Paul:  Here is the FSA letter with my comments inserted in red.
I have tried to  make it a bit stronger by deleting references to our positions being merely  "arguable."
The language I deleted in the first part of 3.4 I thought was  unnecessary and just point out doors that may remain open for the SFA.
The  language added in 3.5 was an attempt to show how much EEFT does vs.  EnronOnline.
Is there a reason we are referring to Net Works rather than EnronOnline LLC?
It is also a Delaware limited liability company.
Are we afraid it may have a   I also wonder if the discussion of EPOL's involvement in 2.2 and 4.2 is  really needed since the ETA is entered into on EEFT's behalf.
If this has  not yet been raised by the SFA, it doesn't seem necessary to flag it for  them.
My position would be that EEFT is a party to that agreement whenever  it is necessary in connection with an investment.
Mark

FSA Letter
Paul: Here is the FSA letter with my comments inserted in red.
I have tried to make it a bit stronger by deleting references to our positions being merely "arguable."
The language I deleted in the first part of <NUMBER> I thought was unnecessary and just point out doors that may remain open for the SFA.
The language added in <NUMBER> was an attempt to show how much EEFT does vs. <COMPANY>Online.
Is there a reason we are referring to Net Works rather than <COMPANY>Online LLC?
It is also a Delaware limited liability company.
Are we afraid it may have a I also wonder if the discussion of EPOL's involvement in <NUMBER> and <NUMBER> is really needed since the ETA is entered into on EEFT's behalf.
If this has not yet been raised by the SFA, it doesn't seem necessary to flag it for them.
My position would be that EEFT is a party to that agreement whenever it is necessary in connection with an investment.
Mark
raised sfa doesn necessary connection paul fsa letter company online llc tried make comments inserted red stronger deleting references arguable language flag position eeft