Message-ID: <3863086.1075853275145.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: richard.sanders@enron.com
To: rcarroll@bracepatt.com
Subject: Re: Chargeback Complaint Case
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Richard B Sanders
X-To: "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>@ENRON
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

file it but check w/Carl Ekland at Leboef in Denver to make sure we 
understand the risk



	"Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>
	04/05/2001 11:00 AM
		 
		 To: <david.meyer@avistacorp.com>, <nolan.steiner@avistacorp.com>, 
<rich.stevens@avistacorp.com>, <dvermillion@avistaenergy.com>, "Andrea 
Settanni" <asettanni@bracepatt.com>, "Dan Watkiss" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com>, 
"Kimberly Curry" <kcurry@bracepatt.com>, <GFergus@brobeck.com>, 
<andrzej_kabarowski@cargill.com>, <psteele@coral-energy.com>, 
<rreilley@coral-energy.com>, <cyoder@enron.com>, <jhartso@enron.com>, 
<michael.tribolet@enron.com>, <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>, 
<Ebiery@fulbright.com>, <fyanney@fulbright.com>, <tfreiberg@fulbright.com>, 
<jfrizzell@gibbs-bruns.com>, <sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com>, <CEKLUND@LLGM.COM>, 
<DWHITLEY@LLGM.COM>, <EHUFF@LLGM.COM>, <JKLAUBER@LLGM.COM>, 
<JRNELSON@LLGM.COM>, <gerspamer@mofo.com>, <kirvin@mofo.com>, 
<kzeitlin@mofo.com>, <Pmar@mofo.com>, <rloeffler@mofo.com>, 
<jmcgrane@morganlewis.com>, <mgriffen@morganlewis.com>, <bcurrey@omm.com>, 
<jstamper@omm.com>, <mawilliams@omm.com>, <john.fryer@PacifiCorp.com>, 
<hydeefeldstein@paulhastings.com>, <Timothy.Bolden@pinnaclewest.com>, 
<dmperlman@powersrc.com>, <rosteen@powersrc.com>, <hao@quinnemanuel.com>, 
<dgarber@sempra.com>, <wdsmith@sempra.com>, <rbeitler@sempratrading.com>, 
<PARAMFJORD@stoel.com>, <rcjosephson@stoel.com>, <SJKAPLAN@stoel.com>, 
<awells@strook.com>, <ayudkowsky@strook.com>, <cfr@vnf.com>, <gdb@vnf.com>, 
<hes@vnf.com>, <jrr@vnf.com>
		 cc: <Andrew.Haller@PacifiCorp.com>
		 Subject: Chargeback Complaint Case


PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

As many of you probably know by now, our chargeback case is scheduled for 
next week's FERC agenda.  Thus, if its not too late already, it is imperative 
that we file our answer to the PX's answer ASAP.  In this regard, no party 
filed a reply yesterday in opposition to the PX's motion to the bankruptcy 
court to lift the automatic stay.  It is my understanding that a proposed 
order is circulating among applicable bankruptcy counsel.  If all counsel 
sign today, the PX intends to file it with the court tomorrow and we could 
conceivably get an order from the court tomorrow modifying the stay.

I am advised, however, that if not all counsel are available to sign the 
proposed order today, the PX intends to simply file the proposed order with 
the court tomorrow.  In this event, under local rules, the court must wait 
seven days before entering an order modifying the stay.  Of course, this will 
be after FERC's meeting next week.

Assuming that an order is not issued tomorrow, the question for the group is 
whether we should file our answer tomorrow in any event.  The theory would be 
that since the debtor itself sought to modify the stay so as to permit 
litigation of the chargeback proceeding to continue, no party opposed the 
motion, and the debtor filed a proposed order with the court to modify the 
stay, any violation of the automatic stay would be technical at best, and 
unlikely to be raised by the PX in the bankruptcy proceeding.  (This argument 
would be enhanced if the PX requests the court, when it eventually enters its 
order, to do so retroactively to April 6).

I would like to hear from the parties (including bankruptcy counsel) whether 
they endorse or oppose this approach.  Thanks.  Ron

P.S.  if you are aware of any members of our group that have been left off 
this email, please let me know.

