The intent is that the higher the rating, the higher the legal risk.  I 
believe the jurisdictional risk is a key factor in creating legal issues even 
if none exist at the time the deal is done.  Does that make sense?  Stuart 
should be on the LC.  Randy is the GC of South America.

Mark  



	Lance Schuler-Legal
	01/04/2001 04:50 PM
		 
		 To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Risk Memos and Legal Committee

As for the email on Risk Memos:  I thought it looked good and is very 
appropriate.  I did note that there were 4 categories for low risk 
jurisdictions, and only 3 categories for each of medium and high risk 
jurisdictions.  Maybe we cannot have a "no legal" risk in a high risk 
jurisdiction; but what about "many significant" legal issues in a medium risk 
jurisdiction?  Is this then too many categories?   Also, would it make any 
sense to have ratings of 1 through 4 only, with a requirement to specify 
whether we are dealing with a low, medium or high risk jurisdiction?  In 
other words, could anyone be confused into believing that  a rating of 4 is 
better than a rating of a 5?  As currently set forth, a higher rating does 
not necessarily equate to a greater risk.  Unless a reader were very familiar 
with the rating scale, someone might interpret a low number, out of say 10, 
as having minimal risk, when ratings 4, 7 and 10 may actually be the "worst".

As for the OGC and Legal Committee:  I note only that Dan and Lisa would no 
longer be on the LC.  How do you think we would convey this to them?  Also, I 
was understanding that Stuart would start to be included.  I have also been 
asked recently where Randy Young technically fits within the system.  He is 
on the OGC, but I am still confused where he is technically on some 
organization chart.  

Thanks.  Lance.

W. Lance Schuler
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3826
Houston, Texas  77002
Phone:  713/853-5419
Fax:  713/646-3393
Email:  lance.schuler-legal@enron.com