Please print the messages below.  Thank you.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rob Walls <rwallsjr@yahoo.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Rob+20Walls+20+3Crwallsjr+40yahoo+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Sunday, April 08, 2001 6:24 PM
To:	Derrick Jr., James
Subject:	Fwd: Re: Dabhol Power Project - MSEB and GOM Arbitrations


  Note: forwarded message attached. 

Do You Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail Personal Address  -  Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
X-Apparently-To: rwallsjr@yahoo.com via web12601.mail.yahoo.com
X-Track: 1: 40
Received: from outbound5.enron.com  (EHLO postmaster.enron.com) (192.152.140.9)  by mta225.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 08 Apr 2001 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.enron.com (mailman.enron.com [192.168.189.66])	by postmaster.enron.com (8.10.1/8.10.1/external_corp-1.08) with ESMTP id f38GnY622448	for <rwallsjr@yahoo.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:34 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from nahou-msmsw01px.corp.enron.com ([172.28.10.37])	by mailman.enron.com (8.10.1/8.10.1/corp-1.05) with ESMTP id f38GnWL20615	for <rwallsjr@yahoo.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ene-mta01.enron.com (unverified) by nahou-msmsw01px.corp.enron.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id <Tac1c0a2512652ca226b5a@nahou-msmsw01px.corp.enron.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Dabhol Power Project - MSEB and GOM Arbitrations
To: christopher.walker@linklaters.com
Cc: Sandeep.Katwala@enron.com, Rob.Walls@enron.com, rwallsjr@yahoo.com
From: Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:28 -0500
Message-ID: <OF0E3BF496.C761722D-ON86256A28.005B9664@enron.com>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ENE-MTA01/Enron(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/08/2001 11:45:34 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 3905


Christopher -

I agree with your observations.  It seems to me that we want to consolidate
our Dec/Jan/Good Interest into one arbitration against each of MSEB and
GOM, rather than separate the claims further and thereby encourage MSEB/GOM
to cure some claims (e.g., Dec/Good Interest) and leave the January claim
hanging out there alone.

I understand your issues with rag-tag but am assuming that the rag-tag
label does not apply to Good Interest.

Thanks,
Bruce





"Walker, Christopher" <christopher.walker@linklaters.com> on 04/08/2001
06:44:19 AM

To:   "'Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com'" <Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com>, "Walker,
      Christopher" <christopher.walker@linklaters.com>
cc:   Sandeep.Katwala@enron.com, Rob.Walls@enron.com

Subject:  Dabhol Power Project -  MSEB and GOM Arbitrations


Bruce,

I think that part of the plan discussed in London has simply been
superceded
by events. In particular,the corporate decision about what the end game and
desired end result are to consist in.

Accordingly,I now look upon the proposed GOM and MSEB arbitrations as
primarily a means of setting up the case for PPA termination in due course.
In the light of this:-

(1) The MSEB arbitration ought now to deal with misdeclaration and claim
payment of the January 2001 billing,as well as the December 2001 billing. I
expect that we shall also put in the subsequent misdeclaration episodes. I
see little value in putting in the older claims (i.e., the arrears and sums
withheld),mainly because Kelly Quinn's analysis of them tends to show that
many of DPC's claims are dud.

(2) There is no longer any useful purpose served in stripping the MSEB
arbitration down to misdeclaration only. Further,not merely I am more
convinced than I was that the MSEB was not entitled to withhold against the
December 2000 billing,but I think that DPC has a 50:50 case that the MSEB
was obliged to pay the January 2001 billing clean.

(3) As I see it,there will be two arbitrations against GOM (the SSA and the
Guarantee) and one against the MSEB. However,if we wish to harass the GOM
and set up further PPA termination grounds,we might well wish to do
something forceful and litigious when (as I confidently predict) the notice
under the escrow agreement is not responded to by the MSEB and the Indian
banks. The notice only really works as and when the Indian banks are
threatened.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com [mailto:Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 7:12 PM
To: cwalker@linklaters.com
Cc: Sandeep.Katwala@enron.com; Rob.Walls@enron.com
Subject: MSEB and GOM Arbitrations


Christopher -

Help me to understand the plan for the MSEB and GOM arbitrations for
December, January and Interest.  In how many pieces do we anticipate
submitting these arbitrations?  What strategy is behind the submission of
separate submissions?

I remember that we wanted to separate the MSEB January submission, at one
point, to hasten the disposition of the misdeclaration issue.  Does this
make sense given the events of the last few weeks and the sponsors'
sentiments about additional capital for the project?

Thanks,
Bruce


_____________________________________________________________

This e-mail is sent by or on behalf of Linklaters,
10/F Alexandra House, Chater Road, Hong Kong.

A list of the firm's principals will be provided to the
recipient(s) of this email upon request.

This statement is made in compliance with the Law Society of
Hong Kong's Practice Direction on the Format of Electronic
Communications.

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
_____________________________________________________________