Sally,
We have been able to work with Legal and Tax  to impact the way our trading 
has been set up in London  and Tokyo to increase our control of the business 
and simplify the requirements for support.

In London, for Equity Trading we will be trading as ECT Investments Inc. (the 
same entity as in Houston).  We will have mirror books in the UK as in 
Houston (e.g. Energy and Energy - London).  We have put a service agreement 
in place setting up a Enron Investment Services Ltd. (uk entity) who will 
trade on our behalf as an agent.  This keeps ENA from establishing a presence 
for Equity Trading in the UK Tax authority.  We pay the UK entity, our 
agent,  a service fee and deduct the service fee on ECT Investment's taxes as 
an expense.  Controls are increased because all the books and reporting 
remains consolidated into one entity. 

In Tokyo, we have started a Rate & Currency Trading Desk.  We initially were 
told by tax that we would have to trade in the name of Enron Japan.  This 
would require separate bank accounts, separate counterparty agreements and 
much more coordination to control.  We and the trader worked with Tax so they 
understood the difficulties that this would present.  Also, Japan did not 
want to assurme the funding requirements for this activity with their office 
and wanted it segregated.  This further understanding caused Tax to push 
further to gather other advise from outside counsel operating in the Tokyo 
market.  
We are and will be able to trade as ENA.  Therefore, the same bank accounts 
and ISDAs may be utilized.  All activity, positions and VAR continues to be 
netted for ENA.  Additionally our counterparties can trade with a trusted, 
established entity, ENA, and we get to net, limiting exposure.

These are two cases where we can impact the structure of the business to 
increase controls and our level of support.  In both cases, joint and 
successful cooperation occurred between trading, tax, legal and operations.

Sheila