Koch CFTC Emails

Ogilvie, Clark From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:15 PM To: Ogilvie, Clark Subject RE: Awesome. That was always my favorite one of those conferences. From: OgileE, Dark mallto:Clelvie@CEI C.gov Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:14 PM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Thanks. Am down in BOCA. On: 10 March 2015 12:13, "Zerzan, Gregory" wrote: Hi Clark- hope you are well. FYI, as you have probably seen the Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms submitted a publicly available comment, located on the Commission website at regarding Rule 1.35. This publicly available comment contains the following comment- "The Working Group notes that H.R. 4413 retained the requirement that records kept under regulation 1.35 be identi?able and searchable by transaction. However, the current proposal eliminates such requirement, and the Working Group supports this proposal to do so. Should the Commission adopt this recommendation, revised regulation 1.35, as amended by the NOPR, would read: Provided, however, for a member of a designated contract market or swap execution facility that is not registered or required to register with the Commission in any capacity, records required to be kept pursuant to paragraph of this section shall be limited to a written record re?ecting the ?nal agreement of the parties with respect to each transaction In a contract for future delivery, option on a future, swap, swaption, trade option, or related cash or forward transaction." Best wishes, Greg 10f3

29ilvie, Clark From: Zenan, Gregory <GregZerzan@kochps.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10. 2015 12:13 PM To: Ogilvie. Clark Hi Clark- I hope you are well. FYI, as you have probably seen the Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms submitted a publicly available comment, located on the Commission website at regarding Rule 1.35. This publicly available comment contains the following comment- "The Working Group notes that H.R. 4413 retained the requirement that records kept under regulation 1.35 be identi?able and searchable by transaction. However, the current proposal eliminates such requirement, and the Working Group supports this proposal to do so. Should the Commission adopt this recommendation, revised regulation 1.35, as amended by the NDPR, would read: Provided, however, for a member of a designated contract market or swap execution facility that is not registered or required to register with the Commission in any capacity, records required to be kept pursuant to paragraph [aiill of this section shall be limited to a written record re?ecting the ?nal agreement of the parties with respect to each transaction in a contract for future delivery, option on a future, swap, swaption, trade option, or related cash or forward transaction." Best wishes, Greg 20f3

Non Responsive 30f3

Goggins. Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zer2an@kochps.com> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:00 AM To: Gog-gins, Jason Congrats on the new job! We'll miss you on the Hill but the Commissioner made a great move bringing you on board. Please let me know if I can be helpful in anyway- Greg 2 1 01?18

Goggins, Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Thursday. September 18, 2014 6:16 PM To: Goggins, Jason Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Jason- It was great to see you today. We would be honored if you and the Commissioner had to stop by our of?ces in Houston during your trip there in October. If that is a possibility would you mind letting us know of some times that work? Best wishes, Greg 20f18

Goggins, Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:26 PM To: Goggins, Jason Attachments: Aggregation Roundtable Comment Letter- 7.3.14 Hi Jason- I hope you are well. As you know, last August the Working Group of Commercial Energy ?rms filed the attached public comment in response to the staff questions. With respect to the question of aggregation of owned entities where there is greater than 50% ownership, the publicly available letter says the following: QUESTION THREE. Should the Commission consider granting an aggregation exemption to the separatel'y organized operating units of a commerciai enterprise, regardless of ownership interests? Should such exemption be conditioned on independence of control of trading decisions, similar to the exemption for an eligible entity with an in dependent account controlier? Working Group Response: As noted above, the correct analytical lens to use in determining if aggregation relief is appropriate is whether common trading-level control or trading coordination exists. If control or coordination is absent, then aggregation relief should be available. The level of common ownership between the entities at issue should not be relevant. To reflect this concept in its regulations, the Working Group suggests that the Commission adopt regulatory language similar to the language set forth below. The Working Group modeled the language after the existing Independent Account Controller exemption. Accounts of entities under common ownership need not be aggregated where the entities are excluded affiliates. An excluded affiliate is a separately organized legal entity? (1) That is specifically authorized by a parent entity to control trading decisions on its own behalf, without the day-to-day direction of the parent entity or any other affiliate; Over whose trading the parent entity maintains only such minimum control as is consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities to fulfill its duty to supervise diligently the trading of the excluded affiliate or as is consistent with such other legal rights or obligations which may be incumbent upon the parent entity to fulfill (including policies and procedures to manage enterprise-wide risk); That trades independently of the parent entity and ofany other affiliate; and That has no knowledge of trading decisions of the parent or any other affiliate. This language is also similar to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulatory barriers on the sharing of information between franchised affiliates and affiliated market?regulated entitiesm Specifically, under those requirements, to the maximum extent practical, the employees of a market-regulated affiliate must operate separately from the employees of any af?liated franchised public utility. However, the entities are permitted to share support employees and senior officers and boards of directors as long as the shared officers and boards of directors do not participate in directing, organizing, or executing generation or market functions. In addition, permissiny shared support 1 30f18

employees and senior officers and board of directors may have access to information covered by the information sharing prohibition. The Working Group requests that the Commission follow its approach with respect to the 50 Percent Requirements?' and approach with respect to shared support employees and allow majority-owned af?liates to share risk management and other personnel who do not have trading-level control and enjoy aggregation relief. Finally, any aggregation exemption ?ling, whether for entities with between 10 percent and 50 percent common ownership or entities with more than 50 percent common ownership, should be a notice filing that does not require affirmative Commission action to become valid. In addition, such a ?ling should be permitted to be made by one entity within a corporate group on behalf of any other af?liates for which aggregation relief is being requested. The combination of a notice filing and the ability to make one ?ling on behalf of a corporate enterprise will significantly reduce the Commission's burden when administering an aggregation relief regime. The ability to make a single notice ?ling to receive aggregation relief will also reduce the compliance burden for market participants and, more importantly; will provide market participants a quick and ef?cient route to relief. In particular, a notice ?ling procedure that allows aggregation relief when the ?ling is made will eliminate regulatory and business concerns that would arise if Commission af?rmation was required for market participants to receive that relief. ?1 See 13 can. 35.39 {2014]. See Proposed Aggregation Rule at 63,952. 40f18

Goggins. Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zerzan@kochps.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 2:17 PM To: Goggins, Jason Attachments: 59647AlexanderH oltan.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Jason- I hope you are well. FYI, you may recall that the has previously received comments on the aggregation proposal for position limits from the Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms. These comments are publicly available on the Commission?s website, and include the following: D. The Commission Should Exclude Pension Plans from the Aggregation Requirement Outright. The Commission's attempt to address the treatment of pension plans under the Aggregation NOPR is an improvement from the May Aggregation Proposal. However, if the proposed exemption utilizing the Independent Account Controller exemption were to be included in the ?nal rule, many plans would be unable to utilize the exemption and both retirement plan and plan sponsor investments would be disrupted. By providing an exemption for pension plans within the IAC exemption, the Aggregation NDPR creates an unnecessarily complicated and potentially unavailable route to relief to entities that are, by law, required to operate only in the best interests of plan beneficiaries and are thus legally incapable of being used to further the interests of the pension plan's sponsor. As such, the Working Group requests that the Commission provide an explicit aggregation exemption for retirement plans. The proposed IAC aggregation exemption may be unavailable to pension plans for two main reasons. First, the exemption does not extend relief to several common plan structures, such as those structured under a master trust, or foreign retirement plans which are not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 Second, a common structure for U.S. pension plans is to have employees of the sponsor serve as members of the investment committee of the plan, which is a separate legal entity from and is unaf?liated with the sponsor. This is done for a variety of reasons, including to minimize costs and to ensure that plan assets are appropriately invested. These employees typically have an investment background and may serve in trading-related roles for the plan sponsor. As such, these employees may have knowledge of both the plan and the sponsor's trading activity. This knowledge may prevent the plan and the sponsor from utilizing the proposed aggregation exemption for pension plans.14 In the absence of a speci?c exemption for pension plans that does not rely on the IAC exemption, certain plans and their sponsor will have to aggregate their commodity positions. This will put the ?duciaries of these plans in the untenable position of having to account for the trading strategies of the sponsor, which may not be in the best interests of plan participants. Making a trade based on anything other than the best interests of the plan is inconsistent with the investment committee members? fiduciary duties. Speci?cally, under ERISA Section 406(b], fiduciaries shall not represent a party ?whose interests are adverse to the interest of the When both the plan sponsor and the plan are aggregated and subject to the same limits, it is possible that at some point either the plan or the plan sponsor would have to reduce exposure in order to stay within the limits. This result is unsatisfactory under ERISA.15 In short, requiring a plan sponsor and the plan to aggregate positions establishes a con?ict of interest which did not previously exist. Creating an exemption from the aggregation requirement speci?cally for pension plans will not interfere with the goal of the Commission?s speculative position limits preventing excessive speculation. By exempting a pension plan from aggregation with the plan sponsor, the Commission would simply be acknowledging that such plans are separate and distinct entities and are required by law to operate in the interests of the plan without regard to the interests of the 1 50f18

sponsor. The plan and sponsor would, of course, still be subject to speculative position limits, but such limits would be applicable to the positions of the plan or sponsor and not those of the other entity, over which it exercises no control. 13 if the Commission chooses to adapt the exemption for pension plans contained herein, it would be appropriate to extend the availability of the relief to plans that are structured under a master trust, as well as to foreign plans. The availability of the proposed lAi'.? exemption for pension plans is contingent on the sponsor being excluded from registration as a commodity pool operator under CFTC Regulation 4.5lolf4l. However; plans that are structured under a master trust and foreign plans are not specrficaliy listed under CFT Regulation (which defines exclusions from the definition of "commodity pool operator?), which has led to CFT staff issuing no?octlon letters granting such plans the same treatment as those otherwise listed in the section. if the Commission provides relief for retirement plans, it should extend this relief to both those identified in Rule 4.5 as well as these other types of commonly excluded plans. 14 See Regulation 150.1fell3}. in order to qualin as on me, a person must trade independently of the eligible entity, which in this case would he the plan sponsor. 15 The Working Group notes that the aggregation exemption where information sharing would raise a reasonable risk of the violation of low in proposed Regulation 150.4le{8} would also be unavailable in this circumstance, as the sharing of information between the plan and the sponsor would not violate the law. The trading to avoid exceeding speculative position limits in the aggregate, however, would raise a reasonable risk of violating Section 406 of 60f18

Goggins, Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zerzan@kochps.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:14 PM To: Goggins, Jason Hi Jason- I hope you are well. FYI, as you have probably seen the Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms submitted a publicly available comment, located on the Commission website at regarding Rule 1.35. This publicly available comment contains the following comment "The Working Group notes that HR. 4413 retained the requirement that records kept under regulation 1.35 be identifiable and searchable by transaction. However, the current proposal eliminates such requirement, and the Working Group supports this proposal to do so. Should the Commission adopt this recommendation, revised regulation 1.35, as amended by the NDPR, would read: Provided, however, for a member of a designated contract market or swap execution facility that is not registered or required to register with the Commission in any capacity, records required to be kept pursuant to paragraph {a)(li of this section shall be limited to a written record reflecting the final agreement of the parties with respect to each transaction in a contract for future delivery, option on a future, swap, swaption, trade option, or related cash or forward transaction.? Best wishes, Greg Tof18

Goggins. Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zerzan@kochps.com> Sent: Monday. November 03, 2014 9:44 AM To: Goggins, iason Subject: Futures block sizes Hello Jason- I hope you are well. During our visit last month one ofthe issues we discussed was block size limits for futures transactions. As you know, imposing a CFTC-mandated limit on the types or number of contracts that can be executed off of the central market of an exchange would create problems for companies that use futures markets to hedge. It would do this while creating barriers to the ability of DCMs to create new products as well as limiting the execution options for market users. Since you guys are as well versed in this subject as anyone I won't bore you with things you already know. However I did want to point out some useful points that were raised in the comment process for the proposed rule ?Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets number {Federal Register 75, No. 245, Page 805?2; Vol. 76, No. 53, Page 14825). For instance, CME issued a memo stating: The 85% Rule is arbitrary, not required by The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and would result in the following unintended negative consequences: I hindering the ability of U.S. futures exchanges to successfully develop new products I incentivizing U.S. futures exchanges to list new products outside the I forcing mature and liquid futures contracts off of exchanges and onto SEF or OTC venues,- I increasing margin requirements for ?reclassified contracts? by over 200%; I creating market risk and adverse regulatory and tax consequences for market users; I limiting access to "reclassified" contracts because only Eligible Contract Participants may trade on SEF or OTC venues; and I adversely impacting the CME ClearPort offering, increasing systemic risk and reducing liquidity in US. energy futures. rl=htto%3A 962F%2Fcomments.cftc.gov%2 ngAw& in a separate letter signed by 7 exchanges, including CM E, NYSE Liffe, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange and the Kansas City Board of Trade, it was noted: {Tihe terms of Core Principle 9 do not support the 85% Requirement and the proposal is otherwise inconsistent with the Commodity Exchange Act In fact, Core Principle 9 expressly permits DCMs to allow offw exchange trading without capping the amount of such trading. Trades that are executed outside the centralized market are subject to the regulatory oversight ofthe DCM, as well as the Commission. No evidence has been offered to suggest that these trades, which are submitted to a DCM in accordance with the rules, harm the price discovery process of the centralized market. E4 stv3 u8uk2cVZbU Pbef?lN 1 80f18

And ICE noted in its comment letter: ?The minimum trading threshold set by the Commission would allow only the most liquid contracts to remain as futures. Many current DCM listed contracts would not meet this criterion, including some agricultural contracts." As these and the numerous other comments to the CFTC make clear, imposing an arbitrary number on block transaction size would usurp the ability of DCMs to meet their statutory obligation to ensure fair and competitive markets while offering no clear benefits to market users. We greatly appreciate your office?s continued interest in this topic and we are of course always happy to assist further should the topic come back on the agenda in the future. Thanks again for all your hard work and best wishes, Greg 90f18

Goggins, Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zenan@kochps.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:17 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Thank you Attachments: Aug 4 PL Agg Letter.pdf; Feb 10 PL Agg Letterpdf Hello Jason- Thank you and the Commissioner so much for meeting with us in Houston last week. Our entire team was very grateful for your time and greatly enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the evolution of the markets post Dodd-Frank. I thought you might ?nd interesting the attached letters from the Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms regarding issues surrounding aggregation. I have also pasted below some excerpts from those comment letters. Thank you again for your time and please let me know if we can be of service in any way. Best wishes, Greg An Appropriate Test for When Aggregation Should Be Applied As noted above, the correct analytical lens to use in determining if aggregation relief is appropriate is whether common trading-level control or trading coordination exists. if control or coordination is absent, then aggregation relief should be available. The level of common ownership between the entities at issue should not be relevant. To reflect this concept in its regulations, the Working Group suggests that the Commission adopt regulatory language similar to the language set forth below. The Working Group modeled the language after the existing Independent Account Controller exemption. Accounts of entities under common ownership need not be aggregated where the entities are excluded af?liates. An excluded af?liate is a separately organized legal entity- ll} That is speci?cally authorized by a parent entity to control trading decisions on its own behalf, without the day-to- day direction of the parent entity or any other af?liate; Over whose trading the parent entity maintains only such minimum control as is consistent with its ?duciary responsibilities to ful?ll its duty to supervise diligently the trading of the excluded af?liate or as is consistent with such other legal rights or obligations which may be incumbent upon the parent entity to ful?ll (including policies and procedures to manage enterprise-wide risk}; That trades independently of the parent entity and of any other af?liate,- and That has no knowledge of trading decisions of the parent or any other af?liate. The Commission Should Exclude Pension Plans from the Aggregation Requirement Outright. The Commission's attempt to address the treatment of pension plans under the Aggregation NOPR is an improvement from the May Aggregation Proposal. However, if the proposed exemption utilizing the lndependent Account Controller ("iA exemption were to be included in the ?nal rule, many plans would be unable to utilize the exemption and both retirement plan and plan sponsor investments would be disrupted. By providing an exemption for pension plans within the IAC exemption, the Aggregation NOPR creates an unnecessarily complicated and potentially unavailable route to relief to entities that are, by law, required to operate only in the best interests of plan bene?ciaries and are thus legally incapable of being used to further the interests of the pension plan?s sponsor. As such, the Working Group requests that the Commission provide an explicit aggregation exemption for retirement plans. 10 Of?lS

The proposed IAC aggregation exemption may be unavailable to pension plans for two main reasons. First, the exemption does not extend relief to several common plan structures, such as those structured under a master trust, or foreign retirement plans which are not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 19m Second, a common structure for U.S. pension plans is to have employees of the sponsor serve as members of the investment committee ofthe plan, which is a separate legal entity from and is unaf?liated with the Sponsor. This is done for a variety of reasons, including to minimize costs and to ensure that plan assets are appropriately invested. These employees typically have an investment background and may serve in trading-related roles for the plan sponsor. As such, these employees may have knowledge of both the plan and the sponsor?s trading activity. This knowledge may prevent the plan and the sponsor from utilizing the proposed aggregation exemption for pension plans. In the absence of a speci?c exemption for pension plans that does not rely on the IAC exemption, certain plans and their sponsor will have to aggregate their commodity positions. This will pint the ?duciaries of these plans in the untenable position of having to account for the trading strategies of the sponsor, which may not be in the best interests of plan participants. Making a trade based on anything other than the best interests of the plan is inconsistent with the investment committee members? fiduciary duties. Speci?cally, under ERISA Section 406(b], fiduciaries shall not represent a party "whose interests are adverse to the interest of the When both the plan sponsor and the plan are aggregated and subject to the same limits, it is possible that at some point either the plan or the plan sponsor would have to reduce exposure in order to stay within the limits. This result is unsatisfactory under ERISAJS In short, requiring a plan sponsor and the plan to aggregate positions establishes a conflict of interest which did not previously exist. Creating an exemption from the aggregation requirement speci?cally for pension plans will not interfere with the goal of the Commission's speculative position limits - preventing excessive speculation. By exempting a pension plan from aggregation with the plan sponsor, the Commission would simply be acknowledging that such plans are separate and distinct entities and are required by law to operate in the interests of the plan without regard to the interests of the sponsor. The plan and sponsor would, of course, still be subject to speculative position limits, but such limits would be applicable to the Positions of the plan or sponsor and not those of the other entity, over which it exercises no control. 1?Iof18

Goggins, Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zer2an@kochps.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:35 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: RE: Thanks man. We will be ready at 9:45 but whatever works for you works for us. Appreciate you setting this up. From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:34 PM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: RE: We can get there at 9:45 is that is easier. Just want to make sure we have enough time to talk through issues and meet folks. If you think 10?11 is enough time, that is good with me. JG From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:32 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: RE: Oops of course you are right. 10-11 sounds good to me with an allowance for starting a little on the earlier side if that works for you? Exactly 9:30 can be a little tricky just because of the market opening. From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:25 PM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: RE: Hey Greg- didn?t we say 10am-11ish?I We have a lunch we need to make which starts at 11:30 that is about 15 mins from your offices there. If we started earlier, at say 9:30-11:00, would that jam up people?s schedules there? JG From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Hellolason- It was good speaking with you last week, and I hope you enjoyed Geneva. This email is to confirm your visit at our Houston offices on Tuesday, October 7 from 11 am to 12 noon. As you may recall our of?ces are located at: 20 Greenway Plaza, Houston, TX 77046 (316} 828?5500 (bll?l My personal cell phone is 12 of 18

We are very grateful to you and the Commissloner for all of your efforts. If we can provide any more information please let me know. Best wishes, Greg 13 of?lS

Goggins, Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zerzan@kochps.com> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:56 AM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: RE: Re: any chance you can call before 11? I have another meeting I can't be too late for. From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:43 AM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Re: Ok- will call you from the plane before it takes off. JG Original Message From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 03:3? PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: RE: Re: 4.5 miles; about 15-20 minutes if you stay off the freeway during rush hour. Message-m- From: Goggins, Jason [mailtotJGoggins@CFTC.gov] Sent: Friday, September 2-5, 2014 10:35 AM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Re: Getting on plane to Dulles right now actually. How far are your offices from the Houstonia n? JG Original Message From: Zerzan, Gregory [mailtozGregZerzan@kochps.coml Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 03:30 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: RE: Re: 14 0f 18

Hi Jason- I hope Geneva was great. Did you say you were going to be around today to talk, or are we going to talk on Monday? From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:40 AM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Have no idea- that's why I wanted to give you a shout. Ha Original Message From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 04:39 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Re: Should work for us. Are we locked in as far as you guys coming by? Original Message From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:37 AM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Monday but that will put us a week out to possibly set something up. is that enough time? Original Message From: Zerza n, Gregory Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 04:34 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Re: Am on a plane that's about to take off. You back Friday or Monday? Original Message From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:33 AM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Got your VM. lam in the Geneva airport killing time before ourflight to London if you are able to take a call. JG 15 of 18

Original Message From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:16 AM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Hi Jason? It was great to see you today. We would be honored if you and the Commissioner had to stop by our offices in Houston during your trip there in October. If that is a possibility would you mind letting us know of some times that work? Best wishes, Greg 16 0f 18

Goggins, Jason From: Zerzan, Gregory <Greg.Zerzan@kocbps.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:41 AM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Re: Got it. Fyi boarding door closed so signing off for now. Monday will be fine on our end in terms of planning time if ok by you. Original Message From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:39 AM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Have no idea- that's why I wanted to give you a shout. Ha Original Message From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 04:39 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Re: Should work for us. Are we locked in as far as you guys coming by? Original Message From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:37 AM To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Monday- but that will put us a week out to possibly set something up. Is that enough time? Original Message "m From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 04:34 PM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Re: Am on a plane that's about to take off. You back Friday or Monday? Original Message From: Goggins, Jason Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:33 AM 17 of 18

To: Zerzan, Gregory Subject: Re: Got your VM. lam in the Geneva airport killing time before our flight to London ifyou are able to take a call. JG Original Message From: Zerzan, Gregory Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:16 AM To: Goggins, Jason Subject: Hi Jason~ it was great to see you today. We would be honored if you and the Commissioner had to stop by our of?ces in Houston during your trip there in October. If that is a possibility would you mind letting us know of some times that work? Best wishes, Greg 18 0f 18