mark, Following a discrepancy with an incorrect confirm generated and executed for an EOL deal between ENA and Chase, Dutch Quigley on the Enron Gas desk has spoken with Greg Crowley, a Chase trader, and Cecile Taylor-Simpson (their confirms Manager) - and agreed that they would all like Enron to be the confirming party for EOL deals between us. (Presently Chase is the Confirming Party for financial commodity confirms). Can we, and do we want to, revise their Master Agreement to reflect this? I thought perhaps this would be a good opportunity to try to get Chase to execute the EOL Amendment. Please advise. Thanks, Diane 3.0443