-----Original Message-----
From: 	Jim Mccartney <jw1000mac@yahoo.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Jim+20Mccartney+20+3Cjw1000mac+40yahoo+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Saturday, June 02, 2001 3:37 PM
To:	Walls Jr., Rob
Subject:	Fwd: Dabhol Power Project - MERC Proceeding

rob, this sould be of interest.  the mseb petition was
well done, not what we are accustomed to seeing. on
its face, it is troublesome, but as christopher notes,
there are very good legal and factual defenses. i will
bring you a copy of the misrepresentiation part on
monday. jim
Note: forwarded message attached.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
X-Apparently-To: jw1000mac@yahoo.com via web13005.mail.yahoo.com; 02 Jun 2001 04:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Track: 1: 40
Received: from chkpmr01.linklaters.com (202.130.189.227)  by mta528.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 02 Jun 2001 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost(10.152.2.5) by chkpmr01 via smap (V2.1+anti-relay+anti-spam)	id xma027364; Sat, 2 Jun 01 12:56:39 +0100
Received: from chkpeg01.asia.linklaters.com (unverified) by chkpvs01.asia.linklaters.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id <T0a96005da953e7147fe1@chkpvs01.asia.linklaters.com> for <jw1000mac@yahoo.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:46:05 +0800
Received: by chkpeg01.asia.linklaters.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)	id <MA5HM14F>; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:46:09 +0800
Message-ID: <BF972BD17684D311B1E60000D11AF98E02DAF69E@chkpex01.asia.linklaters.com>
From: "Walker, Christopher" <christopher.walker@linklaters.com>
To: "'Jim Mccartney'" <jw1000mac@yahoo.com>,        "Walker, Christopher"	 <christopher.walker@linklaters.com>
Subject: Dabhol Power Project - MERC Proceeding
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:49:15 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 4127

Jim,

Sorry for the delay in my response.

As you may imagine things are starting to get a little fraught. I assume
that someone has supplied you with a copy of the MSEB's Peition to MERC (the
main text and pleading is 56 pages only,the rest consisting of exhibits).

My points in reply as follows:-

(1) The MSEB's claim for recission is,in my humble opinion,utterly hopeless
for the following reasons:-

(a) The MSEB has know that the Power Station could not do the required
ramp-up in a cold start for nearly 2 years during which time performance (of
a sort) has been tendered by the MSEB. The MSEB affirmed the contract many
months ago.

(b) The Lenders took rights in security over the PPA bona fide and for
value. That,as a matter of settled law,bars recission.

(c) I do not believe that there was any "representation" as such.

(2) The Dynamic Parameters of the Plant form the exhibits to the PPA. If
they are anything,they are warranties or promises,not representations. The
classical definition of a warranty in English law is a pre-contractual
representation which has been reduced to writing and inserted into the
resulting contract. As such,it takes effect as a promise.

(3) I think that the MERC Petition in fact tells one how the MSEB is putting
its case on misrepresentation. Effectively,it is saying that DPC put forward
a draft contract with the Dynamic Parameters in it,and we relied upon them;
they induced us to enter into the contract. That is a bit of a summary,but
it is roughly their case. The advantage to DPC of the MERC Petition (if DPC
is ever allowed to arbitrate) is that we know what he MSEB's defence is
going to be before we even plead out Statement of Claim.

(4) What you are describing is a request for further and better particulars
of the MSEB's pleading. Standing the fact that DPC is challenging the
jurisdiction of MERC,DPC cannot safely ask for anything in that proceeding.
We can ask by letter. I doubt whether we would ever get a reply. What we may
well get,however,is something further by way of filings made by the MSEB in
the proposed Wirt Petition.

If you do not get a copy of the MSEB Petition filed with the MERC,please let
me know.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Mccartney [mailto:jw1000mac@yahoo.com]
Sent: 31 May 2001 04:58
To: christopher.walker@linklaters.com
Subject: dpc


chris, i would like to have your thoughts of this
misrepresentation claim. i have not seen the mseb
petition before the merc, which i hear (but do not
believe) contains 700 pages. all i have seen is the
very generalized "you misrepresented" statement in
their letter. what would you think of asking in some
appropriate correspondence-- what was/were the
misrepresentation/s referred to, when were they made,
who made them, to whom, were they in writing or oral
(if in writing, what writings) etc. in other words pin
them down. this is what we would do if confronted with
a similar broad, general charge in a court proceeding.
it might make the mseb think more and prepare better,
but they may not have anything other than their
interpretation of the ppa. please give me your direct
line again. i have not had much luck calling the 24888
number. best regards, jim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


_____________________________________________________________

This e-mail is sent by or on behalf of Linklaters,
10/F Alexandra House, Chater Road, Hong Kong.

A list of the firm's principals will be provided to the
recipient(s) of this email upon request.

This statement is made in compliance with the Law Society of
Hong Kong's Practice Direction on the Format of Electronic
Communications.

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
_____________________________________________________________