Message-ID: <28247358.1075842269866.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: tanya.rohauer@enron.com
To: dan.hyvl@enron.com
Subject: RE: FW: Schedule 1.1(a) - Guaranty Agreements
Cc: anne.koehler@enron.com, barbara.gray@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: anne.koehler@enron.com, barbara.gray@enron.com
X-From: Tanya Rohauer
X-To: Dan J Hyvl
X-cc: Anne C Koehler, Barbara N Gray
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Dan_Hyvl_Dec2000_June2001\Notes Folders\Miscellaneous\Triple-lux
X-Origin: HYVL-D
X-FileName: dhyvl.nsf

I think this works for covering ENA for any HPL breach; however, I'd like to 
see explicit language that requires HPL to make ENA whole in the event the 
counterparty does not pay ENA.

Thanks,
Tanya

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Hyvl, Dan  
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:29 AM
To: Rohauer, Tanya
Cc: Koehler, Anne; Gray, Barbara
Subject: RE: FW: Schedule 1.1(a) - Guaranty Agreements

Tanya,
 Please review the attached document regarding our conversation concerning 
the back to back arrangement.  I believe the highlited information should 
cover your concerns and it is the same information as was used in the CES 
documents.  Please advise if anything further is needed.
 << File: 2001-006amisc.doc >> 