Something for us to talk about during our next staff meeting.
There are three projects which have significant cash flow problems and thus=  difficulties in meeting debt obligations: these are: SECLP, Panama and Gaz= a.
In the past, as I suppose we have done in Dabhol, we have taken the pos= ition that we would not inject cash into these companies and would be prepa= red to face a default and possible acceleration of the loans.
SECLP has be= en the biggest issue/problem.
Panama is much less (a few million of floati= ng of our receivables from the company) would be sufficient to meet the cas= h crunch in April of this year.
Note that, in Panama, the debt is fully gu= aranteed by the government and is non-recoursed to the operating company, B= LM.
In the past, we have discussed letting the debt default, which would c= ause the bank to potentially seek complete payment and acceleration from th= e GoPanama.
The reason: the vast majority of BLM's problems stem from acti= ons taken by the regulator that have effectively amended our PPA's with pri= vate parties; those actions resulted in significant loss of revenues, which=  although today have stopped or have been limited, have left a "mark" on th= e company's liquidity position.
=20  Now the question is: come April of 2002, should any of our actions in Panam= a or decisions related thereto (which we would have otherwise taken or made= ) be affected in any way by either the proposed merger or an effort by Enro= n to preserve efforts to re-establish investor/creditor confidence?
The sa= me could go for SECLP and Gaza.
This is simply an overall "guidance" question.
Let's take it up during our=  staff meeting next week, if that's ok with you.
Many thanks, Mariella

Confidential - Decision tree on projects
Something for us to talk about during our next staff meeting.
There are three projects which have significant cash flow problems and thus= difficulties in meeting debt obligations: these are: SECLP, Panama and Gaz= a.
In the past, as I suppose we have done in Dabhol, we have taken the pos= ition that we would not inject cash into these companies and would be prepa= red to face a default and possible acceleration of the loans.
SECLP has be= en the biggest issue/problem.
Panama is much less (a few million of floati= ng of our receivables from the company) would be sufficient to meet the cas= h crunch in April of this year.
Note that, in Panama, the debt is fully gu= aranteed by the government and is non-recoursed to the operating company, B= LM.
In the past, we have discussed letting the debt default, which would c= ause the bank to potentially seek complete payment and acceleration from th= e GoPanama.
The reason: the vast majority of BLM's problems stem from acti= ons taken by the regulator that have effectively amended our PPA's with pri= vate parties; those actions resulted in significant loss of revenues, which= although today have stopped or have been limited, have left a "mark" on th= e company's liquidity position.
=<NUMBER> Now the question is: come April of <NUMBER>, should any of our actions in Panam= a or decisions related thereto (which we would have otherwise taken or made= ) be affected in any way by either the proposed merger or an effort by Enro= n to preserve efforts to re-establish investor/creditor confidence?
The sa= me could go for SECLP and Gaza.
This is simply an overall "guidance" question.
Let's take it up during our= staff meeting next week, if that's ok with you.
Many thanks, Mariella
ng receivables difficulties meeting default ause vast majority enro projects significant panama gaz past debt obligations seclp dabhol taken number actions