Frank - 
 
Please see the attached article from Reuters below. I believe I'm listed as an officer on various Enron companies, including EPMI, for which I had to be fingerprinted for some type of California regulatory requirements.  Given the level of legal conflict etc. in California, and simply because it seems reasonable that I should understand if I have any exposure (financial or criminal as noted in the article) by being named an officer, I'd like to discuss it with one of our lawyers.  I've heard of D&O insurance, but really don't know what exactly that's for, whether I'm covered, and what it does cover, etc..
 
I've left messages over the past month for several people in Legal, but have received no response; hence this message to you in hopes you can direct me to whom I should be talking to.
 
I believe I'm listed as an officer on various Enron companies, including Enron Power Marketing Inc. (EPMI), for which I had to be fingerprinted for some type of California regulatory requirements.  Given the level of legal conflict etc. in California, and simply because it seems reasonable that I should understand if I have any exposure by being named an officer, I'd like to discuss it with one of our lawyers.  I've heard of D&O insurance, but really don't know what exactly that's for, whether I'm covered, and why I might even need it.
 
Another thing I'd like to know is who else at Enron is listed as an officer of EPMI.  And also, Sara Shackleton discovered last week that the Enron BOD did not actually approve me being designated as a RAC officer, so I'm wondering if the slate of officers for EPMI that was submitted to California for the regulatory requirements is invalid.  Evidently the change from Ted Murphy to me was overlooked in the paperwork approved by the BOD meeting, and the plan is to ratify it retrospectively in this next BOD meeting. 
 
This isn't something that keeps me up at night, but it is of concern to my husband, especially since I am unable to explain the significance and potential exposure, if any, of being named an officer of these subsidiaries.
 
 
Thanks for your help,
 
Cassandra.
x30429
 
-----Original Message-----
From: BoSchultz@aol.com [mailto:BoSchultz@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 3:41 PM
To: Schultz, Cassandra
Subject: (no subject)
 
 
 
 
 
 

SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 18 (Reuters) - A California legislative panel voted 
Wednesday to ask the state Senate to cite Reliant Energy Inc. < REI.N <aol://4785:REI>> for 
contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena seeking confidential 
documents. 

The Senate Select Committee to Investigate Market Manipulation voted 6-0 to 
move against Houston-based Reliant, which joins fellow Texas energy giant 
Enron Corp. < ENE.N <aol://4785:ENE>> in facing what could be the first contempt citations 
imposed by California's state senate since 1929. 

Senate aides said the panel, which is investigating charges of market 
manipulation and price gouging in California's energy crisis, would now begin 
preparing a full report on Reliant's noncompliance for the full Senate. 

The committee's report on Enron could be ready for submission to the full 
Senate Thursday, they said, adding that continued efforts to negotiate an 
agreement had proved fruitless. 

According to state law, California's senators must use the reports to decide 
whether to slap sanctions on the two companies. They also have the option of 
fining or imprisoning company senior officers. 

Enron, for its part, has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court 
challenging the investigative committee's authority to subpoena company 
documents. 

Senate aides said Reliant could follow the lead of another energy company, 
Atlanta-based Mirant Corp. < MIR.N <aol://4785:MIR>>, which has avoided the contempt threat by 
cooperating with legislators' demands to sign confidentiality agreements, 
open a document depository close to Sacramento, and begin placing documents 
there relating to the company's recent business in California. 

The committee also voted on Wednesday to suspend for 30 days proceedings 
against number of other energy firms, including Duke Energy Corp. < DUK.N <aol://4785:DUK>>, 
Dynegy Inc. < DYN.N <aol://4785:DYN>>, Williams Cos. Inc. < WMB.N <aol://4785:WMB>>, AES Corp. < AES.N <aol://4785:AES>> and NRG 
Energy Inc. < NRG.N <aol://4785:NRG>>, pending a review of their compliance efforts to date. 

Enron has argued the committee has no legal jurisdiction over wholesale 
electricity prices, which are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Committee (FERC), and that the committee's proceedings violate the company's 
legal rights. 

State officials have accused the energy companies of overcharging California 
power agencies and utilities some $8.9 billion for wholesale electricity over 
the past 14 months, which saw power prices in the state soar tenfold. 

Independent energy merchants have blamed the price spike on the state's 
poorly designed electricity deregulation law and a failure to build enough 
power plants to meet the growing needs of its 34 million residents and its 
industries. 

00:10 07-19-01 

Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.  All rights reserved.  Republication or 
redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is 
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.  Reuters 
shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any 
actions taken in reliance thereon.  All active hyperlinks have been inserted 
by AOL.