09.02.2013 Views

Enron Corp. - University of California | Office of The President

Enron Corp. - University of California | Office of The President

Enron Corp. - University of California | Office of The President

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

In essence, his report concluded, <strong>Enron</strong> did nothing in return for the money<br />

it received from the Connecticut agency except promise to pay it back, with interest.<br />

"This $220 million was an infusion <strong>of</strong> cash when <strong>Enron</strong> needed it," he said.<br />

571. <strong>Enron</strong>, CRRA and CL&P had entered into various agreements which provided that<br />

CL&P would fund a $220 million buy-down <strong>of</strong> an 85 electric purchase agreement for output from<br />

the electric generation facility. CL&P paid the $220 million directly to <strong>Enron</strong> Power Marketing, Inc.<br />

("EPMI"), an <strong>Enron</strong> subsidiary, which EPMI was to repay to CRRA in monthly installments similar<br />

to an unsecured loan at an imputed annual rate <strong>of</strong> 7% over the life <strong>of</strong> the contract. EPMI nominally<br />

took on certain additional obligations to buy and sell energy to or from CRRA and to deliver power<br />

to CL&P. However, EPMI assumed no real performance obligations or risks for the production, sale<br />

or purchase <strong>of</strong> electric energy or steam.<br />

572. Specifically, <strong>Enron</strong> or EPMI’s involvement consisted <strong>of</strong> an agreement to make<br />

payments to CRRA, at the beginning <strong>of</strong> each month through 5/31/12, irrespective <strong>of</strong> CRRA’s<br />

performance under any <strong>of</strong> its agreements with EPMI.<br />

573. <strong>Enron</strong>'s financial statements for the quarters ended 3/31/01, 6/30/01, and 9/30/01<br />

were false and misleading because the transaction described above was in fact a loan and not an<br />

energy contract for which revenue could be recognized. <strong>The</strong> reality was that EPMI was an incidental<br />

party to the production, purchase and sale <strong>of</strong> electricity or steam from CRRA to CL&P. For<br />

instance: (1) the price <strong>of</strong> power purchased by EPMI was exactly the same as the price <strong>of</strong> power<br />

which it paid; (2) invoicing each month related to power purchases was initiated by CRRA billing<br />

EPMI, which in turn billed CL&P and was timed to allow for EPMI to make payment to CRRA one<br />

day following EPMI’s receipt <strong>of</strong> payment from CL&P – essentially a wash transaction leaving <strong>Enron</strong><br />

or EPMI with only the obligation to make its required monthly payments under the two agreements.<br />

- 380 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!