Subject: Re: EOL Korea
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:22:00 -0700 (PDT)

Jae-Moo

On the section of Regulatory/Legal Environment, it may be useful to note:

1. There is no official rule or regulation that ex post facto reporting for 
Commodity Derivatives are acceptable to the Bank of Korea, although your and 
Korean external lawyer's (Kim & Chang) informal verbal enquiries with the 
Bank of Korea have suggested they have accepted some  7 or 8 reports since 
April last year (all from Hyundai Oil).

2. The Bank of Korea take up to two weeks to review the reports and, as Kim & 
Chang has advised, there remains a possibility that the Bank of Korea may 
reject the report, although they were not able to advise the grounds on which 
a report may be rejected.

3. Although, a foreign counterparty need not file a report or seek approval, 
the Korean counterparty must still do so for the benefit and interest of the 
foreign counterparty. Kim & Chang advised that where reporting or approval is 
required but is not made or obtained, the Korean counterparty would not be 
able to remit its payments under the transaction. This would clearly impact 
on the settlement of the transaction, in particular shorter term deals since 
reporting and approval may take several weeks. 

4. The Supreme Court of Korea has ruled that a foreign exchange authorization 
that was originally required should be obtained in order for a foreign party 
to execute any judgment against the Korean party and remit the proceeds. 

Regards
Matt

Jae-Moo Lee@ENRON
08/24/2000 04:58 PM
To: Christopher B Hunt/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Joseph P 
Hirl/AP/ENRON@ENRON, David Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron, John 
Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mike 
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bruce 
Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Mike Brown/ENRON@Gateway, Justin Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, 
Paul Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Raymond 
Yeow/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, 
Rousseau Anai/AP/Enron@Enron, John Chismar/SIN/ECT@ECT, Victor 
Santos/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Li Yin Lim/SIN/ECT@ECT, Mark 
Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT, David 
Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jonathan Whitehead/AP/Enron@Enron
cc: Michelle Lee/Corp/Enron@Enron, Ann 
Brown/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 

Subject: EOL Korea

As many of you are aware, over the past few months we have been investigating 
whether or not it would make sense to seriously consider an EOL launch in 
Korea from a market, regulatory and legal perspective.  The primary interest 
has been on reviewing whether or not we could launch existing products in 
Korea (e.g., products already handled by Singapore EOL) as well as new 
products (e.g., Seoul weather). 

This initial work was directed primarily by the Korea team working within the 
APACHI group.  If a launch is to progress much further from this point, 
however, substantial attention by the EOL team would be required.  To 
facilitate this, the attached presentation summarizes our primary findings to 
date and some of our thoughts.  We would appreciate your taking a look at the 
attached document.

We would like to arrange a conference call for next Thursday (Aug. 31st) at 
6:00 pm by Houston time (Friday at 8:00 am by Tokyo time) to discuss the 
attached document and to solicit thoughts as to next steps.  Please let me 
know whether you will be able to join this call or, if you have a conflict, 
an alternative time.  Your participation will be greatly appreciated.  

Best regards,

Jae-Moo