Message-ID: <22151307.1075858603072.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: legal <.taylor@enron.com>
To: justin.boyd@enron.com, ian.brungs@enron.com
Subject: RE: EOL
Cc: tana.jones@enron.com, n..gray@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bcc: tana.jones@enron.com, n..gray@enron.com
X-From: Taylor, Mark E (Legal) </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MTAYLO1>
X-To: Boyd, Justin </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=EU/cn=Recipients/cn=jboyd>, Brungs, Ian </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=EU/cn=Recipients/cn=IBrungs>
X-cc: Jones, Tana </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Tjones>, Gray, Barbara N. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Bgray>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \MTAYLO1 (Non-Privileged)\Taylor, Mark E (Legal)\Sent Items
X-Origin: Taylor-M
X-FileName: MTAYLO1 (Non-Privileged).pst

Thanks for your note.  Just so you have the whole picture -- our analysis f=
rom a US law perspective is that there is a tension between wanting the tra=
nsactions on the system to be enforceable and wanting out of the mistake tr=
ades.  The offline unwind is by far the best approach when the mistake is n=
ot blatant since it assumes the binding nature of the original trade.  We h=
ave been handling these by using a written termination rather than a revers=
e trade.  This is universally the approach we have taken when our traders h=
ave agreed to let a customer out of a trade the customer claims was done by=
 mistake on their part.  This happens often enough that we have given the c=
onfirm desk a termination agreement form to use as needed (Tana can get you=
 a copy if you want it).  But when the counterparty refuses to let us out o=
f a trade that is a mistake on our part, our only hope is that the mistake =
is so blatant that we can claim mutual mistake.  Under US law when there is=
 mutual mistake the contract is actually never formed.  In that case, the o=
riginal trade is not enforceable and there is nothing to unwind.  One alter=
native we have used is to simply remove the transaction from the customer's=
 "completed transactions" section as if it had never happened.  As far as I=
 know, we have only had to do this once or twice.

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Boyd, Justin =20
Sent:=09Wednesday, September 26, 2001 8:55 AM
To:=09Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Subject:=09EOL

Mark

We do have mistakes from time to time, as you suspected.  In almost all cas=
es, the respective traders agree to cancel these by entering into a back to=
 back offline trade.  None has been of sufficiemt gravity to be brought to =
my attention

J