PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT

David,

 This will summarize our telephone conference of today's date.  I understand 
that you had an extensive and interesting conference with Matt and Neale 
Gregson of Watson, Farley's Singapore office.  While you are still wading 
through a great deal of new information, I understand your preliminary views 
to be as follows (subject to your further review):
 
 1.  You feel comfortable with using Captain Richard Gregory of Noble, 
Denton's Singapore office as one of ECT's experts, so long as he does the 
work himself.  You are going to do some additional investigation  with Neale 
of  Dr. Eric Mullen of Burgoyne's, who would be acting as ECT's chemist, 
given that his background may primarily be in fire investigation.  If you 
decide to use someone other than Dr. Mullen, please give me your 
recommendation as soon as possible, so that we can make sure that our "first 
team" of experts is available to attend the joint survey/analysis.  Please 
also let me know as soon as you hear for when it will be scheduled.

 2.  You felt that our case against Mitsubishi would be very dependent on the 
exchanges between ECT and Mitsubishi regarding tank cleaning, along with 
interpretation of various charter party clauses.  While Matt will correct me 
if I am wrong, I believe that Eric Tan was ECT's "point man" on those 
negotiations.  Perhaps Matt could liaise with you to set up a joint telephone 
conference with you, Neale, Matt and Eric on the line to flange down exactly 
what Eric recalls having happened.  I do not know whether Eric was also 
involved in negotiating the charter party terms, but if he was, that makes 
him an even  more important witness.  Matt, may I leave this with you to set 
up?  

 3.   You preliminarily felt that, as Neale recently suggested, ECT may have 
a case against the ultimate owners of the vessel that may not be subject to 
the charter party terms.  This is based on the applicable B/L,, which you 
have not yet had a chance to review, but which you were told the Master 
signed on his own behalf (rather than on behalf of Mitsubishi).  If you 
recommend that ECT pursue the owners, then ECT will need to seize the vessel 
and obtain a letter of undertaking from its P&I club.  Ultimately, ECT would 
then proceed with litigation, probably in the jurisdiction where the seizure 
took place, or, if the parties agreed, by arbitration.  This would be 
separate and apart from arbitration against Mitsubishi.

 Meanwhile, I authorized you to proceed with retaining a ship tracking 
service to locate the vessel.  I await your formal recommendation as to 
whether we should seize the ship, and the particulars regarding local counsel 
and expected costs.

 4. You will send a draft statement of ECT's position to Matt to forward to 
Mitsubishi, to the effect that ECT feels it owes Mitsubishi nothing for the 
additional freight or demurrage, given that it was all caused by 
contamination of the cargo onboard the ship.  I will ask for authority for 
you to send this to Mitsubishi and revert as soon as I can.

 5.  You are reviewing the FGPC/ECT contract and surrounding circumstances 
and will provide us your views in due course.


Many thanks for your help.


      Regards,


      Britt Davis