Subject: Re: FX Transactions
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT)

Jon,

I had a glance over the written paper from Sullivan & Cromwell as to FX 
Transactions, and it seems to me that there would be fewer US regulatory 
issues (should there be any), if we were to use MG Brokers Inc, the FCM 
entity.  Are there any other reasons why we would not want to use this entity?

[Mark/Alan/Marcus - I have separately sent you by email the Sullivan & 
Cromwell paper]

Thanks.
Justin

---------------------- Forwarded by Justin Boyd/LON/ECT on 09/08/2000 18:49 
---------------------------

Jon Barrett@MGLTD
09/08/2000 16:37
To: Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Janine Juggins/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Trena McFarland/LON/ECT@ECT, Kevin Rhodes/MGLTD_London/MGLTD@MGLTD, Sid 
Tipples/MGLTD_London/MGLTD@MGLTD, Andrew Cornfield/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: FX Transactions

---------------------- Forwarded by Jon Barrett/MGLTD_London/MGLTD on 
09/08/2000 16:36 ---------------------------
From: Alfred Pennisi@MGUSA on 09/08/2000 06:50 EDT
To: Jon Barrett/MGLTD_London/MGLTD@MGLTD
cc:  

Subject: Re: FX Transactions  

Jon, 

My suggestion would be for the FX business be run out of a NON FCM firm in 
the states (NY) since it is a non-regulated product. 

If you have an questions please call me at x5845.

regards,

Alfred Pennisi
MG London Inc.
520 Madison Avenue
28th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212.715.5845
E-mail: [email-masked]