I hope that spelling your name correctly will help this get through to you.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/06/2000 11:53 
AM ---------------------------
   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  Kay Mann                           06/06/2000 03:58 AM
	

To: Steve Irvin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peggy Banczak/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff 
Blumenthal/HOU/ECT@ECT, rstevens@bracepatt.com
cc:  

Subject: RE: Letter agreement

Here's the latest from GE.

When I spoke to Rob Stevens, he had a question about whether Mitsui needed to 
review the final drafts of the GE agreements. I don't know the resolution of 
that issue.

As you know, the current arrangement with GE requires payment within 3 days 
of signing of the contracts, which means we have to be prepared to assign the 
contract, then wire the money from EEIM to Mitsui immediately so that Mitsui 
can pay GE, and GE can refund ENA.  Has EEIM been funded yet and has Mitsui 
bought in on the payment plan?

I do not know the status of the tax issues raised by Jeff. I would also like 
to make sure that Jeff agrees with the mechanism of superseding the prior 
agreement with GE.  


Kay

---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/06/2000 09:54 
AM ---------------------------


jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com on 06/06/2000 09:47:54 AM
To: Kay.Mann@enron.com
cc: jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com, Brian.D.Barto@enron.com, 
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com, David.K.Bargainer@enron.com, 
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com 

Subject: RE: Letter agreement

Kay,
I'm faxing to you the documents highlighted in RED, below.
So, it looks like we need to supercede these documents, along with the
assignment and assumption agreement. 
I believe the entities I mentioned yesterday are still applicable.  
If you have a different opinion, let me know.
Give me a call at 518-385-7722, and let's get the documents in condition to
be signed today or tomorrow.
Regards,
Jeff Smith


-----Original Message-----
From:   Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:44 AM
To:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com
Cc:   Kay.Mann@enron.com; jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com;
Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; john.schroeder@ps.ge.com
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement


Thank you.  That would be helpful.
Kay



karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com>  on 06/06/2000
07:28:24 AM
To:   Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com> ,
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com> 
cc:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com> ,
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com> ,
   David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com> ,
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com> ,
   jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com> 
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

The "MOU" consists of the GE proposal #80518 w/ offer letter of August 12,
1998, and J.M. Bollinger's (President, Cogen Tech) acceptance letter of
August 14, 1998.  These letters set the framework of the agreement,
including payment / termination schedule.  Invoicing & payments began in
September, 1998..and have continued on that basis until each of the
individual contracts for Linden & "Midwest" were consummated.  In Dec., 99,
at Enron's request,we allocated  funds paid to date to Linden and the "third
unit".  We'll forward copies of above.
Karl Siverling
-----Original Message-----
From:   Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com>
[mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com] <mailto:[mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]> 
Sent:   Monday, June 05, 2000 6:27 PM
To:   jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com> 
Cc:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com;>
Kay.Mann@enron.com; <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com;> 
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;>
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com;> 
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com;>
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com> 
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement



The collective memory at ENA is that there wasn't an MOU per se, just the
assignment and assumption agreement.
Kay





jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>  on 06/05/2000
03:51:46 PM
To:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com> ,
Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com> 
cc:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com> ,
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com> ,
   john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com> ,
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com> 
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

Brian,
I spoke to Karl today, and we tried to find the "MOU".  All we have found
was the "Assignment & Assumption Letter" you mention.  In that document, the
Enron and GE entities were; Enron Capitol & Trade Resources Corp. and
General Electric Company, respectively.
Regards,
Jeff Smith

-----Original Message-----
From:   Brian D Barto [mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com]
<mailto:[mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com]> 
Sent:   Monday, June 05, 2000 12:45 PM
To:   Kay Mann
Cc:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;>  David
K Bargainer;
John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com;>
Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com> 
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement



I have a copy of the "Assignment and Assumption Letter"  where GE agreed
that Cogen Technologies could assign the rights to purchase the Units to
Enron Capital and Trade Resources, Corp.
The initials at the ECT signature block is Doug Pedigo's.
I have always been a little confused when Karl Siverling talks about
voiding
an
MOU, because I do not remember ever seeing an MOU for the Cogen Tech units.
Perhaps we could ask Karl to send us a copy of the document he intends to
void to make the process easier.