FW: Enron Mentions ,
 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Schmidt, Ann M. =20
Sent:=09Friday, October 19, 2001 8:04 AM
Subject:=09Enron Mentions

Enron CFO's Partnership Had Millions in Profit
The Wall Street Journal, 10/19/01
Enron CFO Profited From Partnerships With Company, WSJ Reports
Bloomberg, 10/19/01

The New Power Company Revises Its Netting Agreement With Enron; Provides Fo=
r Receivables and Inventory Financing
Business Wire, 10/19/01

The Five Dumbest Things on Wall Street This Week
TheStreet.com, 10/19/01

K Street's Top 10: The Shifting Lineup
National Journal, 10/20/01
Houston entrepreneurs added to Texas Business Hall of Fame
Houston Chronicle, 10/20/01
Recession, Budget Cuts, Travel Fears To Subdue LME Week
Dow Jones Commodities Service, 10/19/01
HC to hear DPC's plea
The Times of India, 10/19/01




Enron CFO's Partnership Had Millions in Profit
By Rebecca Smith and John R. Emshwiller
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal

10/19/2001
The Wall Street Journal
C1
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

A limited partnership organized by Enron Corp.'s chief financial officer, A=
ndrew S. Fastow, realized millions of dollars in profits in transactions it=
 did with Enron, according to an internal partnership document.=20
The partnership, in some instances, benefited from renegotiating the terms =
of existing deals with the Houston energy company in ways that improved the=
 partnership's financial positions or reduced its risk of losses.
Mr. Fastow, and possibly a handful of partnership associates, realized more=
 than $7 million last year in management fees and about $4 million in capit=
al increases on an investment of nearly $3 million in the partnership, whic=
h was set up in December 1999 principally to do business with Enron.=20
The profits from the deals were disclosed in a financial report to investor=
s in the partnership, LJM2 Co-Investment LP, that was signed by Mr. Fastow =
as the general partner and dated April 30. In one case, the report indicate=
s the partnership was able to improve profits by terminating a transaction =
early.=20
The LJM2 arrangement has become controversial for Enron, as shareholders an=
d analysts have raised questions about whether it posed a conflict by putti=
ng the company's chief financial officer, who has a fiduciary duty to Enron=
 shareholders, in a position of reaping financial rewards for representing =
LJM2 investors in business deals with Enron. Investors in LJM2 include Wach=
ovia Corp., General Electric Co.'s General Electric Capital Corp. and Credi=
t Suisse Group's Credit Suisse First Boston.=20
Attention has focused on Mr. Fastow's partnership activities at a tumultuou=
s time for Enron, which over the past decade grew enormously by becoming th=
e nation's biggest energy-trading company.=20
This year, though, it has been hit by a string of troubles, from soured bus=
iness initiatives to executive departures. On Tuesday, Enron announced a $6=
18 million third-quarter loss, because of a $1.01 billion write-off on inve=
stments in broadband telecommunications, retail energy services and Azurix =
Corp., a water company. A small chunk of that write-off, about $35 million,=
 was attributed to ending certain LJM2-related transactions. That terminati=
on also produced a $1.2 billion reduction in Enron shareholder equity as th=
e company decided to repurchase 55 million shares that had been part of LJM=
2 deals.=20
At 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, Enron was down 9.9%=
, or $3.20, to $29 a share. Within the past year, the stock had topped $80 =
a share.=20
Enron officials didn't have any comment about the LJM2 partnership document=
. Enron has consistently said its dealings with LJM2 have been proper. They=
 said the LJM2 deals, like ones done with other parties, were aimed at help=
ing hedge against fluctuating market values of its assets and adding source=
s of capital.=20
Mr. Fastow has declined several requests for an interview about LJM2. In la=
te July, he formally severed his ties with LJM2, as a result of what Enron =
officials said was growing unease by Wall Street analysts and major shareho=
lders. Mr. Fastow has been finance chief of Enron since 1997 and has been w=
ith the firm 11 years, which included extensive work setting up and managin=
g company investments.=20
Michael Kopper, a former Enron executive who an Enron spokesman said is now=
 helping to operate LJM2, declined to comment. He also wouldn't describe hi=
s relation to LJM2.=20
In his April 30 report, Mr. Fastow said the partnership, which raised $394 =
million, had invested in several Enron-related deals involving power plants=
 and other assets as well as company stock. The document said LJM2 sought a=
 29% internal rate of return. That was down from a 48% targeted rate of ret=
urn at the end of 2000, which the document said was due in part to a declin=
e in the value of LJM2's investment in New Power Co., an Enron-related ener=
gy retailer. In some transactions, LJM2 did much better than the 29% target=
, though this sometimes involved renegotiating individual deals.=20
In September 2000, the partnership invested $30 million in "Raptor III," wh=
ich involved writing put options committing LJM2 to buy Enron stock at a se=
t price for six months. Four months into this deal, LJM2 approached Enron t=
o settle the investment early, "causing LJM2 to receive its $30 million cap=
ital invested plus $10.5 million in profit," the report said. The renegotia=
tion was before a decline in Enron's stock price, which could have forced L=
JM2 to buy Enron shares at a loss of as much as $8 each, the document indic=
ated.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09


Enron CFO Profited From Partnerships With Company, WSJ Reports
2001-10-19 01:00 (New York)


     Houston, Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp.'s Chief Financial
Officer Andrew Fastow realized profits through a limited
partnership that did business with Enron, the Wall Street Journal
reported, citing an internal partnership document.

     LJM2 Co-Investment LP, of which Fastow is a general partner,
made millions of dollars on transactions with Enron, the paper
said. Fastow and possibly a handful of partnership associates made
$7 million last year in management fees and about $4 million in
capital increases on an investment of about $3 million in the
partnership, the paper said.

     Enron shareholder Fred Greenberg filed a lawsuit yesterday,
alleging that Enron's board cost the company at least $35 million
by allowing Fastow to manage partnerships that bought Enron
assets. Enron reported $1.01 billion in third-quarter losses from
failed investments.


The Five Dumbest Things on Wall Street This Week
By K.C. Swanson <mailto:kcswanson@thestreet.com>
Staff Reporter
TheStreet.com
10/19/2001 06:59 AM EDT
URL: <http://www.thestreet.com/markets/dumbest/10002661.html>

1. Bayer Fighting the Bears?
One beneficiary of the anthrax scare has been Bayer AG (BAYZY:OTC BB ADR - =
news - commentary) , the German chemical maker, which has seen its share pr=
ice gain 10.4% since the terrorist attacks. But investors bidding up the st=
ock might be getting ahead of themselves.=20
Bayer makes Cipro, a leading treatment for anthrax. But while the demand fo=
r Cipro is high, sales from the drug are only a small portion of the compan=
y's overall revenue, which totaled 30.9 billion euros last year (and, accor=
ding to analysts, will increase even more this year, due to its acquisition=
 of Aventis CropScience, a crop protection and production company). To put =
the demand for Cipro in context, J.P. Morgan expects U.S. sales of the drug=
 to be approximately 1.2 billion euros for 2001.=20
Even emergency purchases of Cipro probably won't add that much to Bayer's o=
verall revenues. The president has asked for $643 million for antibiotics t=
o combat bioterrorist attacks. While it's possible that sum will be increas=
ed, not all the money would be spent on Cipro.=20
Besides, it's not even clear that Bayer will remain the only producer of Ci=
pro. Though the company holds the patent for the drug, there's some pressur=
e in Congress for the government to purchase a generic version from other m=
anufacturers.=20
On another front, Bayer is currently battling a class-action lawsuit relate=
d to an anti-cholesterol drug implicated in a number of deaths. It was forc=
ed to withdraw the drug from the market.=20
Bayer may offer protection against anthrax, but that doesn't mean it's a re=
fuge for investors.=20
2. Losses at Twice the Price
You know things are bad for a company when its losses per share are double =
the price of the shares themselves. That's the case for i2 Technologies (IT=
WO:Nasdaq - news - commentary) , the supply-chain software maker. After mar=
ket close on Tuesday, the company posted losses under generally accepted ac=
counting principles that amounted to $5.5 billion, or $13.25 per share, for=
 the latest quarter, including all charges.=20
In other words, i2's losses were more than twice the value of its share pri=
ce, which closed at $5.69 before the announcement.=20
Much of the huge writedown reflects amortized goodwill from the purchase of=
 Aspect Development in March 2000.=20
To be fair, investors in companies that have made big acquisitions like i2 =
typically focus on pro forma earnings, which exclude charges and extraordin=
ary items. By that measure, i2's losses didn't look quite so bad: The compa=
ny met analysts' consensus expectations with a loss of $55.3 million, or 13=
 cents per share.=20
Still, investors met i2's earnings with disapproval, knocking the stock dow=
n 25% the day after they were reported.=20
3. Microsoft's Bag of Tricks
In times like these, there's comfort in knowing business goes on as usual a=
t many U.S. companies. Just like the old days, Microsoft (MSFT:Nasdaq - new=
s - commentary) is in the hot seat for its sharklike behavior toward a comp=
etitor.=20
It stands accused of sending 3,000 fake cereal boxes emblazoned with the wo=
rds "Microsoft Server Crunch" to customers of rival server software maker N=
ovell. The boxes, according to Novell, contained "a number of false and mis=
leading statements" intended as putdowns of Novell products.=20
Among the attempted insults were some not-so-clever plays on packaged food.=
 For example, in a reference to Novell's flagship software product, a line =
on the Microsoft boxes read: "What's the expiration date on that NetWare pl=
atform?" (A round of applause, please, for those gut-splittingly funny engi=
neers.)=20
The boxes also said Novell is shifting its focus from software to consultin=
g services, which Novell says isn't true.=20
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the cereal boxes were primarily intende=
d to advertise Microsoft services, not to slight Novell. "It was all in the=
 theme of a mock cereal box," he said. "It was a modest campaign."=20
In response to Novell's complaints, he says Microsoft sent out a letter in =
September to recipients of the boxes to clarify some of its statements, and=
 it's just agreed to send another letter to appease the company. For the re=
cord, Novell said it's not calling off its lawsuit for unspecified money da=
mages.=20
4. AMD's Feisty Pledge
CEOs don't get their jobs by being eloquent, and it probably would be too m=
uch to expect them to sound statesmanlike. But sometimes their oratorical r=
ough edges cross the line into embarrassing.=20
Case in point: Comments from Jerry Sanders, the CEO of Advanced Micro Devic=
es (AMD:NYSE - news - commentary) , which earlier this week reported a loss=
 for the first time in almost three years. The company, facing harsh pricin=
g competition from Intel (INTC:Nasdaq - news - commentary) , said its reven=
ue was down 22% from a year ago and it expects a likely operating loss for =
the fourth quarter.=20
Given recent declines in consumer confidence, the downturn is likely to be =
extended by several quarters, Sanders admitted. But in a conference call, h=
e indulged in some spirited fist-shaking. Citing the company's so-called "H=
ammer" architecture for processors, Sanders declared, "We feel that when th=
e upturn comes, we're going to kick ---."=20
Does this guy carry around a surfboard in his car or what? Mr. Sanders, mee=
t Mr. Reeves.=20
OK, so we actually kind of admire Sanders' never-capitulate spirit. But his=
 comment seems a little redundant, because just about everybody will look b=
etter when the economy turns around. Because that may not be anytime soon, =
what matters is how companies weather the interim -- feisty pledges notwith=
standing.=20
5. Enron's Rabbit-From-a-Hat Style
Analysts have complained for some time about Enron's (ENE:NYSE - news - com=
mentary) rabbit-from-a-hat style accounting, with which the company produce=
d results that wowed investors without making it quite clear where they cam=
e from. Now that its business has taken a sour turn, that tendency has gott=
en even more unsettling.=20
To cap off its disappointing earnings results this week -- Enron posted a s=
teep loss after taking a $1.01 billion charge -- the company let drop that =
its shareholder equity had decreased by $1.2 billion.=20
In a conference call, CEO Kenneth Lay attributed the reduction in equity to=
 the "removal of an obligation to issue a number of shares." According to a=
 report in The Wall Street Journal, Enron repurchased 55 million shares iss=
ued through a series of transactions involving LJM Capital, a partnership t=
hat until recently was headed up by Enron's CFO.=20
TSC's Peter Eavis has written that it appears Enron lent LJM money to buy E=
nron stock.=20
Ironically, the company boasted in its earnings release this week that it h=
ad expanded reporting of its financial results, presumably to quiet its acc=
ounting critics.=20
Enron's transactions have been so labyrinthine that it's hard to identify e=
xactly if or how they were inappropriate. But the latest revelation, to say=
 the least, does nothing to bolster the company's credibility. Enron, whose=
 CEO resigned unexpectedly in August, had seen its stock fall 59% for the y=
ear leading up to its latest earnings release. Since then, it's dropped ano=
ther 12.6%=20


The New Power Company Revises Its Netting Agreement With Enron; Provides Fo=
r Receivables and Inventory Financing

10/19/2001
Business Wire
(Copyright (c) 2001, Business Wire)

PURCHASE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 19, 2001--The New Power Company ("New=
Power"), a wholly owned subsidiary of NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: NPW) t=
oday filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission reporting=
 that it has revised its master netting agreement with Enron North America =
Corp., Enron Energy Services, Inc., and Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (togeth=
er, the "Enron Subsidiaries").=20
The amendment affects the Master Cross-Product Netting, Setoff, and Securit=
y Agreement (the "Master Netting Agreement") among NewPower and the Enron S=
ubsidiaries, and expands through January 4, 2002, the types of collateral t=
hat NewPower is permitted to post to the Enron Subsidiaries.
The effect of the amendment is to reduce, through January 4, 2002, the amou=
nt of cash collateral that NewPower is required to post to the Enron Subsid=
iaries. Under the amended Master Netting Agreement, the first $70 million o=
f posted collateral must be in the form of cash, while amounts in excess of=
 $70 million may consist of not more than $40 million of eligible receivabl=
es and inventory of NewPower, valued at discounts specified in the amendmen=
t, and subject to a $25 million limit for October 2001. Pledging receivable=
s and inventory is consistent with NewPower's previously announced intentio=
n to secure asset-backed financing.=20
With the amendment and NewPower's cost reduction efforts, and absent a simi=
lar rate of decline in commodity prices or other significant events, NewPow=
er believes that it has sufficient financial resources to conduct its busin=
ess until it secures ongoing asset-backed financing, which will be necessar=
y upon the expiration of the amendment. NewPower has been and is actively s=
eeking to arrange asset-backed financing with other parties, although to da=
te no such arrangements have been secured.=20
The Company expects to meet its previous estimate of net loss and loss per =
basic and diluted share for the third quarter ended September 30, 2001. How=
ever, customer count and revenues are expected to be slightly lower than pr=
eviously forecast.=20
The Company will provide revised guidance for the fourth quarter 2001 and a=
n outlook for 2002 on its third quarter conference call scheduled for Thurs=
day, November 8.=20

Cautionary Statement=20

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the m=
eaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A=
 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange =
Act of 1934. These statements involve risks and uncertainties and may diffe=
r materially from actual future events or results. Although we believe that=
 our expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, we can give no assur=
ance that our goals will be achieved. The Company undertakes no obligation =
to publicly release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to re=
flect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occur=
rence of unanticipated events. Important factors that could cause actual re=
sults to differ from estimates or projections contained in the forward-look=
ing statements include our limited operating history; delays or changes in =
the rules for the restructuring of the electric and natural gas markets; ou=
r ability to attract and retain customers; our ability to manage our energy=
 requirements and sell energy at a sufficient margin given the volatility i=
n prices for electricity and natural gas; the effect of commodity volatilit=
y on collateral requirements and liquidity; our dependence on third parties=
 to provide critical functions to us and to our customers; and conditions o=
f the capital markets affecting the availability of capital. Readers are re=
ferred to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending Dece=
mber 31, 2000 and our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333.41412) on=
 file with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a discussion of facto=
rs that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-=
looking statements.=20

About NewPower Holdings, Inc.=20

NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: NPW), through its subsidiary, The New Power =
Company, is the first national provider of electricity and natural gas to r=
esidential and small commercial customers in the United States. The Company=
 offers consumers in restructured retail energy markets competitive energy =
prices, pricing choices, improved customer service and other innovative pro=
ducts, services and incentives.


CONTACT: The New Power Company Investors Kathryn Corbally, 914/697-2444 Kat=
hryn.Corbally@newpower.com Patrick McCoy, 914/697-2431 Manager, Investor Re=
lations pmccoy@newpower.com Media Gael Doar, 914/697-2451 gdoar@newpower.co=
m Terri Cohen, 914/697-2457 Terri.Cohen@newpower.com=20
08:32 EDT OCTOBER 19, 2001=20
Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09



LOBBYING
K Street's Top 10: The Shifting Lineup
Shawn Zeller

10/20/2001
National Journal
Copyright 2001 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.

How do the Washington lobbying firms with the heftiest incomes put themselv=
es in the upper echelon of K Street practitioners? Van Scoyoc Associates In=
c. does it by signing up a stable of smaller clients and working hard to re=
tain them. Quinn Gillespie & Associates doesn't have a long client list, bu=
t it is at the top of the heap in terms of average fee per client. Greenber=
g Traurig, meanwhile, lured away a rival firm's top rainmaker-and his lucra=
tive book of clients.=20
These are just some of the business strategies revealed in National Journal=
's survey of the 10 Washington lobbying firms with the highest fee income f=
rom January 1 to June 30. The four top firms at midyear 2001 are the same o=
nes as a year earlier: perennial powerhouses Cassidy & Associates Inc.; Pat=
ton Boggs; Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; and Verner, Liipfert, Bernhar=
d, McPherson and Hand.
But two new players-boasting huge growth rates-are among the firms nipping =
at the heels of these top dogs.=20
Greenberg Traurig, which came in at No. 5 in National Journal's midyear 200=
1 rankings, had never before been in the top tier of Washington lobbying fi=
rms. According to PoliticalMoneyLine, which compiles a comprehensive annual=
 list of all lobbying firms, Greenberg Traurig had the 35th-highest income =
during the first six months of last year.=20
And No. 7 in the midyear 2001 rankings is Quinn Gillespie, another first-ti=
me member of the top 10. Formed just a year and a half ago by former Clinto=
n White House Counsel Jack Quinn and Ed Gillespie-a one-time adviser to Hou=
se Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas-the firm has seen its fortunes rocke=
t upward. Quinn Gillespie was No. 13 in the first six months of 2000.=20
In between these two newcomers is Van Scoyoc Associates, ranked at No. 6. T=
here has been a steady rise for Van Scoyoc, which was No. 28 in fee income =
at the end of 1996, the year in which the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act firs=
t took effect.=20
Rounding out the top 10 at midyear 2001 are stalwarts Williams & Jensen; Wa=
shington Council Ernst & Young; and Barbour Griffith & Rogers.=20
National Journal ranks the top-10 lobbying firms every six months by tallyi=
ng the fees that firms report to the House and Senate as required under the=
 1995 legislation. National Journal tabulates total fees for only the 25 to=
p firms in PoliticalMoneyLine's comprehensive annual survey.=20
With its $16.68 million in fees for the first six months of the year, Cassi=
dy & Associates continued to blow away the competition. The last time any f=
irm reported a six-month total larger than Cassidy's was during the first h=
alf of 1998, when Verner, Liipfert led the way. During the first six months=
 of this year, Cassidy & Associates received a massive fee of $1 million fr=
om the Taiwan Studies Institute, a think tank with close ties to the Taiwan=
ese government; Boeing Co. paid Cassidy & Associates $600,000; and Tiffany =
& Co. paid it $400,000 to lobby on legislation that would bar diamonds mine=
d in conflict-ridden areas of the world from entering the global market.=20
Despite the economic downturn and the terrorist threat, lobbying goes on, c=
ompany Chairman Gerald S.J. Cassidy said. "During difficult times, people c=
ome to Washington with their problems. During more-robust times, they come =
seeking opportunities."=20
But the biggest story at midyear was the rise of Greenberg Traurig. The fir=
m, which posted just $1.71 million in lobbying fees during the first half o=
f 2000, saw that amount more than quadruple to nearly $8.7 million this yea=
r. Much of the credit goes to Jack Abramoff, the conservative K Street move=
r and shaker who is an ally of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas. Last=
 year, Abramoff left his old firm, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, an=
d brought $3 million in business with him to Greenberg Traurig. Preston Gat=
es, which was ranked in the top five during Abramoff's tenure, dropped out =
of National Journal's rankings this year. The lobbying firm's fees fell by =
nearly 50 percent.=20
Abramoff continued to make rain at Greenberg Traurig, billing $860,000 to t=
he Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, $500,000 to the Commonwealth of the=
 Northern Mariana Islands, and $300,000 to garment manufacturers that opera=
te in that U.S. territory. A few new clients also forked over big bucks: th=
e Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana ($440,000); Voor Huisen Project Management, =
a homebuilder with international operations ($300,000); and the American In=
ternational Center ($100,000). Despite initial concerns among some Greenber=
g Traurig partners about whether Abramoff would fit in, Abramoff insists th=
at his team of lobbyists has been "totally integrated" into the firm.=20
But Abramoff wasn't the only one responsible for Greenberg Traurig's higher=
 earnings. Ronald W. Kleinman, a former State Department lawyer, persuaded =
Congress with the help of several Greenberg Traurig colleagues to pass Sect=
ion 2002 of the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. Th=
is section of the law ordered the Treasury Secretary to use Cuban governmen=
t funds that are frozen in U.S. banks to compensate the families of three m=
en who had won multimillion-dollar judgments against Cuba under a 1996 amen=
dment to the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act. The amendment allows victi=
ms of terrorism or their families to sue states that are on the U.S. list o=
f state sponsors of terrorism.=20
Greenberg Traurig represented the families of Armando Alejandre, Carlos Alb=
erto Costa, and Mario M. de la Pena-three members of Brothers to the Rescue=
, a Cuban-American group that rescues Cubans in the waters off Florida. The=
 three men died when their plane was shot down over international waters on=
 February 24, 1996. The families sued Cuba and were awarded $96.7 million i=
n damages by a U.S. District Court judge in 1997. The State Department oppo=
sed payment, but President Clinton signed the trafficking bill. Greenberg T=
raurig reported a fee of $4 million.=20
Fred W. Baggett, the chair of Greenberg Traurig's governmental practice gro=
up, said this was a one-time fee, but he added that the Cuban case "establi=
shed a platform so that the firm can support undertaking those one-time eff=
orts in the future," and noted, "We have a few coming down the pipeline."=
=20
Baggett said the firm has cases involving an American killed in Jerusalem b=
y the Palestinian group Hamas, and Americans who were used as human shields=
 in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. None of the Americans was killed, and=
 all were eventually released.=20
Taking the flip side of the mega-fee approach was Van Scoyoc Associates, wh=
ich reported receiving no fee above $180,000. Nonetheless, the firm continu=
ed its steady rise. A key reason, said firm President H. Stewart Van Scoyoc=
, was the ability to recruit and retain clients. The firm signed up 34 clie=
nts between January 1 and June 30, while only nine out of 159 clients termi=
nated contracts during the period.=20
"We work hard at defining the relationship with a client before we sign a c=
ontract," said Van Scoyoc. "We make sure we're clear on the goals and objec=
tives, and in a typical relationship, we don't guarantee that we can do eve=
rything." The firm's $6.24 million total for the first half of 2001 was 23 =
percent higher than its fees for the same period last year.=20
Quinn Gillespie's ascent into the top 10 was more along the lines of Greenb=
erg Traurig's. Quinn Gillespie's billings were almost $6.09 million at midy=
ear 2001, a 71 percent rise over the same period last year. The firm has on=
ly 34 paying clients, but the average fee per client-$180,000-is the highes=
t among the top 10. During the six months, the British Columbia Lumber Trad=
e Council paid a fee of $540,000 to Quinn Gillespie, while Enron Corp. paid=
 $525,000. The Canadian group hoped its high-powered lobbyists would win gr=
eater access for Canadian lumber in the United States, but U.S. tariffs wer=
e reinstated earlier this year. Lobbying for Enron focused on energy deregu=
lation, particularly in California. Enron is a major creditor of Southern C=
alifornia Edison, the utility whose financial woes resulted in power shorta=
ges in California last summer.=20
Quinn Gillespie's staff has grown from nine at the time of the founding to =
nearly 30 today. "We like to think we have a toolbox here-people who may be=
 Republicans or Democrats but who also have different skills that benefit t=
he client," Quinn said.=20
Patton Boggs had fees of $10.26 million in the first six months of 2001, bu=
t that was just a 5 percent rise over the same period in 2000. Still, the f=
irm leapfrogged over Verner, Liipfert to capture the No. 2 ranking. Patton =
Boggs earned $360,000 from Russia's government-owned NTV television network=
, which was at the center of a controversy earlier this year when the gover=
nment took over the independent network and ousted its staff.=20
Akin, Gump also jumped past Verner, Liipfert to No. 3 in the rankings, post=
ing $9.48 million in fees-a 16 percent increase over a year earlier. Akin, =
Gump's biggest client was the troubled tire manufacturer Bridgestone/Firest=
one Inc., which paid just over $1.5 million in fees. Akin, Gump also earned=
 big money from AT&T ($800,000) and the Gila River Indian Community ($620,0=
00).=20
At No. 4, Verner, Liipfert saw the biggest drop in fees, taking in $8.84 mi=
llion in the first six months of 2001-down 16 percent from the same period =
in 2000. Verner, Liipfert lost lucrative contracts with Puerto Rico after t=
he government there changed hands last year. (See this issue, p. 3273.)=20
Rounding out the top-10 rankings, Williams & Jensen at No. 8 billed $5.68 m=
illion, a 12 percent increase over the first half of 2000, while Washington=
 Council Ernst & Young saw its fees drop 11 percent to $5.5 million. The fi=
rm fell four places to No. 9 in the rankings. Barbour Griffith & Rogers's f=
ee income was up 7 percent to $5.48 million, putting the firm at No. 10.=20
Falling out of the midyear top-10 rankings were Preston Gates-No. 6 at midy=
ear 2000-and PricewaterhouseCoopers, No. 7 last year. PricewaterhouseCooper=
s's billings were $5 million for the period, a 6 percent drop from the firs=
t half of 2000.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09

Oct. 19, 2001
Houston Chronicle
Houston entrepreneurs added to Texas Business Hall of Fame=20
By TOM FOWLER=20
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle=20
The Texas Business Hall of Fame's annual awards ceremony Thursday night hon=
ored four Houston business leaders.=20
The event at the George R. Brown Convention Center put the spotlight on Wei=
ngarten Realty Investors Chairman Stanford Alexander; Compaq Computer found=
er and former Chief Executive Officer Rod Canion; retired Reliant Energy Ch=
airman and CEO Don Jordan; and Dynegy Chairman and CEO Chuck Watson.=20
This is the 19th year the nonprofit Texas Business Hall of Fame Foundation =
has honored the state's business leaders with a dinner and induction event.=
=20
As chairman of Weingarten Realty Investors, Stanford Alexander built the co=
mpany into one of the nation's largest publicly traded real estate companie=
s.=20
After serving in the U.S. Air Force, Alexander joined J. Weingarten, a Hous=
ton-based chain of 87 supermarkets. He later became an executive with Weing=
arten Markets Realty Co., an affiliated real estate firm that developed fre=
e-standing supermarket stores.=20
The firm later changed its name to Weingarten Realty. The Houston-based com=
pany is now publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.=20
Weingarten owns shopping centers, warehouses and other property in 17 state=
s from coast to coast.=20
Weingarten's notable developments in Houston include the upscale Village Ar=
cade near Rice University and the Centre at Post Oak, across from the Galle=
ria.=20
Rod Canion came up with the idea behind Compaq in 1982 after a trip to a lo=
cal ComputerLand store. Along with colleagues from Texas Instruments, Jim H=
arris and industrial designer Ted Papajohn, Canion envisioned a portable co=
mputer that ran all the programs that operated on the IBM PC.=20
By the next year, the company was producing the original Compaq luggable co=
mputer, a move that essentially created the modern PC industry. By 1987, it=
s fifth year, the company made business history by breaking $1 billion in s=
ales, the fastest pace ever for a corporate startup.=20
Canion left Compaq in October 1991 but continued to be active in other vent=
ures. In 1992, he founded Insource Technology Group, a consulting services =
and network engineering firm, and continues to serve as chairman.=20
Don Jordan has been in the forefront of Houston business and society for de=
cades. And even though he retired from the post of chairman and chief execu=
tive at Reliant Energy in late 1999, he has remained active in the city's g=
rowth and development.=20
Jordan was with Reliant and its predecessor Houston Industries for 44 years=
 and helped position the company for its eventual split between the company=
's regulated businesses, such as HL&P and Entex, and unregulated business t=
hat is now called Reliant Resources.=20
Jordan, along with his corporate rival Ken Lay of Enron, was instrumental i=
n the successful campaign last year to convince voters to approve the use o=
f public funds to build a new arena downtown for the Houston Rockets.=20
Jordan has spent a lot of time on the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo board =
and many other civic groups.=20
Chuck Watson has built Dynegy into one of Houston's leading energy companie=
s, but he is more well-known for his forays into the world of sports.=20
Watson established NGC Corp., Dynegy's predecessor, in 1985 and served as p=
resident until becoming chairman and chief executive officer in 1989.=20
Recently Watson was revealed to be the largest investor in the limited part=
nership assembled to put together the Texans, Houston's National Football L=
eague franchise. It begins playing next year.=20
Watson also owns the Aeros, Houston's American Hockey League team.=20
Watson's support was also pivotal to getting voters last year to approve th=
e use of public funds for the new downtown arena. Watson had opposed an ear=
lier deal to use public money to build the facility.=20
Watson has also been a strong supporter of Houston's bid to land the 2012 O=
lympic Games.=20
To date, the foundation has awarded more than $1.8 million in scholarships =
to students pursuing business degree at Texas colleges and universities.=20

Recession, Budget Cuts, Travel Fears To Subdue LME Week
By Mark Long
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

10/19/2001
Dow Jones Commodities Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- The many travails of the metals industry will dampen t=
he spirits of those who make it to the annual round of meetings and parties=
 at London Metal Exchange Week, which starts Monday.=20
In what is expected to be a much smaller group of delegates than usual, con=
versations will be dominated by fears of global recession smothering alread=
y-lousy demand, the increasingly pressing need for production cuts, and the=
 exit of several important participants from the metals business.
Cuts in companies' travel budgets and fears of flying are keeping many of t=
he usual attendees away from London this year, dealers and analysts said.=
=20
"Sentiment is going to be bearish, and we've just heard in the past few day=
s of people who were previously going to come along not coming, largely on =
their companies' advice," said Adam Rowley, an analyst at MacQuarie Bank in=
 London.=20
Indeed, a representative at another major bank said fully half of the guest=
s expected at its satellite activities have canceled.=20
Forecasts for base metals demand and average prices have been widely revise=
d downward in the past few weeks, particularly since the impact of the Sept=
. 11 terror attacks accelerated the world economic slowdown.=20
Just this week, Standard Bank ratcheted its expectations lower, with LME ca=
sh copper - a bellwether for the complex that's especially sensitive to ind=
ustrial productivity - seen at $1,350 a metric ton in December 2001, down f=
rom an actual year-to-date average in 2001 of $1,619/ton.=20
Producers are reluctant to cut copper output, and declining Chinese imports=
 and weak demand in the west mean there is still further downside potential=
 for copper, Standard Bank analyst Robin Bhar said.=20
With demand for base metals slumping so sharply, eyes have been turning to =
the producers to make moves on the supply side.=20
In copper, analysts say U.S. producers are the most likely to cut back, as =
the recent strength in the dollar hits their bottom line the hardest. Howev=
er, a recent slump in energy prices has kept the wolves from the door so fa=
r for some producers in an industry that's energy-intensive.=20
Elsewhere, zinc is suffering from a supply glut that recently pressured the=
 LME three-month price to a 17-year low of $766 a metric ton.=20
The troubles of Australian zinc producer Pasminco Ltd. (A.PAS) will surely =
be a hot topic, following the company's move to voluntary administration du=
e to its large debt load, dealers said.=20
But aside from all the market concerns, the most worrisome topic will likel=
y be the recent succession of companies bailing out of or reducing their co=
mmitment to the metals business, market participants said.=20
In the past week, N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd. quit the base metals business=
 and ScotiaMocatta - the metals trading arm of the Bank of Nova Scotia (T.B=
NS) - removed itself from open-outcry ring trade at the LME. Earlier this m=
onth, Enron Metals said it would cut staff by 10%-20% in Europe, and all th=
ese moves follow Mitsui Bussan Commodities Ltd. ditching its market-making =
activities in the metals business earlier this year.=20
Who's next?=20
"It could be anyone," is the refrain from nearly all market participants su=
rveyed.=20
-By Mark Long, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 7842 9356; mark.long@dowjones=
.com

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09

HC to hear DPC's plea

10/19/2001
The Times of India
Copyright (C) 2001 The Times of India; Source: World Reporter (TM)

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court will, on December 11, begin hearing a petitio=
n filed by Enron-promoted Dhabol Power Company (DPC), challenging the juris=
diction of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) to adju=
dicate the US-based multinational's dispute with Maharashtra State Electric=
ity Board (MSEB).=20
A division bench headed by Justice Ajit Shah decided to hear the matter at =
a stretch for a week beginning from December 11. The court permitted MERC m=
embers P. Subrahmanyam and Venkat Chary to be impleaded as respondents. The=
y have been asked to file affidavits by November 9.
The multinational power giant had levelled certain allegations of bias agai=
nst an MERC member Jayant Deo. Mr Deo urged the court that he would like to=
 recluse himself from the proceedings.=20
DPC was allowed to amend its main petition in view of the allegations level=
led against Mr Deo and were asked to amend it within week.=20
In his affidavit replying to allegations of bias by the DPC, Mr Deo said he=
 was neutral in his stand as a MERC member.=20
The court has made it clear that when the hearing in the case commences, tw=
o intervening parties, US Exim Bank and a consortium of 11 offshore lenders=
 of DPC would not be allowed to make any pleadings. The court, however, sai=
d they would be permitted to assist the court by making oral submissions.

Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09
danny.mccarty@enron.com, stephen.dowd@enron.com