Please  proceed with Jonathan Gaisman. Jim
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Harris, Stephanie J   
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM
To:	Derrick Jr., James
Subject:	FW: Dabhol -- London QC to help with Commercial PRI Issues



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com@ENRON  
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:42 PM
To:	Harris, Stephanie J 
Cc:	Rob.Walls.enronXgate@enron.com
Subject:	Dabhol -- London QC to help with Commercial PRI Issues

Jim -

Linklaters and an Enron rep interviewed QC candidates in London that can
help with our commercial PRI policy issues on Dabhol.  The commercial
policies are governed by UK law.  The best pick appears to be Jonathan
Gaisman.

I'd like your permission to retain and put some of our PRI policy questions
to Mr. Gaisman.

Thanks,
Bruce

---------------------- Forwarded by Bruce Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
11/08/2001 05:37 PM ---------------------------

From: Kimberlee M Driscoll/ENRON@enronXgate on 11/08/2001 11:52 AM

To:   Bruce Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   "Peter Cornell (E-mail)" <peter.cornell@Linklaters.com>
      @SMTP@enronXgate

Subject:  QCs

Bruce,

Peter, Sophie and I met with all four QC's this morning.

The clear choice, in all of our minds, is Jonathan Gaisman.  (See attached
file: Jonathan Gaisman.doc)His litigation practice is prinicipally
insurance related.  He has done political risk insurance matters relating
to Eastern Europe.  He spoke definitively about practices of different
underwriters in the market (i.e., to re-insure, to craft policies, etc.) He
knows, quite well, the small community of barristers who may be called upon
by Lloyds to handle this.  His wife is from India (though Scottish) and he
spends holiday time there and knows the country and the people.  He worked
on North Sea disputes representing Enron in the past.  He is
straightforward, inquisitive, prepared, thoughtful, and interested in
working on this with us.  He is also used to working with large American
clients.  The downside is that, in his words, he does "not have limitless
time."  He is expecting to be involved in a rather large case in the first
half of next year.

Alistair Schaff was not a very seasoned barrister, and unprepared for our
meeting (in the sense that he hadn't even bothered to read anything about
us or the case before we got there  --  I did not get the sense he was too
busy to do so).  He has worked on de facto 'takings' in Iraq cases, and has
had a number of cases that have involved questions of mitigation.  In
addition, he seemed familiar with the option to sue clause in many
policies.  He has done some work in the distant past with the GOI on
letters of credit and shipping matters.  He was the only one that mentioned
that we might spend some time in the near term thinking about what events
we might 'cause' to occur that could help our claims.

Richard Jacobs is a fairly young barrister, but had read up on our case and
did some preliminary research on case law on political risk insurance
issues (which, incidentally, all four barristers agree hardly exists).  He
did some PRI work in Russia in the early 1990s, and represented brokers in
a lender PRI claim regarding a South Seas power station. He stated that
many insurance coverage issues (no matter the type of policy) are basically
the same questions with a different twist.    Interestingly, he has just
given some advice to a European investor about a dispute in India on a
power plant (contractual matter, not insurance related).  He definitely
grasped that a detailed review of the facts would be the driver for an
expropriation claim.  He has travelled to India.  He has capacity to work
with us in the next 4-8 weeks and beyond.  He would be a solid guy to use
as a back-up.

Stewart Boyd, as you will recall from his CV, is an experienced barrister
(58 years old), who sits as an international arbitrator often. He has a
relationship with Lord Mustill, for what that is worth.  He does alot of
insurance and re-insurance work, though he says that not many political
risk insurance cases have reached the bar.  He has worked on a leading case
involving ECGD, and was, interestingly, an expert witness in an OPIC
coverage case recently.  {We may consider him for just that role, on the
DIC issue, should we decide to sue in Texas.} He has dealt with many
projects of this type and magnitude, from a contractual dispute point of
view, and done quite a bit of work in the electricity sector on
privatization matters.  He has done a couple of projects (shipping and
petroleum industry) in India.  He is available for the next couple of
weeks, booked for most of December, and then frees up again.  I would rank
him a strong second choice.

I would propose that we issue Gaisman instructions tomorrow or Monday.  If
you agree, let me know and I will take care of it.

Kim



 - Jonathan Gaisman.doc