As presently drafted the ETA provides that if a master agreement is in force 
covering a particular transaction, the master controls.  I don't think we 
ever adequately resolved the multiple Enron entity issue, though.  For 
example, if a counterparty has an ISDA Master Agreement in place with ENA, 
that master agreement could easily cover a trade based on UK gas prices.  
However, it is not the commercial people's intent that the system work that 
way.  They want every trade for a particular product to be with a single 
Enron entity (e.g. all UK gas transactions are with Enron Europe), regardless 
of what master agreements are in place.  To resolve this I suggest that the 
long descriptions be revised to state the Enron trading entity for each 
product type (this is already in place for European derivatives) and that the 
ETA be revised as follows:

revise the fifth line of paragraph (a) of Section 3 such that Transactions 
are governed by the short and long definitions in respect of a product 
"...and any master agreement between Counterparty and the Enron entity 
trading in such product on the Website which is in effect as of the date of 
the execution of such Transaction..."

(underlined text inserted) 

I think this will please the commercial and tax people; any thoughts from the 
legal side?