cc: Mark
---------------------- Forwarded by David Forster/LON/ECT on 06/10/99 13:54 
---------------------------


David Forster
06/10/99 13:52
To: Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Master Agreements  

I actually meant for new Masters only - not replacing existing ones.

Dave





Justin Boyd
06/10/99 10:10
To: David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Mark E Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: Master Agreements  

Dave - we did consider this at the time and decided not to proceed on the 
basisi of a formal amendment of each of the Masters, for the following 
reasons:

It would take considerable time to prepare (particularly in the US where 
there are a much greater number of Masters) the necessary amendment 
agreements.
Each Master would need to be separately considered and individual amendments 
prepared.
The process of securing the agreement of each counterparty to an amendment 
would have delayed the Project
In proposing a formal amendment, this would have meant identifying to the 
marketplace the Project. 

Clause 3 of the ETA sets out how we have dealt with the execution of trades 
online wherer existing Masters are in place.

Regards

Justin





David Forster
06/10/99 08:51
To: Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark E Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Master Agreements

Just out of curiosity:

The GTC's state that GTC's will be used "Until a Master Agreement is 
executed" . . .

Do we need to modify our standard Master Agreements to be consistent with 
either the concepts or terms of EnronOnline?

I realise we are willing to accept variations for existing master agreements, 
but I assume we would want to ensure that new Masters are as consistent as 
possible . . .

Dave