Legal Commentary

The Economist gets it

By Tom Kirkendall

Following on recent posts here and here, The Economist produces the best mainstream media article that I've seen to date placing the prosecutorial misconduct of the Enron Task Force toward former Enron executives Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay in the context of the most recent demise of a trust-based business, Bear Stearns:

For many people, the mere fact of Enron’s collapse is evidence that Mr Skilling and his old mentor and boss, Ken Lay, who died between his conviction and sentencing, presided over a fraudulent house of cards. Yet Mr Skilling has always argued that Enron’s collapse largely resulted from a loss of trust in the firm by its financial-market counterparties, who engaged in the equivalent of a bank run. Certainly, the amounts of money involved in the specific frauds identified at Enron were small compared to the amount of shareholder value that was ultimately destroyed when it plunged into bankruptcy.

Yet recent events in the financial markets add some weight to Mr Skilling’s story—though nobody is (yet) alleging the sort of fraudulent behaviour on Wall Street that apparently took place at Enron. The hastily arranged purchase of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase is the result of exactly such a bank run on the bank, as Bear’s counterparties lost faith in it. This has seen the destruction of most of its roughly $20-billion market capitalisation since January 2007. By comparison, $65 billion was wiped out at Enron, and $190 billion at Citigroup since May 2007, as the credit crunch turned into a crisis in capitalism.

The Economist article goes on to compare the similarity of certain of Ken Lay's public comments regarding Enron's liquidity in the turbulent post 9/11 markets (for which he was eventually prosecuted) with those of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers executives during the current turmoil in the financial markets. As this post from almost two years ago notes, the source of the information upon which Lay based his positive statements is the same fellow (former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow) whose exculpatory statements regarding Skilling and Lay the Enron Task Force improperly withheld in connection with their criminal trial. And the revelations of this latest round of prosecutorial misconduct with regard to Fastow comes on top of the Task Force's blatant misrepresentation (see also here) of Fastow's plea deal to the Lay-Skilling jury during the trial.

As usual, Larry Ribstein places all of this in context:

I'm constructing a "narrative" for the prosecutorial misconduct case: Prosecutors desperate for a conviction, their careers turning on the outcome, have a key witness, Andy Fastow. The problem is, the guy has, in [Enron Task Force prosecutor John] Hueston's words, a "heartstopping history of self-dealing." Obviously the government couldn't afford any additional shadow on Fastow's credibility. Yet in the government interviews it seems his story got more negative on the defendants over time. Could be a big problem for Fastow on the witness stand, as the defense sought on cross to show he was changing his story to suit his jailers. Could the prosecutors afford to give these notes to the defense? Why not just turn over a summary?  By the time the truth came out (if it ever did) they could do a dance about how the differences were inconsequential.

The government is saying the differences are inconsequential. So why, then, didn't they produce the notes as repeatedly requested, rather than summarizing them?  I think those prosecutors have some explaining to do.

Full post as published by Houston's Clear Thinkers on March 18, 2008 (boomark / email).