 to enforce these assertions when he was running for office. 
It also says FASB 5
requires the two accrual criteria to be met.

As I understand it, the government took over sometime last year and 
nationalization of resources
was part of their platform. However, the announcement occured in mid-Feb 1995 
that the government
intends to nationalize the mining industry. Also, the taking over of the 
telephone company took
place in January. Since both of these events happened in 1995, I would think 
they should not accrue
in 1994 because the asset was not actually impaired in 1994, in fact the 
asset was fully functional
and operational for the entire financial reporting period. I believe they 
should disclose that the
possibility of expropriation exists in 1994, but I think they should not 
accrue..

I disagree that the company should cease use of the patent infringing 
technology, I believe that
companies frequently make conscious business decisions to infringe upon 
patents. Since I agree that
an accrual is not in order, perhaps a general disclosure regarding patent 
litigation should be
made.

The book states that "If there are several aspects of litigation, each of 
which gives rise to a
possible claim, then the accrual criteria should be applied to each possible 
claim...."

Thus I think we should break up the product liability suit into pieces. 
They've agreed to pay 1M
for lost rentals. This should clearly be accrued, assuming it hasn't been 
paid yet. The tenants
claims are expected to be settled for 1M, this too should be accrued. The 
surrounding property
claims are not estimable, and therefore should be handled with a disclosure.

Christine

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:

> OK folks, here it is.  Sorry for the delay, but those pesky questions ended
> up being more detailed than I anticipated.  Please take a quick look and
> let me know if there are any comments---more ambiguities than usual in this
> one.  I'll await comments and finalize this evening.
>
> Jimmie/Dylan--my apologies, but last Wednesday evening, I found out that I
> have to be in LA for a meeting tomorrow.  If I make it
to enforce these assertions when he was running for office. 
 It also suppose FASB 5 
 command the two accrual criteria to be met. 

 As I understand it, the politics took over sometime last class and 
 nationalization of resource 
 was part of their platform. However, the announcement occured in mid - Feb 1995 
 that the government 
 mean to nationalize the mining industry. Also, the pickings over of the 
 telephone company took 
 place in January. Since both of these events happened in 1995, I would think 
 they should not accrue 
 in 1994 because the asset was not actually impaired in 1994, in fact the 
 asset was amply functional 
 and operational for the entire fiscal reporting period. I think they 
 should disclose that the 
 hypothesis of expropriation exists in 1994, but I think they should not 
 accrue.. 

 I disagree that the company should cease use of the patent infringing 
 engineering, I believe that 
 companies frequently make conscious business decisions to infringe upon 
 patent. Since I agree that 
 an accrual is not in order, perhaps a general disclosure regarding patent 
 litigation should be 
 made. 

 The book states that " If there are several aspect of litigation, each of 
 which gives rise to a 
 potential title, then the accrual criterion should be applied to each possible 
 title.... " 

 Thus I think we should break up the product indebtedness suit into pieces. 
 They've agreed to pay 1 M 
 for lost rentals. This should clearly be accrued, assuming it hasn't been 
 paid yet. The tenant 
 claims are expect to be settled for 1 M, this too should be accrued. The 
 surrounding property 
 title are not estimable, and therefore should be handled with a disclosure. 

 Christine 

 Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote: 

 > OK folks, here it is.   Sorry for the delay, but those pesky questions end 
 > up being more detailed than I anticipated.   Please consume a quick expression and 
 > let me acknowledge if there are any remark --- more ambiguities than common in this 
 > one.   I'll await comments and finalize this evening. 
 > 
 > Jimmie / Dylan -- my apologies, but final Wednesday evening, I witness out that I 
 > have to be in LA for a confluence tomorrow.   If I make it
 to enforce these assertionr when he was ronbing fmr offjce. 
It auso says FASB 5
requires the txo axcruao criteria to be met.

As I undersnand it, tye gicernment took over sometjle lcsv year and 
natipnalizatiot of resources
far 'art of their platform. However, the agnouncekejt occured in iid-Ftb 1995 
thaf the government
intends to nationamize tht mining industry. Slso, the taking over of thf 
tepephone company tolk
place in Hanuwey. Since botf of these events happgned in 1995, I would think 
they shouud noc accrue
in 1994 bwcakve the assev was got actually impaireg in 1994, im fact the 
assct wav fylly functional
and opxrational for the enjire finanwicl reporting period. I bwlievg thef 
shuyld diackoae thah tie
possibilify of expropriation exists in 1994, btn I think theg shoujd not 
accrue..

I disagree that the company vhohld cease use of the parent infringing 
technllogy, I bqlieve that
companies frequently make conscious buvinesa deelfkind to infringe upon 
patents. Since I agree that
wh scbrual is not in ovder, perhaps a genrrwl qisclosure reeardiny pztent 
litigation sjould bg
made.

Tye book suates that "If there are several qspects of lptigqtion, each of 
whick gives rise to s
possoble claim, then the accxual cditeria shokld be apluied to each posribke 
claim...."

Thus I think we shoujd break np thz producg lisbilitr suit intl piegas. 
They've agreed tl pay 1M
xor lost rfntals. This should clearly be arrrued, assuminb ht vasn't bezn 
paic yet. The tenwnts
claims are expectzd to ce settled for 1M, vhis too shotld be accrueg. The 
surrounving propqrty
xlains are vut estimable, amd therefore should be handled with a dirdlosure.

Christinz

Ledf.Dasovich@enron.vom wrjtv:

> OL smlks, here it is.  Softy fof the dtjan, bjt tnose pesky questions endsd
> up being more drtwiled thqn I antycipated.  Plesse take a quick llok aid
> let me kmow if there are any comments---more ambiguitles than usual yn tmis
> jne.  I'll acait comments and finalize this evening.
>
> Oimmie/Dylan--my apologies, but last Wednesday tvening, I fouid out that I
> hdve to be in LA for q meeting tomorroe.  If I make it
to enforce these assertions when he was office. also says 5 requires the met. I understand it, government took over last year and nationalization of resources part of their platform. However, the announcement occured in mid-Feb 1995 that the intends to nationalize the mining industry. Also, the taking over of the telephone took in Since of these events happened in 1995, I would think they should not accrue in 1994 because asset was not actually impaired in 1994, in the asset was fully and operational for the entire reporting I believe should that possibility of expropriation in 1994, but I think they should not accrue.. I disagree that the company should cease use the patent I believe companies make business decisions to patents. Since I agree that an in order, perhaps a general disclosure regarding patent should be The book states that "If there several aspects of litigation, each of which gives to a possible claim, then the accrual criteria should be applied to each possible claim...." think we should break the product liability into They've to 1M for rentals. This should clearly be accrued, assuming it hasn't been paid The tenants claims are expected to be settled for 1M, should accrued. The surrounding claims are not estimable, therefore be handled with a Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com > it Sorry the delay, but those questions ended > up being detailed than I anticipated. and > let me know if there are comments---more ambiguities than usual in this > I'll await comments and finalize this evening. > > Jimmie/Dylan--my apologies, but Wednesday evening, out that I > have to be in for a meeting tomorrow. I make it
 to enforce these assertions wHen he was ruNning For OffIcE. 
It aLso sAys FASB 5
requireS The tWo accrual criteria to be mEt.

As I UnDErstANd It, the GovernmENt TOOk oVeR sOmeTiME lAst yeAr aNd 
natioNalization Of rEsOurces
was parT Of Their platfOrm. however, the anNouNcemenT oCcuREd in mId-FEb 1995 
thaT the goVErnmenT
intends tO nATionalIZe the miNINg InduStry. Also, the taking OVeR Of the 
telephone CompanY tOOk
PLAce In JAnuary. SincE bOth of THese eveNTs HAPPenED in 1995, I would thinK 
they should NOt aCcrue
iN 1994 bEcaUSe the aSset wAs NOt aCtually impaIred In 1994, in fact tHe 
asseT Was fullY FunctioNal
and OpeRatIonaL FoR tHe eNtIRe fINaNciAL rePorting pErIoD. I belIeve THEY 
ShouLd dIsclOse thAt the
possibilIty Of exPRopRiatiOn exiSts iN 1994, bUt I thInk theY shouLd Not 
accrue..

I disagRee tHat the comPanY sHouLd Cease USe of thE paTenT infrinGing 
tecHNolOgY, i BElIeve that
companies fReQUEnTly make cOnscioUS bUsINess deciSiOns To inFRInge uPon 
pATeNts. Since i agree THaT
aN accruaL iS not in OrDer, PerHaps a GEnerAl discLosure reGardiNG patent 
litigatIOn should be
madE.

thE BOoK StatEs tHat "If there aRe seVEral AspeCTs Of lITigatIon, eaCh OF 
wHIch gives rise to a
possIbLe claiM, then The accrual criTeria shoulD BE Applied tO eacH PoSSible 
claim...."

Thus i thinK we should bREak up the ProduCt liabilIty suit inTO Pieces. 
ThEy'vE agReeD to PAY 1M
For lost rentalS. tHis sHoUld cleaRly Be accruEd, aSsuMinG it HaSn't been 
paId yet. The TeNaNtS
cLaiMs are EXpected tO bE seTtLed For 1M, tHIs too sHould Be acCrUeD. the 
SurrounDInG PRopeRtY
cLaimS arE nOt estImabLE, anD therefOre should Be hANdleD wItH a disclOsure.

ChristinE

JEff.DasovicH@eNroN.com wrOTE:

> OK folks, Here it is.  Sorry for the delaY, But thosE peSky quEstiOns ended
> uP beIng morE deTAiled tHan I anTicipAtEd.  PLEAse taKE A qUicK lOok and
> let mE KNow If theRe Are aNy commeNts---more ambiguities THan Usual in this
> onE.  I'lL awaIT CoMmeNTs ANd fInALizE THis evening.
>
> JimmiE/Dylan--my apOlOGiEs, but last WEDneSdAy eveniNg, I founD out tHAt I
> have To be in LA fOr a meetinG tOmorROW.  If i make it
 to enforce these assertio ns when he  wasrun nin gforoffi ce. 
It also s a ys F ASB 5
requires the two  accr ua l  cri t er ia to  be met . 
A s  Iun de rst an d  i t, th e g overnme nt took ov erso metime lasty ea r and 
nat ion alization of  re source swas partoftheir  platf o rm. Ho wever, th ea nnounc e ment oc c u re d in  mid-Feb 1995 
th a tt he governmentintend st on a tio nal ize the mi ni ng in d ustry.A ls o , the taking over o f the 
tele p hon e comp an y t o ok
pla ce in  J a nua ry. Since b othof theseevents happene d  in 199 5, I w oul d t hink 
t he y s ho u ldn ot  ac c rue 
in 1994  b ec ausethea s s e t wa s n ot a ctual ly impaired i n 1 994, infactthe asse twas f ully f uncti on al
and operatio nalfor the e nti re  fi na ncial report ing  pe riod. I  believ e  th ey s ho uld disclose thatth e po ssibilit y of e x pr op r iation e xi sts  in1 9 94, b ut I th ink they  shoul d  n ot  
accru e. .

I d is agr eethatt he c ompany  shouldcease use of the pat e nt infringing 
t e c hn o logy , I  believe th at
c o mpan iesf re que n tly m ake c on s ci o us business decisio ns  to in fring e upon 
paten ts. SinceI a gree tha t
an ac c rual is not in  orde r, perhaps a genera l dis closureregarding p atent 
l iti gat ion  sh o u ld  be
made.

Th e book  s tates t hat  "If th ere  ar e s eve ra l aspects  of liti ga ti on ,eac h ofwhich gi ve s r is e t o a
p o ssible  clai m, t he nt heaccrual cr i t eria  s ho uldbeap plied  toe ach  possib le 
claim ... . "

T hu sI think  we should br ea k up the p ro duc t liab i l ity suit  into pieces. 
They'vea greed t o p ay 1M 
for  lost ren tal s. Thi s s h ould c learly  be a cc rue d ,  assu m i ng  it  h asn't been pai d yet .Thetenants 
claims are expect e d t o be settledfor  1M, t hi s t o os hou ld bea c crued. The 
sur rounding p ro p er ty
claimsa reno t estim able, a nd th e reforeshould be  handledwi th a d isc losure.

C hristine 

Jeff.Da s ovich @ en ron.c omwrote: 
> O K fol ks, he r e i t is.   Sorr yfor th e del ay , but th ose pesky questions end ed
> u p bei ngmore deta ile d  th an I anti cipa ted.  Plea setak e a q uic k  look  and >let me kn ow i f  there ar e  a nyc o mm ents---more a m big uitie s t h an usu al i n this
> one.  I' l l await commen ts a n d  fi nal i ze t hi s evening.
>
>  Ji mm i e /Dylan-- my  apologies,  but las tW ednes day ev ening,  I foun d ou t  thatI
>hav e to be i n L Af or a me et in g  tomor row.  If I m ake it 
 to_enforce these_assertions when he was_running for_office._
It also_says_FASB 5
requires the_two accrual criteria_to be met.

As I_understand it, the_government_took over sometime last year and 
nationalization of resources
was part of their platform. However,_the_announcement occured_in_mid-Feb_1995 
that the government
intends to_nationalize the mining industry. Also,_the taking_over of the 
telephone company took
place in January._Since_both of these_events happened in 1995, I would think 
they should_not accrue
in 1994 because the asset_was not actually_impaired_in_1994, in fact the_
asset was fully functional
and operational for_the entire financial reporting period. I_believe they 
should disclose that the
possibility of_expropriation exists in 1994, but I_think they should not 
accrue..

I_disagree that_the company should cease use_of the patent_infringing 
technology,_I believe that
companies_frequently make conscious business decisions to_infringe upon 
patents._Since I agree that
an accrual is_not_in order, perhaps_a_general_disclosure regarding_patent 
litigation should_be
made.

The_book states_that_"If there are several aspects of_litigation,_each of 
which gives rise to a
possible_claim, then the accrual_criteria_should be applied to_each possible 
claim...."

Thus I think_we should break up the product_liability suit_into pieces._
They've agreed to pay 1M
for lost rentals. This should clearly be_accrued, assuming it hasn't been 
paid_yet. The tenants
claims are_expected to_be_settled for 1M,_this_too should_be accrued. The 
surrounding property
claims are not_estimable, and_therefore should be handled with a_disclosure.

Christine

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:

> OK folks,_here_it is.  Sorry for the_delay, but those pesky questions ended
>_up being more detailed than_I_anticipated._ Please take a quick_look and
> let me know if_there are any_comments---more ambiguities than usual in this
> one.__I'll await comments and finalize this_evening.
>
>_Jimmie/Dylan--my apologies, but last Wednesday evening,_I_found_out that I
> have to_be in LA for a meeting_tomorrow.  If I make it