re : gtc change for removal of hpl language savita ,
as we have discussed , when enron sold hpl to aep , enron specifically agreed that all rights to the name " houston pipe line company " as of june 1 , 2001 , were the sole property of aep / hpl and that no enron entity would use that name .
on or about the first of june , the eol long product descriptions were modified to provide that notwithstanding that the gtc ' s for physical natural gas provided that all enron transactions in texas were to be deemed hpl transactions , that such language was overridden by the long product description .
notwithstanding this modification to the long product description , aep is claiming that the continued use by eol in eol ' s gtc ' s violates the purchase and sale agreement and impinges on its trademark " hpl " . as we discussed last week , we have received a letter from aep threatening a lawsuit if we do not immediately remove the references to hpl from the eol gtc ' s .
based on what has been happening in the past several days , i completely concur that we should not require that any eol counterparty " re - accept " the physical natural gas gtc ' s in order to trade with enron .
i advise that we either ( i ) do nothing and risk being sued by aep , or ( ii ) that we forget about making any other " cleanup " changes requested by stacy and merely notify the applicable counterparties that as evidenced by the long product description for physical natural gas transactions , all such transactions will continue to be with enron , not hpl , and that the eol gtc will be modified as of [ date ] to eliminate any reference to hpl .
i would suggest that this notification be done as innocuously as possible . . . . such as on the remittance statements in / on our checks to these counterparties or on our invoices . we should not ask any counterparty to sign or return anything to reflect this , nor should we request any reacceptance of out eol gtc .
you have inquired as to the possibility of getting aep to enter into an agreement with enron to not change our online gtc at this time . frankly , at the present time the relationship between enron and aep is quite antagonistic . . . . . we have several matters pending which need to be resolved . . . . . . . in order to reach some type of agreement with them regarding use of the hpl name we would need to " make it worth their while " . . . . . and due to some of the positions enron is currently taking , aep would probably refuse to enter into any such side agreement with or without costly concessions .
thus , as i stated earlier , we should either " do nothing " and wait for the lawsuit . . . . or go the " innocuous notice " route .
i have spoken with mark taylor and he concurs that under the current circumstances , these are preferable routes to the pop - up and reacceptance route which had been in the works for the past few months .
please fell free to call me with any questions or comments . if we decide to go the " notification route " , i will promptly draft the exact language to be used .
best regards
barbara
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : puthigai , savita
sent : monday , october 29 , 2001 10 : 35 am
to : kitchen , louise ; taylor , mark e ( legal )
cc : gray , barbara n . ; richter , brad
subject : re : gtc change for removal of hpl language
hi mark , barbara ,
can we work something out with aep whereby we don ' t change the online gtc for sometime ? we do have language in the product long description that adresses the sale of hpl . is there any other way we can allay aep ' s concern that counterparties logging onto enrononline are confused about the actual ownership of hpl . thanks .
savita
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : kitchen , louise
sent : monday , october 29 , 2001 10 : 04 am
to : puthigai , savita
subject : re : gtc change for removal of hpl language
not in the near future
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent from my blackberry wireless handheld
re : gtc change for removal of hpl language
savita ,
as we have discussed , when enron sold hpl to aep , enron specifically agreed that all rights to the name " houston pipe line company " as of june 1 , 2001 , were the sole property of aep / hpl and that no enron entity would use that name .
on or about the first of june , the eol long product descriptions were modified to provide that notwithstanding that the gtc ' s for physical natural gas provided that all enron transactions in texas were to be deemed hpl transactions , that such language was overridden by the long product description .
notwithstanding this modification to the long product description , aep is claiming that the continued use by eol in eol ' s gtc ' s violates the purchase and sale agreement and impinges on its trademark " hpl " . as we discussed last week , we have received a letter from aep threatening a lawsuit if we do not immediately remove the references to hpl from the eol gtc ' s .
based on what has been happening in the past several days , i completely concur that we should not require that any eol counterparty " re - accept " the physical natural gas gtc ' s in order to trade with enron .
i advise that we either ( i ) do nothing and risk being sued by aep , or ( ii ) that we forget about making any other " cleanup " changes requested by stacy and merely notify the applicable counterparties that as evidenced by the long product description for physical natural gas transactions , all such transactions will continue to be with enron , not hpl , and that the eol gtc will be modified as of [ date ] to eliminate any reference to hpl .
i would suggest that this notification be done as innocuously as possible . . . . such as on the remittance statements in / on our checks to these counterparties or on our invoices . we should not ask any counterparty to sign or return anything to reflect this , nor should we request any reacceptance of out eol gtc .
you have inquired as to the possibility of getting aep to enter into an agreement with enron to not change our online gtc at this time . frankly , at the present time the relationship between enron and aep is quite antagonistic . . . . . we have several matters pending which need to be resolved . . . . . . . in order to reach some type of agreement with them regarding use of the hpl name we would need to " make it worth their while " . . . . . and due to some of the positions enron is currently taking , aep would probably refuse to enter into any such side agreement with or without costly concessions .
thus , as i stated earlier , we should either " do nothing " and wait for the lawsuit . . . . or go the " innocuous notice " route .
i have spoken with mark taylor and he concurs that under the current circumstances , these are preferable routes to the pop - up and reacceptance route which had been in the works for the past few months .
please fell free to call me with any questions or comments . if we decide to go the " notification route " , i will promptly draft the exact language to be used .
best regards
barbara
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : puthigai , savita
sent : monday , october 29 , 2001 10 : 35 am
to : kitchen , louise ; taylor , mark e ( legal )
cc : gray , barbara n . ; richter , brad
subject : re : gtc change for removal of hpl language
hi mark , barbara ,
can we work something out with aep whereby we don ' t change the online gtc for sometime ? we do have language in the product long description that adresses the sale of hpl . is there any other way we can allay aep ' s concern that counterparties logging onto enrononline are confused about the actual ownership of hpl . thanks .
savita
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : kitchen , louise
sent : monday , october 29 , 2001 10 : 04 am
to : puthigai , savita
subject : re : gtc change for removal of hpl language
not in the near future
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent from my blackberry wireless handheld