Can we talk about this on Thursday?
----- Forwarded by Brent Hendry/NA/Enron on 09/26/2000 05:59 PM -----

	Andrea Calo
	09/26/2000 04:54 PM
		 
		 To: Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: London Short Form

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Andrea Calo/SA/Enron on 09/26/2000 06:57 
PM ---------------------------


Jeff Kabel
09/26/2000 04:45 PM
Sent by: Jeff Kabel
To: Andrea Calo/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: Michael Guerriero/SA/Enron@Enron, Fabian Valle/SA/Enron@Enron 
Subject: Re: London Short Form  

I disagree (sorry).  Enron Europe is now in a "steady state"...that is that 
the ENE name and contracting structures are now more understood.  But, when 
they started in the market (at the stage we are now - according to Joe Gold) 
they went with a short form developed by the commercial and legal teams that 
mitigated risk but allowed initial transactions to be completed - after this, 
the ISDA was pushed ahead.  He was very clear with us on this...

I do not want to drop this issue.  We need to get deals done and the 
counterparties are not, at this stage, any more comfortable with the ISDA 
document since I arrived here 3 years ago...

Thanks for the research.  I want to have a meeting on this...



Andrea Calo
09/15/2000 07:48 PM
To: Michael Guerriero/SA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Kabel/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: Fabian Valle/SA/Enron@Enron 
Subject: London Short Form

This morning I spoke with Paul Simons (our trading attorney in London) to 
discuss the applicability of the one-off non-ISDA form I was told they were 
using.  He explained that Enron London was actually either using the ISDA 
form, or for markets that already had a form prior to Enron's entry in the 
market, trying to adapt those forms as much as possible to incorporate the 
ISDA terms and provisions.  He also stated that as a rule, whenever possible, 
they try to push the ISDA document for financial transactions as well as try 
to adapt the documentation for new physical transactions to an ISDA format.  
As an example, he mentioned that Enron had  actively participated in the 
drafting of a new standardized power document pursuant to new regulations in 
force, and fostered the inclusion of terms contained in the ISDA form such as 
netting and cross default provisions.

All Enron attorneys I have spoken to in Houston and London agree that the 
ISDA form is the best document on the market because it provides for all 
situations and risks and is designed to cover crossborder issues. In those 
countries where Enron doesn't use the ISDA form, it is because a market (and 
its corresponding documentation) already exists.  Enron in those situations 
does what it can to try to adapt such pre-existing market conditions and 
rules to more closely resemble the ISDA documentation.  Moreover such 
documents have never been designed for cross border transactions.  He also 
mentioned that typically international players are ISDA friendly and feel 
comfortable using this document.
The recommendation is that we move forward with promoting the ISDA 
documentation and work on getting the Argentine counterparties comfortable 
with the form.

Andrea