I talked to Jempy about this last night.He don't want another meeting. We have a new canidate in the hard-ass client category.
 -----Original Message-----
From: Neyman, Jesse 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 5:58 PM
To: Brownfeld, Gail
Cc: Lydecker Jr., Richard; Sanders, Richard B.; Engeldorf, Roseann; Johnson, Patrick
Subject: RE: AMPS Dispute 


I am unclear as to why we are taking this approach.  This discussion is nothing but a rehash of past conversations that we have had with DP.  There are no new developments to discuss.  They have threatened us and, in my opinion, are simply trying to extort advantages from us to which they are not entitled.  My suggestion is that we initiate the arbitration process and put them on the defensive.  We don't owe them any explanations because we are acting within the bounds of the agreement.  I would like to remind you that their behavior during these last several months can be called into question.  I think violations of confidentiality on their part should be discussed relating to the "offers" them claim to know about.  They solicited a key employee of AMPS concomitant with accusing us of violating our fiduciary responsibilities.  
 
If they feel passionately that we have behaved inappropriately, then they should move forward and avail themselves of their remedies.  Otherwise, we shouldn't waste our time or dignify their baseless allegations with yet another inane conversation.  Why do we always have to negotiate with the "terrorists" when we have the moral high ground?
 
Jempy

[Neyman, Jesse] 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Brownfeld, Gail 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:57 PM
To: Lydecker Jr., Richard; Engeldorf, Roseann
Cc: Johnson, Patrick; Neyman, Jesse
Subject: AMPS Dispute 



    I was able to speak with Victoria Westerhaus today about her September (sic) 27, 2001 letter. Victoria said that before she would be prepared to discuss the substance of her letter she would need to speak with Tom and Wayne.  She did; however, mention that neither she nor her client understood why Enron had been so anxious to dissolve the company when her client had several potential buyers very interested in the company. She mentioned that if Enron didn't want to put any more money into AMPS, it should have worked with DP to find a buyer.
    I told Ms. Westerhaus that it was my understanding that a bona fide buyer was not lurking on the horizon and that there was no way that the company could have continued operating. She said that AMPS could have suspended operations instead of dissolving.  She then inquired as to whether the company had, in fact, been dissolved.  In response to that question, I told her that my last meeting about AMPS had been over a week a ago and I had no additional information. I then suggested a conference call between Enron, its counsel and DC and its counsel to try to bridge the parties difference's before the towels wee thrown I n.  She said she'd get with Tom and Wayne and get back to me.
    Please let me know what your schedules look like for the rest of the week.  I will call the Bracewell folks and see how theirs look.  Thanks.