The Case Against Lay

Written by Eric Olsen
Published July 19, 2004

Wharton looks at the case against former Enron CEO Ken Lay:

    The Wharton experts stress that Lay must be presumed innocent until proven guilty of the criminal charges. But they agree that even if he is acquitted, his leadership of Enron was nonetheless abysmal in the months preceding the company's collapse at the end of 2001.

    "There were no signs [investigators] were dragging their feet in any way; it was just a tough case to crack," says Useem, director of Wharton's Center for Leadership and Change Management. "By all outward appearances, there were no smoking guns, no memos, nothing written, and a lot of delegation of authority to his [Lay's] underlings. As a result, it was hard to find definitive evidence. "

    Thomas W. Dunfee, professor of social responsibility in business and an attorney, says: "One could argue that longer is better so that the government can build its strongest case: Find out what kind of testimony you think will support it, the nature of the records and all of that."

    Thomas Donaldson, a legal studies professor and, like Dunfee, an expert on business ethics, acknowledges that the Enron case is complex but says the investigation "definitely was too long." He continues: "One could speculate that the reason it took as long as it did was not only because [prosecutors] had to get cooperation from a huge number of people but also because, even now, they were not able to get what they wanted. I'm surprised the case is based largely on stuff we knew from the get-go and from events that were occurring as Enron was imploding."

    Indeed, the indictment focuses on actions that Lay allegedly took after public scrutiny was brought to bear on the accounting gimmicks and complex partnerships known as "special purpose entities" that left the energy giant in such dire financial straits. The firm eventually collapsed and brought down the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen, its auditor, with it.

    The indictment charges Lay with 11 criminal counts. It says that he helped doctor financial statements to paint a falsely optimistic picture of the company's health in the months leading up to its filing in U.S. bankruptcy court for protection from creditors in December 2001. The filing came just four months after Skilling's sudden resignation as CEO, on Aug. 14, 2001 , which shocked investors and triggered scrutiny of Enron. After Skilling's departure, Lay resumed the post of CEO at the company he had founded 16 years before, and took over the "leadership" of the conspiracy, the indictment alleged. In the ensuing months, Lay took steps to falsely inflate Enron's stock price so that he could profit from stock transactions and lied about Enron's financial condition to the public, stock analysts and Enron employees, according to the indictment.

    page 1 | 2 | 3
Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and publisher of Blogcritics.org, which, quite frankly, rules - as do his wife and four children.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
The Case Against Lay
Published: July 19, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Writer: Eric Olsen
Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
Eric Olsen's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Eric Olsen
All Politics Articles
Eric Olsen's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — July 19, 2004 @ 11:12AM — JR

Interesting that Ken Lay wants a speedy trial - he says he's ready to go to court by September. I wonder what that means.

#2 — July 19, 2004 @ 12:22PM — Justene [URL]

That means that the prosecution is not ready and Lay's lawyers know it.

#3 — July 19, 2004 @ 12:29PM — JR

I'm inclined to agree; he wants to get into court before the government digs up anything solid against him.

Of course, it could also be taken to mean that Lay thinks he'll get off lighter under a Bush justice department than a Kerry justice department...

#4 — July 19, 2004 @ 12:32PM — Justene [URL]

If it were Bush/Kerry, he could wait til closer to the election. Kerry doesn't get in until Jan even if he does win and transition would probably put his influence on the Justice Dept into March. Speedy trial usually means they've seen the prosecution's case and they want in before it gets better.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/17596)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments