MTS pleased to add his agreement

MTS






From: Nicole Dion on 13/12/2000 13:30 CST
To: Britt Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@Enron, Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron@Enron, Martin 
Stanley/EU/Enron@Enron, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: In re ICTS/Alabama v. Scottsboro  

Britt,

Entity should be Enron Metals & Commodity Ltd., since all our contracts and 
invoices are issued on behalf of Ltd. .  If Scottsboro 
agree to sign this letter please go ahead.

Nicole Dion
 



	Britt Davis
	12/13/2000 12:27 PM
		 
		 To: Martin Stanley/EU/Enron@Enron, Nicole Dion/NA/Enron@Enron, Marcus 
Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: In re ICTS/Alabama v. Scottsboro


	


Apologies; here is the revised draft, with Marcus's suggested revisions.





----- Forwarded by Britt Davis/Corp/Enron on 12/13/2000 11:25 AM -----

	Britt Davis
	12/13/2000 11:25 AM
		 
		 To: Martin Stanley/EU/Enron@Enron, Nicole Dion/NA/Enron@Enron, Marcus 
Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: In re ICTS/Alabama v. Scottsboro


	


Attached is a revised draft of the document I sent to you all earlier this 
morning.  Given Marcus's well-placed concern that this letter would probably 
not be privileged from discovery in this or other related matters, I (a) 
beefed up the confidentiality provisions and (b) eliminated references to the 
reasons that we are including a confidentiality provision.  I also mentioned 
that Enron would be billed directly by Scottsboro's outside counsel in this 
matter, which I know was a specific concern of Dean Varnek, Scottsboro's 
attorney.

Please let me have your other comments/authority at your earliest convenience.

Britt
----- Forwarded by Britt Davis/Corp/Enron on 12/13/2000 11:20 AM -----

	Britt Davis
	12/13/2000 09:54 AM
		 
		 To: Martin Stanley/EU/Enron@Enron, Nicole Dion/NA/Enron@Enron, Marcus 
Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: In re ICTS/Alabama v. Scottsboro


	


Attached for your immediate review and approval is a proposed letter from 
Enron (please make sure I correctly identified the right Enron entity) 
agreeing to idemnify and defend Scottsboro in this matter.  I told 
Scottsboro's attorney yesterday that this would be coming once we confirmed 
that all the loads for which Scottsboro is being sued are our loads.  Nicole 
tells me that this is in fact the case.  I would like to send out this letter 
ASAP today, to give us time to make arrangements with Scottsboro's usual 
attorneys, who then will be asked to get an extension of time for Scottsboro 
to answer from the trucker's counsel.

I await your advice (Richard, per your instructions today, I will assume that 
you have no problem with this letter).

Britt