re : lance schuler has a few comments to the draft i circulated last night . once i receive those from him , i ' ll send around a new version .
with regard to david ' s comments , i agree that we should be as specific as possible . that said , however , if we aren ' t certain that all counterparties will agree to those specific terms , then we may not want to make those promises in this document . mary jean - - what do you think ?
what did the creditors ' committee say about this today ?
michelle
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : oxley , david
sent : mon 12 / 24 / 2001 10 : 46 am
to : cash , michelle ; ' mary . jean . potenzone @ weil . com '
cc : ' lance . schuler @ enron . com ' ; lavorato , john ; kitchen , louise
subject : re :
the objective seems to have gotten alittle lost here .
we want the terms to be firm and as specific as the version we had on friday ( although i take point about arbitration and vesting of rest stock - although we have to insert something in here ) . bear in mind umbrella had agreed to these terms and mark m and lance were to run them passed top gun . presuming they did , seems to me it is reasonable to assume this is what the deal will actualy be ( lance also mentioned creditor committee had seen umbrella ' s term sheet last week ) .
the covering memo should be explicit in asking the ee to confirm that if a deal was presented in substantially these terms , they would sign them . the wording needs to be tight and regardless of it ' s enforceability make above clear . in other words let ' s make it look as binding as we can .
if we really can ' t do above let ' s say so and we can look at plan b . john , it may be best we can achieve here is an indicative draft which we talk with top 20 about and tee them up for real thing circa jan 10 . however let ' s wait and see if we can get one more draft done for weds .
david
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent from my blackberry wireless handheld ( www . blackberry . net )
re :
lance schuler has a few comments to the draft i circulated last night . once i receive those from him , i ' ll send around a new version .
with regard to david ' s comments , i agree that we should be as specific as possible . that said , however , if we aren ' t certain that all counterparties will agree to those specific terms , then we may not want to make those promises in this document . mary jean - - what do you think ?
what did the creditors ' committee say about this today ?
michelle
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : oxley , david
sent : mon 12 / 24 / 2001 10 : 46 am
to : cash , michelle ; ' mary . jean . potenzone @ weil . com '
cc : ' lance . schuler @ enron . com ' ; lavorato , john ; kitchen , louise
subject : re :
the objective seems to have gotten alittle lost here .
we want the terms to be firm and as specific as the version we had on friday ( although i take point about arbitration and vesting of rest stock - although we have to insert something in here ) . bear in mind umbrella had agreed to these terms and mark m and lance were to run them passed top gun . presuming they did , seems to me it is reasonable to assume this is what the deal will actualy be ( lance also mentioned creditor committee had seen umbrella ' s term sheet last week ) .
the covering memo should be explicit in asking the ee to confirm that if a deal was presented in substantially these terms , they would sign them . the wording needs to be tight and regardless of it ' s enforceability make above clear . in other words let ' s make it look as binding as we can .
if we really can ' t do above let ' s say so and we can look at plan b . john , it may be best we can achieve here is an indicative draft which we talk with top 20 about and tee them up for real thing circa jan 10 . however let ' s wait and see if we can get one more draft done for weds .
david
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent from my blackberry wireless handheld ( www . blackberry . net )