Sara-

An agency agreement has been contemplated between Tokyo and Houston.  I 
believe it would be best to have Susan Musch advise on this issue, as she is 
handling the tax aspects relating to these activities and was also involved 
in the arrangements between Sydney and Houston.  I have copied Susan on this 
correspondence.

As to the netting issue, please confirm my understanding, that the issues 
are; (i) that we do not want different Enron entities (i.e. Enron Japan Corp. 
and ENA) entering into ISDAs with the same Japanese counterparties; and (ii) 
that if Enron Japan Corp. is transacting with a bank, with which ENA has an 
ISDA in place, we would amend such existing ISDA to cover the multibranch 
situation. 

I have not yet had detailed discussions with Mark regarding the issues you 
have raised.

Best regards,

John



	Sara Shackleton@ECT
	08/28/2000 10:48 AM
		 
		 To: John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Madhur Dayal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Enron Japan agreements (ISDA/futures/brokerage)

John:  I just wanted to stay in the loop for Japan as to Gary Hickerson's 
FX/rate/equity counterparties.  My understanding from Gary is that  EGM 
(through ENA) will continue to hedge the business originating in Japan, 
subject to tax and any regulatory input.  I don't know if this has 
necessitated an agency arrangement  between Japan and Houston (or another 
office, similar to London or Australia).  Also, for netting reasons, Japan 
would not duplicate existing counterparty  ISDA's with ENA, and to the extent 
Japan is transacting with a bank having an agreement with ENA, we could amend 
the agreement for multibranch purposes if necessary (e.g., Bank of Montreal 
if the bank is transacting from multiple locations that need to be added to 
ENA's agreement).

Please advise if you have already had these discussions with Mark Taylor.  I 
look forward to hearing from you.  Sara