Enron pair go on trial

Rambuchan

The Funky President
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,560
Location
London, England
Remember Enron?

Well this flagship case in the Bush administration's 'war on corporate corruption' is getting underway. For your information, the case is:

"U.S. v. Skilling"
[CR H04025]
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).


The choice of the jury seems to be the hottest topic of discussion at present but this will no doubt give way to far more contentious issues as the case swings into action. The sheer scale of greed, audacity and ruin caused by the Enron fraud, which allegedly ran from the 90s to early 2000s, is quite unprecedented (see quoted figures below). As the case unfolds we shall see the carcass of corporate corruption ripped open and examined in all its gory details. Things will get VERY heated. It could well prove to be more hotly followed by the media than last year's Michael Jackson case. This one has slightly more wideranging implications though...

Here's some background news to the case.
Enron's Lay May Face Hostile Jury in Houston, His Lawyer Says

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg)

The lawyer defending former Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay on fraud charges said he will win or lose the case based on who is selected for the jury.

Lay and co-defendant Jeffrey Skilling, the company's former chief executive officer, have told the judge in charge of the case that they won't get a fair trial in Houston, Enron's hometown, because local media coverage has ``demonized'' them. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake denied their request last week to move the trial to another state.

``The only thing that has ever troubled me about this case is picking a jury,'' said Michael Ramsey, who is defending Lay on charges he and Skilling lied to investors and regulators about Enron's income and debt, driving it into bankruptcy.

A victory by the prosecutors would improve the record of the task force set up after the Enron collapse to probe the fraud that led to the nation's second-largest bankruptcy. Some prosecutions involving lower-level executives resulted in acquittals and mistrials. Lake, 61, said he would personally question potential jurors from a pool of 150 candidates to assure that Lay, 63, and Skilling, 52, get an impartial panel to judge them. Jury selection begins today. Lake, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, said he wants to pick a jury by the end of the day.

``It will be difficult to find jurors in Houston whose lives were not affected or who didn't have friends or relatives whose lives were affected by Enron,'' said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor who is a partner at McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey.

`High-Class Crook'

Fewer than 7 percent of potential jurors summoned in the case could be fair, based on responses given by people who were considered for the jury pool, said Edward Bronson, an expert hired by the defense to examine their questionnaires. One referred to Lay as the ``biggest lying crook of all.'' Skilling was also described as a ``thief'' and a ``high-class crook.'' Lay and Skilling, who pleaded not guilty to all charges, face potential prison sentences of more than 30 years, said Kirby Behre, a former federal prosecutor and author of a book on U.S. sentencing guidelines. Their trial, which will be covered by hundreds of U.S. and foreign journalists, will last at least 18 weeks, prosecutors and defense lawyers estimated. Lake, a graduate of the University of Texas Law School, has a reputation for moving cases along quickly, sometimes timing lawyers' arguments.

Enron collapsed in December 2001 and filed for the largest bankruptcy after WorldCom Inc. The company fired more than 5,000 people. Investors claim in a lawsuit that they lost $30 billion as Enron stock plummeted following disclosures of improper accounting. Employees allege they lost $1 billion on Enron shares in retirement funds.

CEOs Convicted

A government crackdown on corporate crime after Enron's bankruptcy led to the prosecutions of the CEOs of WorldCom, HealthSouth Corp., Adelphia Communications Corp., Tyco International Ltd. and Rite Aid Corp. All the CEOs were convicted of fraud except HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy, who now faces bribery charges in an unrelated case. The demise of Enron led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the broadest revision of U.S. securities laws in seven decades. The 2002 law strengthened auditing standards and forced companies to enhance financial controls. CEOs and top financial officers must now sign financial statements, certifying their accuracy.

One Enron Victim

Angie Lorio was laid off when Enron, once the world's largest energy trader, went bankrupt. She lost $500,000 in retirement savings as Enron's stock plummeted. She's still out of work, has had to sell her Houston home and ran up $30,000 on credit cards to pay medical bills. ``I want to see them stripped of everything just like we are,'' said Lorio, 60, who lost an administrative job. ``Then, they can spend the rest of their lives in jail.''

The government accuses Lay and Skilling of overseeing ``a wide-ranging financial fraud'' that led to the meltdown of Enron. Skilling is charged with 31 counts of fraud, conspiracy and lying to auditors in a scheme to inflate Enron's earnings, partly by hiding billions in debt in off-the-books partnerships. Lay, who helped found Enron in 1985, is charged with seven counts of fraud and conspiracy for taking control of the effort to deceive investors after Skilling left Enron in August 2001.

Former Enron shareholder Tony Lentini, vice president of Houston-based oil and gas exploration company Apache Corp., said he knows the $10,000 he invested in Enron stock is gone forever. ``The only satisfaction I can get now is if they are convicted and get some serious jail time,'' said Lentini, whose company was involved in natural gas transactions with Enron. Lentini's stock ownership may make him eligible to collect damages in an investor class-action suit.

$68 Billion Lost


Enron wiped out $68 billion in market value from its share- price high in August 2000. Investors have recovered about $7 billion of their claims through settlements with some of Enron's bankers, including Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., and with the company's auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, after accusing them of roles in the fraud. Lay and Skilling were also sued. Enron prosecutors have secured convictions against lower- level executives in a fraud case involving Nigerian energy barges and against Arthur Andersen. The Andersen conviction for obstructing the investigation of Enron was tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court. A trial involving the broadband division resulted in acquittals and mistrials.

Sixteen former Enron officials, including Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow and Chief Accounting Officer Richard Causey, have pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the fraud and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Causey had been slated to go on trial with Skilling and Lay before his plea. Fastow, who prosecutors say reaped more than $60 million from off-the-books partnerships, will be the government's star witness. Ramsey and Skilling's lawyer Daniel Petrocelli have painted Fastow as a rogue executive. Lay and Skilling say they relied on the expert advice of lawyers and accountants who signed off on the legality of those entities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a.30HLPzmFos&refer=us
 
Oh and the two main characters to look out for are:

1 - Enron founder Ken Lay, 63.

2 - Ex-CEO Jeffrey Skilling, 52.

Together they face almost 40 charges between them, including conspiracy, fraud and insider dealing, at the court in Houston, Texas.
 
Corporate crime is more damaging to a society than terrorism, war, "open crime" (like robbery, burglary, drug-related-crimes) or natural causes (like earthquakes, Tsunami's, hurricanes etc.). The big trouble is that the corporate criminals have a large influence in politics so they are sheltered from prosecution to a large degree and the 2nd big problem is that the crimes are barely visible because of their nature.
 
For those living in California this was a case of very visible corruption. Their lights kept going out!

Here are some easy to digest pieces of info for an overview:


http://www.photofora.com/eugene/stuff/ENRON.htm



This 'Special Purpose Vehicle' is the device they used to redirect funds. And guys like Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co were the 'Lenders and investors [who] put up the cash'.





Source
 
Corporations are the devil and the tool of Illuminati.....*rants off into conspiracy theories and general crazyness*
 
Rambuchan said:
This 'Special Purpose Vehicle' is the device they used to redirect funds. And guys like Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co were the 'Lenders and investors [who] put up the cash'.

:mad: Didn't Citigroup basically bankroll and encourage the whole WorldCom debacle as well? God they're evil. And yet they're basically immune from prosectuion always ((empty) testimony for immunity). Must be good to be a banker. (almost typo'd 'god', which might not be far off.) How they can enable and perpetuate these scandals, rake in a fortune, and then completely escape scrutiny or retribution is beyond me. I HATE Citigroup/CitiBank/CitiEvil - far more so than the now-defunct corporate shells they'd used to make their immoral gains. I really think these mega-banks are making out like bandits in these scandals - I can't understand why nobody seems to care about their complicity in one corporate scandal after another.

For good measure: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Well I'm glad that someone picked up on the comments about the Special Purpose Vehicles. Although I won't go so far as to say that Citigroup can be renamed to Citievil, I do agree that there were many other BIGTIME players involved in the Enron debacle and that they are still doing business today. I'm not so well acquainted with the Worldcom affair so can't answer your question.
 
I'd like to see both of these guys get some real time....in a real prison. Not a country club....which is surely where they'll end up.

That's assuming they don't walk.

Stick them in cells with nice new roommates that find them sexy.
 
that's good info there Ram.

those SPVs are shady imo. it is a de-facto encourager for fraud. i hope the Court sets a really strong precedent by locking those scum bags up.

furthermore, it raises another valid point -
is more regulation by the federal/state govt's necessary in order to prevent this from happening again?
 
El Justo said:
is more regulation by the federal/state govt's necessary in order to prevent this from happening again?
Sarbanes-Oxley has already done this. In fact, I would contend may have taken it too far. A lot of resources are being used simply to certify the books instead of improve the business. The pendulum swings both ways.

String these guys up in the meantime.
 
Whomp said:
Sarbanes-Oxley has already done this. In fact, I would contend may have taken it too far. A lot of resources are being used simply to certify the books instead of improve the business. The pendulum swings both ways.

String these guys up in the meantime.

Sarbanes Oxley is the single most problem generating source in my life :lol:

The Biggest criminal, imo, in the Enron case is Arthurs Anderson accounting firm. if it wasn't of corrupted accounting firms, such frauds would never ever be possible. Corrupted CPA's should be punished even worst then corrupted business men. Just like a corrupted policeman should be punished more then the criminal he supports.

Other comment: The special purpose vehicule is the tip of the iceberg in this case. the main fraudulent issue was the abuse of GAAPs an the conversion of charges into assets. Rather then raising their charges, they raised their assets which had two tremendous concequences:
-Artificially raising Enron's net incom and
-Raising all the Asset/Liabilities/Equity Ratios and Theorical cash flows, rasing the public shre's value on the market.

Once Sarbanes Oxley is fully absorbed by the industry, it pretty much seems like this kinda fraud will be impossible to do, unless you put up the biggest multy party envovling fraud of all time.
 
El Justo said:
that's good info there Ram.

those SPVs are shady imo. it is a de-facto encourager for fraud. i hope the Court sets a really strong precedent by locking those scum bags up.

furthermore, it raises another valid point -
is more regulation by the federal/state govt's necessary in order to prevent this from happening again?

One of the big points in the Sarbanes-Oxley law is that in the futur,you will not be allowed to have your financial statements verified by the same company that gives you financial advises. this means that allmost every big company will be double checked by 2 independant auditing firms.

plus, the auditing standards will go about 30000% more severe and complicated, and believe me, its gonna take a hell of a wise guy to go around it. And if such guy exists, he's gonna have to corrupt at least 2 auditing firms.

Edit: And the SVP'S will no longer be possible because from now on, when you have controle over an other company, you'll have to include their debt into yours in the consolidated statements.
 
Rhymes said:
plus, the auditing standards will go about 30000% more severe and complicated, and believe me, its gonna take a hell of a wise guy to go around it. And if such guy exists, he's gonna have to corrupt at least 2 auditing firms.
And the SEC have promised a rolling series of visits to validate the evidence for the attestations of the auditors & CFO/CEO regarding the company's internal controls environment.

Not sure if you'd need two corrupt accounting firms, though. If you commit fraud and then alter the evidence (also now an imprisonable offence), then you may be able to fool your own auditors, your management testers, and you may not have needed external advice. Certainly makes the whole thing a lot harder, though.

I do wonder, though. I do this for 50 hours a week already, and then come home and type about it on a computer game fansite. I'm sure I ought to be surreptitiously playing games in work, rather than furtively typing about work when at home. :cringe:
 
As a PS, I wonder what happens if they walk. It shouldn't invalidate SOX as it's about prevention and detection of fraud and financial misstatements, rather than the prosecution of those who do such things, but I'd expect the SEC or PCAOB would have to make some sort of statement.
 
Yeah, sorry if I got a bit overly angry before - I was at work and about to head out for the afternoon, and could only manage to express my general contempt in the time I'd had. ABC News said that those two have spent $28 million on their defense ... tough for govt-employed lawyers to go up against that I'd imagine. Thanks for all the info btw - I'd only had time to peruse it before but that was a good read just now finally :goodjob:.

Spoiler Some CitiGroup involvement in WorldCom info :

Apologies for going a bit off-topic, but this should explain my vitriole towards CitiGroup, and elaborate slightly on their WorldCom involvement, in case anyone's interested.

CitiGroup (or more directly, Salomon Smith Barney, of which CitiGroup is the parent company) basically tacitly allowed their employee, stock analyst Jack Grubman, to [allegedly] hype WorldCom stock constantly (to their own low-level investors no less) and hook up CEO's with IPO stock offerings (check this out - they'd actually [allegedly] even 'sell' them the stocks retroactively, basically telling these CEO's "I'll give you 10,000 shares of xyz at its IPO price of $20, when it's worth $40 already today"), essentially [allegedly] in exchange for Salomon Smith Barney making all the huge brokerage fees for WorldCom loans, mergers, and acquisitions (and in the end, WorldCom basically lived off of constant mergers and acquisitions). Both fed each other right until the end - Jack Grubman still rated WorldCom a 'buy' when the stock had lost over 90% of its worth and was still advising WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers right up to Congressional testimony. We all know what happened to WorldCom, and yet CitiGroup is right back in the spotlight enabling and (likely) encouraging what are at the very least questionable accounting practices. I hate how you have to censor yourself. Anyway, I just find it frustrating that the 'primary' firms are (rightly) brought to justice, but CitiGroup and its ilk will probably still be up to their old tricks decades from now.

A Chronology
Some information

Spoiler A few choice quotes :

April 1999
Former Salomon Smith Barney brokers say that during the late 1990s stock market bubble, Grubman and his team develop a strategy to win telecom banking deals by awarding favored customers, such as Bernie Ebbers, shares in hot telecom initial public offerings (IPOs), a practice known as "spinning." Grubman denies any involvement in IPO allocations. Salomon Smith Barney later tells Congress that Bernie Ebbers made $11 million through 21 Salomon Smith Barney-sponsored IPO allocations.

However, according to a lawsuit filed by former Salomon Smith Barney broker David Chacon -- and disputed by the firm -- Grubman oversaw the awarding of IPOs to favored telecom clients, and Ebbers makes $16 million in one deal alone. Chacon's lawsuit states that Ebbers received 350,000 shares in the IPO of a company called Rhythms NetConnections.
May 2001 - May 2002
Desperate for cash and with its stock price tumbling, WorldCom floats two bond offerings in May 2001 and May 2002 that total $17 billion. Despite a glut in telecom capacity, plummeting phone prices and Robert Rubin's personal call for greater discipline in credit extension, Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney leads two banking syndicates that market the WorldCom bonds to public investors. Attorneys for pension funds that invested in the WorldCom bonds contend that in sponsoring the bond offerings, Citigroup is limiting its own exposure through loans or open lines of credit offered to WorldCom -- a fact not disclosed to shareholders. With its prices falling sharply, analyst Jack Grubman tells investors that WorldCom stock has become an incredible bargain. Citigroup now faces multiple shareholder lawsuits as a result of the WorldCom bond offering and Grubman's advice to shareholders.
(So when it all starts going under, and CitiGroup has raided the piggy bank all it can, it [allegedly] stems the bleeding by scamming more of its own investors, as they can buy up the (soon to be worthless) WorldCom debt that CitiGroup is now trying desperately to dump.)

April 2002
On April 22 -- after the stock had fallen 94 percent from its June 1999 peak -- Grubman downgrades his rating on WorldCom from a "buy" to a "neutral." He never puts a "sell" rating on the stock before it is de-listed.
August 2002
Under fire from investors who lost an estimated $2 trillion in telecom stocks, and sharply criticized by scores of Salomon Smith Barney stockbrokers who had advised customers based on his research, Grubman leaves Salomon Smith Barney by "mutual agreement." He receives a severance package worth $30 million, and Salomon agrees to cover his legal bills. The severance includes a $200,000 per year retainer to keep Grubman available to Citigroup and Salomon to help with their defense against lawsuits and government charges.
December 2002
Eager to get the scandals and Spitzer's investigation behind them, Citigroup and nine other Wall Street banks strike a deal with the regulators in which the banks agree to pay $1.4 billion and Spitzer agrees not to pursue criminal prosecutions. The banks also say they will stop the practice of "spinning" -- IPO allocations to corporate executives in hopes of winning future business -- and promise to insulate research analysts from investment banking.

Spitzer's investigation clears Sandy Weill of any criminal wrongdoing. Grubman is also promised that he will not face criminal charges from Spitzer. But he agrees to a lifetime ban from the securities industry and payment of a $15 million fine. [Note that when asked by Congress of his salary, Grubman had a hard time briefly and then threw out something analagous to 'roughly $20 million a year'. Add in the ridiculous amounts he no doubt made with the stock, and that's not even a slap on the wrist.]
April 2003
[New York State Attorney General Eliot] Spitzer tells FRONTLINE that his investigation led him to the conclusion that Wall Street's whole business model in the late-1990s, in which stock analysts were fully integrated into the investment banking operations of brokerage houses, was not only "fundamentally corrupt" but, in fact, fraudulent.

Anyway, please pardon the interruption (and sorry if this was redundant or obvious to the more financially minded of you). Here's hoping Ley and Skilling both get what they've got coming.
 
Rhymes said:
The Biggest criminal, imo, in the Enron case is Arthurs Anderson accounting firm. if it wasn't of corrupted accounting firms, such frauds would never ever be possible. Corrupted CPA's should be punished even worst then corrupted business men. Just like a corrupted policeman should be punished more then the criminal he supports.
A good friend of mine trained and worked at AA* and was in New York during this whole Enron debacle. In fact he was so close to the whole thing without actually being involved himself that they assigned him to...wait for it....supervision of the shredding process! Yup, he was there overseeing others in some industrial shredding operation. Man did we take the piss out of him after that - dropping the words 'ripping' or 'shredding' into every sentence we could. This is all while he was meant to be training too!

Anyway, anecdotes aside, I don't think AA are the major players in this fraud in the way Rhymes is suggesting. They were aiding Enron's grand adventure for sure but they were not the catalyst here. It seems, from all that I've read and watched and been told, that Jeff Skilling was the mastermind. Although other players certainly performed their parts Skilling seemed to be the one at the helm, masterminding the fraud and hiring others into the grand scam.

But certainly AA were in the know and should have blown some whistles. The Sarbanes-Oxley law, although it may create headaches for folk like Rhymes, is much needed therefore imo. But I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when this legislation was being discussed. It'd be interesting to see if there were figures rolled about which compared an estimated cost to the economy from 'corporate corruption' (however they defined that) and the extra cost from such a law's bureaucracy...

*one of those 'a's doesn't stand for alcoholic btw


One Negative Effect of Enron: I actually feel repercussions of this whole affair at work today. I often have to promote and secure funding for a variety of power / infrastructure projects, particularly in India and often as joint ventures. Well, after Enron's dealings with Dabhol (an Indian and American JV), the whole finance community for the power sector just has an Enron whiff permanently under their nose. It's the favourite talking point and is commonly referred to in order to reject a case, or as an add on comment when rejecting the financing of a case. The effect is that financiers get overly cautious, in an almost superstitious way, about this 'backdrop' of problems in the power sector. Of course it's way more complex than that and I should also add for fairness that this sector in this part of the world is also ridden with problems resulting from State Electricity Boards not paying their power providers on time.

Read the Enron / Dabhol timeline here.
 
Well SOX is great for us.... many of the top US banks are now using our software for their SOX compliance. :)

As for the crimes, I'm with the person who said that corporate crime should get much harsher penalties. They are scum and an example should be made.
 
SOX is all very well but there's still an underlying problem that remains unaddressed.

I think all the noises being made these days about corporate responsibility (environmentally clean operations, fair wages, basic working conditions, financial transparency etc) are helping to combat both these mega-corporation-level scandals and the wider conduct of 'evil corporations'. It helps, but it's slow and painful. The Enron trial should help too and, as we're seeing, legislation is coming out and culture change is taking place. But imo none of this addresses the fundamental problem which was so eloquently demonstrated by the Enron affair - the CEO and Chairman have one overriding concern and that is to keep their share price escalating. That's the imperative and all else falls further down the priority list to it. Skilling and Lay showed how far those with such an obligation will go. Do others believe that this imperative is one that encourages, obliges and sometimes coherses management down unscrupulous roads or is that just a myth?
 
Ram, I agree with your implication that the basic western capitalist model encourages CEOs to push the rules to the limit, and beyond if they think they can get away with it (especially if "everyone else is doing it"). However, this is exactly what SOX is trying to address.
 
Top Bottom