Houston's Clear Thinkers

March 16, 2010

My Lehman Bullshit

Mike over at the Crime and Federalism blog (a good blog, by the way) thinks my explanation yesterday of Lehman Brothers’ controversial repo 105 transactions is bullshit.

Well, I’m as full of bullshit as anyone, but my sense is that Mike’s analysis is flawed. That’s not to say that the folks involved in reporting Lehman’s earnings to the marketplace after those repo 105 transactions didn’t commit fraud. I don’t know enough about the facts to know one way or the other.

The main point of my post is that a whole bunch of of executives, accountants, auditors, counterparties and governmental officials were swirling around Lehman at the time of these repo 105 transactions. As a result, the responsibility for any fraud is better allocated among the responsible parties in the civil justice system than in the criminal justice system, where guilt is adjudicated with a sledgehammer when a scalpel is more appropriate.

But one of the interesting aspects about Mike’s post is that he is very sure that he understands that Lehman committed fraud. So, let’s take a look at his example of what he thinks happened with regard to Lehman and the repo 105 transactions (my observations are in italics below each of his statements):

I ask you to invest $100,000 in my new business. You ask me how much money I have in my business account. I only have $5,000, but do not tell you this.

Okay, as my prior post noted, I concede that Lehman may have misrepresented its true liquidity position through the repo 105 deals.

I can sell everything the business owns (including all of our inventory) to a pawn shop for $100,000.

If Mike can sell all the assets of the business to a pawn shop for $100,000, then the business owns much more than $100,000 in assets. Pawn shops - much like the financial institutions with whom Lehman was dealing – do not engage in repo 105 transactions unless they are darn sure that they can liquidate the assets that they purchase for more than they paid if the seller breaches his obligation to repurchase the assets.

The pawn shop will sell me everything back for $105,000 if I come up with the money within 48 hours.  They won't even take possession of the property if I pay them within 48 hours.

I do not know of any pawn shop – or financial institution for that matter – that would be willing to leave property that they purchased in the hands of a financially-troubled seller, even for just 48 hours. Moreover, my understanding of the repo 105 transactions is that Lehman was not obligated to repurchase the asset for the sale price plus 5%. My understanding is that the “105” in repo 105 relates to the fact that financial institutions require property at least worth 105% of the purchase price that the financial institution pays the seller for the asset. I’m sure that Lehman’s counterparties required a steep fee for engaging in the repo 105 sales, but not 5% of the purchase price.

I make the "sale" to the pawn shop. I show you a copy of my bank statement. You can see that I have $105,000 cash in my bank account. I'm, in other words, liquid 100 grand. You loan me $100,000.

Here is where Mike is confused. Prior to taking the $100,000 loan, his company’s balance sheet actually looks a bit worse because of his sale to the pawn shop. The company has sold assets worth more than $100,000 in order to increase its liquidity to $105,000. No rational investor would make a $100,000 unsecured loan to a company with assets of only $105,000 cash that the investor would not have been willing to make when the company had $5,000 cash and over a $100,000 in non-liquid assets. But , let’s play along with Mike to get to his main point. After the loan, his company now has $205,000 in cash with a $100,000 liability.

I buy my stuff back for $105,000. I now have, thanks to you and some quick accounting fraud, $95,000.

No, that’s only part of it. The company now has repurchased its assets that are worth over $100,000, it has cash of $100,000 and a $100,000 liability. So, the company’s balance sheet is pretty much the same had the investor made his loan when the company only had $5,000 cash and over $100,000 of non-liquid assets. The only difference is that the investor feels deceived because he would not have made the loan under those circumstances.

So, maybe Mike’s investor in the example above has a good fraud case against the company (I’m not sure that’s the best way for the investor to recover his loan, but that’s another issue). But maybe not, too. And the situation that Lehman faced was far more complex than Mike’s hypothetical and involved a large number of well-intentioned people who were attempting to find any loophole available to save Lehman.

And that’s no bullshit.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 15, 2010

The Enronization of Lehman Brothers

The big news in the business world at the end of last week and over the weekend was the publication of the examiner’s report in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case.

The mainstream media jumped all over the report as a precursor to criminal indictments of former Lehman executives because of allegations in the report (that’s all they are at this point) that Lehman used repo 105 transactions at the end of several quarters to make its balance sheet look more attractive than it really was. Fancy that, executives trying to stem a run on a trust-based business!

Despite the gathering MSM lynch mob, the truth is that the examiner’s report is shaky grounds, at best, for criminal indictments against former Lehman executives. As folks who are experienced in bankruptcy realize – but those who aren’t don’t – an examiner’s report is hardly an objective analysis of a debtor’s affairs. Bankruptcy examiners are highly incentivized to recommend as many legal actions against the debtor’s insiders and counterparties as possible. The fruits of those legal actions inure to the benefit of the bankruptcy debtor’s creditors, which is really the only constituency in most bankruptcy cases that really can effectively challenge an examiner’s compensation. As a result, feather nesting is not an unusual tactic of bankruptcy examiners.

Moreover, examiner’s reports in bankruptcy cases are far from dispositive. I haven’t read the Lehman examiner’s report yet, but I’m skeptical of the MSM’s initial rave reviews. The Enron examiner’s report met with similar early favorable reaction, but it turned out to be chock full of plain factual errors and dubious conclusions based on those errors.

For example, the MSM’s reporting of the examiner’s conclusions regarding the timing of the repo 105 transactions doesn’t make sense to me. As I understand those transactions, they improved Lehman’s balance sheet by increasing its liquidity position at the end of several quarters through converting non-liquid assets to cash. When Lehman repurchased the assets after the date of the financial statement, the balance sheet didn’t change much except for showing less liquidity because the repurchased asset – which went back on the balance sheet after the repurchase - was probably worth more than the liquidity used to repurchase it (I seriously doubt that the sharpies who were dealing with Lehman as it was going down in flames were consenting to using Lehman’s trash assets in the repo deals).

At any rate, Peter Henning and Larry Ribstein have both done a good job of analyzing the main problem facing the Lehman insiders from a criminal standpoint. It is different and potentially more troublesome than the honest services wire fraud theory that was the basis of most Enron-related prosecutions. That is, the Lehman executives are subject to the provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation enacted after Enron’s bankruptcy that impose criminal liability on executives who falsely certify the (i) accuracy of the financial statements and (ii) absence of deficiencies in internal controls regarding the preparation of the financial statements.

By the way, although Henning’s analysis is quite good, his analogy of the repo 105 transactions to the Nigerian Barge transaction in the Enron-related criminal prosecutions is a stretch. The Nigerian Barge transaction was a relatively small deal in which Enron – about an $80 billion market cap company at the time -- sold its interest in the Nigerian barges to Merrill Lynch to make a $12 million profit at the end of the particular quarter. On the other hand, the examiner alleges that Lehman was using repo 105 transactions to raise $35 - $50 billion of liquidity at the end of several quarters. Big difference.

Also, flying beneath the radar (as usual) is current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s role in all of this. As closely as Geithner (as head of the New York Federal Reserve) and Paulson (as Treasury Secretary) were monitoring Lehman during much of this time, it strains credulity that Geithner and Paulson didn’t have at least some idea of what Lehman was doing to make its balance sheet as attractive as possible. Both Geithner and Paulson were intimately involved in attempting to broker a Bear Stearns-type bailout of Lehman.

So, if Geithner and Paulson knew what was going on, then how on earth is the federal government going to single out Richard Fuld and other former Lehman executives for criminal conduct?

Which brings us to the real lesson of all this – that is, the inherently fragile nature of a trust-based business (related posts here) and the misguided nature of the notion that more governmental regulation will somehow protect investors from the next bust of such a business.

Larry Ribstein has been insightfully pointing out for years that more regulation of those businesses will not prevent the next meltdown, just as the more stringent regulations added under Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron's collapse did not prevent Lehman Brothers from failing. More responsive forms of business ownership certainly are a hedge to the inherent risk of investment in a trust-based business. But also helpful would be better investor understanding of the wisdom of hedging that risk and the importance of short sellers in providing information on troubled companies to the marketplace.

And as for criminal prosecutions? Unless there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime, far better to allow the civil justice system allocate responsibility for Lehman’s failure among the multitude of potentially responsible parties. Professor Ribstein nails this point in the final paragraph of his post:

The lesson here is that pursuing high-profile criminal prosecutions in Lehman after the problems with such prosecutions in these situations proved so manifest in Enron would prove that after a decade of hugely costly trials and a massive new law that was supposed to change everything, we still haven't learned a thing about the unsuitability of criminal liability for these kinds of cases.

Finally, Lawrence Kudlow and John Carney have an excellent seven-minute discussion below of the failure of governmental regulation in regard to Lehman:

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

March 12, 2010

Challenging the myth of American exceptionalism

Conrad Black’s prison routine allows him time to think and write, which is a good thing in view of the enormous waste that results from his dubious imprisonment.

This week Lord Black takes aim at the myth of American exceptionalism promoted in this recent Richard Lowry and Ramesh Ponnurus essay (Walter McDougall has examined the origins of this myth in detail in the first two books of his fine three-part series on American history). In challenging the myth, Lord Black takes dead aim at a common topic on this blog – the overcriminalization of American life:

The wages of this [Cold War] victory have included the stale-dating of the authors’ claim that America “is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth.” It is more dynamic because of its size, the torpor of Europe and Japan, and the shambles of Russia.

But Americans do not do themselves a favor by not recognizing the terrible erosion of their country’s education, justice, and political systems, the shortcomings of U.S. health care, the collapse of its financial industry, the flight of most of its manufacturing, and the steep and generally unlamented decline of its prestige.

.   .    .   Rampaging and often lawless prosecutors win 95 percent of their cases (compared to 55 percent in Canada), by softening the pursuit of some in exchange for inculpatory perjury against others, in the plea-bargain system. The U.S. has six to fourteen times as many imprisoned people as other advanced prosperous democracies, and they languish in a corrupt carceral system that retains as many people as possible for as long as possible. There are an astounding 47 million Americans with a “record,” and the country glories with unseemly glee in the joys of the death penalty. Due process and the other guarantees of individual rights of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments (such as the grand jury as any sort of assurance against capricious prosecution) scarcely exist in practice.

Most of the Congress is an infestation of paid-for legislators from rotten boroughs, representing the interests that finance their elections and exchanging earmarks with their colleagues like casbah hucksters.  .   .   .

Lord Black can sure still turn a phrase -- “casbah hucksters.” Ha!

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

February 23, 2010

Gearing up for the Skilling SCOTUS argument

Oral argument on Jeff Skilling’s appeal of his criminal conviction to the United States Supreme Court is next Monday afternoon, so the Skilling legal team warmed up for the occasion by filing the brief below in response to the Department of Justice’s brief on the merits.

If you want to read the entire brief, then I recommend downloading it so that you will be have the version bookmarked in Adobe Acrobat that facilitates review.

As noted in the previous post on the DOJ’s brief, the DOJ’s case against Skilling has shrunk considerably, which is highlighted by the following Skilling reply brief passage on the DOJ’s tepid defense of Skilling’s conviction for honest services wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346:

The Government’s application of its proposed self-dealing category to Skilling’s case demonstrates the continued manipulability of the statute under the Government’s approach. In Black and Weyhrauch, the Government expressed the view that § 1346 prohibits only bribes/kickbacks and self dealing, and that the latter category is implicated only when conflicting financial interests are “undisclosed.” [references omitted]. That statement suggested that the Government would concede that Skilling did not commit honest-services fraud, because Skilling’s only alleged personal financial interests arose from Enron’s linking of his compensation to Enron’s stock value, an interest that was fully disclosed.

But the Government nevertheless argues that Skilling committed honest-services fraud. To bring Skilling’s case within the statute’s compass, the Government creates a third category of honest services fraud, one that involves disclosed personal financial interests. The Government’s cursory explanation of Skilling’s honest-services liability (GB50) is hardly clear, but it appears to contend that while Skilling’s “personal financial interests” were disclosed and generally aligned with Enron’s interests, he put those interests in conflict when he took actions pursuant to his own disclosed compensation interest that were allegedly contrary to Enron’s.

Accordingly, in this new category, what the defendant apparently fails to disclose is his scheme to put his own compensation interests ahead of his employer’s distinct interests. Not only is that standard itself vague on its own terms, but the Government’s repeated acknowledgement that Skilling’s case has no precedent in pre-McNally case law (GB17, 49) confirms that this special crime is its own new category, created for the first time in the Government’s brief in this Court.

It is time for prosecutors to stop making up crimes under this statute. If § 1346 is not invalidated altogether, it should be limited to the single category of conduct universally recognized in the case law and hence largely immune from manipulation—quid pro quo bribes and kickbacks.

Stated simply, the Enron Task Force prosecuted Skilling for business judgments that he made that turned out badly for Enron viewed through the clarity of hindsight bias. But Skilling didn’t steal a dime from Enron and never took a kickback or a bribe. Those latter acts are crimes. Taking business risks that turn out badly is not.

At a time in which the U.S. economy desperately needs risk-takers to generate jobs and create wealth, here’s hoping that the Supreme Court understands the difference.

Jeff Skilling's Reply Brief to the DOJ's Brief in his Supreme Court Appeal

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2010

Tales of Two Lives

Wednesday’s Congressional testimony of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Department of Justice’s incredible shrinking case against former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling got me to thinking.

Geithner has made his share of dubious decisions over the past several years. I think he was wrong not to allow the markets to allocate the risk that many financial institutions took, particularly in regard to American Insurance Group. As a result of these decisions, I don’t think he should be the Secretary of the Treasury.

But I do not think it is fair to question that Geithner honestly believed that the actions he took were necessary to save the U.S. and world financial systems from chaos. You, like me, may not believe he was right about that, but there is little question that he honestly believed that he was mitigating the risk of a financial tsunami.

Turning to Skilling, the DOJ’s case against Skilling now boils down to several alleged misrepresentations that Skilling approved regarding a couple of financially-troubled divisions of Enron. But the overwhelming evidence at trial was that Skilling truly believed that the statements he approved regarding those divisions were accurate.

For example, one of those divisions – Enron Broadband – was attempting to develop and deliver the video-on-demand service that is now a popular and profitable product of digital television and such gadgets as Apple's iPod. These systems are a creative accommodation to copyrighted music and video programming that has generated enormous wealth for artists and shareholders of companies in the business.

Skilling testified at trial about his optimism regarding Broadband:

“And one last thing -- I'll make the last one argument for Broadband because people criticize me about Broadband, and I will take the criticism. We -- certainly, we made a mistake. But it wasn't big. I mean, it was a billion dollars. We invested a billion dollars in the Broadband business. If it had worked, it could have been worth $30 billion. It didn't work. We lost a billion dollars, but if you can make those kinds of bets, that's the kind of the risk you [should be taking] as a corporation. And if you do a lot of [deals with a] downside of a billion and upside of 30 [billion], you're doing a good job for your shareholders in the long run, in my opinion. This one didn't work.”

Given the current value of video-on-demand technology, Skilling's valuation of Enron's Broadband business opportunity was probably low. But regardless of the wisdom of Enron’s timing in investing in that technology, there is little question that Skilling honestly believed that Enron Broadband could generate enormous wealth for Enron’s shareholders.

Geithner will probably leave the Treasury soon and return to a Wall Street firm to make his fortune. Skilling lost his fortune and remains in a Colorado prison, where he is enduring a 24-year prison sentence.

I submit that no rational basis exists for the radically different futures of these two men.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 28, 2010

The DOJ’s Merits Brief in the Skilling Appeal

On the heels of last month’s filing with the U.S. Supreme Court of Jeff Skilling’s brief on the merits of his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Department of Justice filed its brief on the merits of Skilling’s appeal earlier this week.

A copy of the brief is below, but I recommend downloading it so that you will have the version bookmarked in Adobe Acrobat that facilitates review of the brief.

The DOJ’s brief is surprising in a couple of key respects.

First, the DOJ’s case against Skilling has shrunk dramatically. The DOJ now bases its entire case on Skilling’s involvement in alleged misrepresentations that were made to the market regarding two Enron divisions, Enron Broadband Services and Enron Energy Services. Nothing in regard to the dubious Nigerian Barge transaction. No mention of the theory that Enron’s earnings were lagging in 1999 and that’s why the reason why Skilling supposedly had former CFO Andrew Fastow engineer the allegedly corrupt LJM special purpose entity. Heck, there is not even a mention of the supposedly key Global Galactic Agreement. I mean really – is the DOJ even talking about the same case that it tried?

Stated simply, has the DOJ’s entire case against Skilling now been reduced to his optimistic statements about those two divisions?

The other surprising aspect of the brief is the DOJ’s apparent surrender on the lack of private gain issue in regard to Skilling’s conviction on honest services wire fraud. Check out this reasoning from p. 50 of the brief:

Petitioner had, and acted upon, his personal financial interests, which conflicted with those of the shareholders to whom he owed a fiduciary duty. The company and its shareholders attempted to align their long-term interests with petitioner’s by linking his compensation to stock price. But the obvious premise of that arrangement was that petitioner would act to maximize shareholder wealth. Petitioner subverted that premise, and placed his interests in conflict with that of the shareholders,when, for his own financial benefit, he engaged in an undisclosed scheme to artificially inflate the stock’s price by deceiving the shareholders and others about the company’s true financial condition. That conduct constituted fraud. The only question here is whether the public nature of petitioner’s compensation scheme prevents his conduct from constituting honest services fraud. It does not. Although petitioner’s basic compensation scheme was public, his scheme to artificially inflate the company’s stock price by misrepresenting its financial condition, in order to derive additional personal benefits at the expense of shareholders, was not. Petitioner’s deception deprived shareholders of the information they needed to make informed decisions and thereby defrauded them of his honest services.

So, what about the shareholders who sold stock at the allegedly inflated price resulting from Skilling’s supposed deceptions? Did Skilling defraud them, too? If so, I can think of quite a few investors who wouldn’t mind being defrauded like that.

And what about Skilling himself, who continued to acquire large amounts of Enron stock right up to the time he resigned from the company several months before its collapse. Did Skilling’s alleged “deception deprive [Skilling] of the information [he] needed to make informed decisions and thereby defrauded [himself] of his honest services.”

I’ll bet that reasoning will raise a few questions during oral argument, which is currently scheduled for the afternoon of March 1st.

DOJ Merits Brief in Skilling Appeal

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 21, 2010

We sure have progressed, haven’t we?

Larry Ribstein points us to the abstract of a new Peter Leeson paper, Ordeals:

For 400 years the most sophisticated persons in Europe decided difficult criminal cases by asking the defendant to thrust his arm into a cauldron of boiling water and fish out a ring. If his arm was unharmed, he was exonerated. If not, he was convicted. Alternatively, a priest dunked the defendant in a pool. Sinking proved his innocence; floating proved his guilt. People called these trials ordeals.

No one alive today believes ordeals were a good way to decide defendants' guilt. But maybe they should. This paper investigates the law and economics of ordeals. I argue that ordeals accurately assigned accused criminals' guilt and innocence. They did this by leveraging a medieval superstition called iudicium Dei. According to this superstition, God condemned the guilty and exonerated the innocent through clergy conducted physical tests.

It sure is comforting to know that we sophisticated modern folk no longer believe that such ordeals are a good way to decide the guilt of a defendant.

On the other hand .   .   .

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 20, 2010

The growing threat of prosecutorial power

A frequent topic on this blog is the overcriminalization of American life, particularly in regard to taking business risks that create jobs for communities and wealth for citizens.

One of the most lucid writers on this disturbing trend is William Anderson (prior posts here), an economics professor at Frostburg State in Maryland. In this recent Regulation magazine article for the Cato Institute, Professor Anderson provides an excellent overview of how the federal government has gradually imposed police state-type laws on us that allow prosecutors to target citizens for a criminal case and then rationalize a crime from any number of vague criminal statutes:

The numbers tell a harsh story. In 1980, there were about 1,500 federal prosecutors and approximately 20,000 federal prisoners. Today, there are more than 7,500 U.S. attorneys and more than 200,000 federal prisoners, according to an October 2009 count. About 52 percent of federal prisoners are drug offenders, reflecting the emphasis of the “War on Drugs,” and while there is no specific “white collar” crime category, one estimates, using Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics, that about 5 to 10 percent of the federal prison population consists of people convicted of white collar crimes.

The federal criminal code is growing. In the early days of the republic, there were three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. Today, there are more than 4,000 federal criminal laws and more than 10,000 regulations that prosecutors easily can fold into the criminal statutes.  .   .  .

In surveying this sad state of affairs, Anderson notes one of the perverse incentives driving these dubious prosecutions:

The resulting near-free reign that prosecutors have in federal court is an open invitation to abuse of the law and the legal system. To make matters worse, federal prosecutors enjoy almost total legal immunity and are unlikely to face any sanctions no matter how dishonest or abusive their behavior might be; the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to U.S. attorneys. [.  .  .]

The only thing that stands between almost any American and doing a stretch in federal prison is the choice of whom prosecutors will target. This is a serious problem that shows no signs of disappearing.

The fact that one such prosecutor in Massachusetts was even seriously considered by many in that state for a position in the U.S. Senate reflects that citizens still have not grasped the extent of this awful trend in American society.

It makes one wonder what it’s going to take for Americans to stand up and put a stop to this?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 18, 2010

So, you want to be a big-firm deal lawyer?

Continuing to fly well beneath the radar screen – probably because lawyers don’t want to talk about it except in hushed tones – is the seven-year prison sentence that former Mayer Brown partner Joseph P. Collins was handed late last week.

As this earlier post explains in detail, Collins was the former outside deal lawyer for Refco, Inc., which unraveled back in 2005 under the weight of public disclosure of a series of insider transactions that were apparently designed to hide millions in liabilities from customers and investors.

As the earlier post notes and as the Memorandum of Law in support of a new trial for Collins explains, whether Collins even knew about the allegedly fraudulent nature of the transactions is highly questionable and whether he hid those transactions from anyone is even more dubious. But that hardly matters in this era of “let’s hammer the white-collar defendant.”

Meanwhile, Collins’ family will be deprived of the presence of their father for seven years.

What is it going to take for this madness to stop? A truly civilized society would find a better way.

Memorandum of Law in Support of New Trial for former Refco, Inc outside counsel, Joseph P. Collins

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 15, 2010

One step forward, a big step back

Well, so finally the Department of Justice did the right thing and dismissed the remaining criminal charges against former Merrill Lynch banker, Dan Bayly, in connection with the shameful Enron-related Nigerian Barge prosecution.

Even in the heavily-littered landscape of failed Enron-related prosecutions, the Nigerian Barge prosecution stood out for its sheer brazen nature. As noted in this post from over five years ago (!), the Nigerian Barge prosecution was baseless from the start and, as later developments revealed, trumped-up to boot.

After prosecuting Arthur Andersen out of business in the intensely anti-business post-Enron climate of Houston in 2004, the Enron Task Force threatened to do the same to Merrill Lynch unless the firm served up some sacrificial lambs, which it did by offering Mr. Bayly, Robert Furst, James Brown and William Fuhs.

Through a deferred prosecution agreement with Merrill, the Task Force then proceeded to hamstring the Merrill defendants' defense by limiting access to other Merrill Lynch executives who were involved in the barge transaction. To make matters worse, the Task Force then intimidated other potentially exculpatory witnesses by threatening to indict them if they cooperated with the Merrill defendants’ defense.

Thus, after bludgeoning a couple of plea deals from former key witnesses Ben Glisan and Michael Kopper, the Task Force proceeded to put on a paper-thin case against the defendants, which was good enough to obtain convictions.

Of course, most of the convictions were vacated on appeal (and in Fuhs' case, thrown out completely), but not before each of the Merrill defendants had served over a year in prison and their families had incurred the incalculable human cost of these misguided prosecutions.

Incredibly, over the past couple of years, the Department of Justice (the Enron Task Force has, mercifully, been disbanded) actually has been threatening to pursue a re-trial of the Merrill defendants. Accordingly, the dismissal of the remaining charges against Mr. Bayly was good news. A similar dismissal of charges against his remaining co-defendants - Messrs. Furst and Brown – would certainly follow, right?

Apparently not, at least for the time being. Inexplicably, the DOJ announced yesterday that it is continuing to pursue charges against Mr. Furst.

So, Mr. Furst unloaded on the DOJ yesterday with the filing of this motion to dismiss on the grounds of pervasive and egregious prosecutorial misconduct. You can review the motion here, but if you go ahead and download it, then you can review a version of the motion that is bookmarked in Adobe Acrobat to facilitate ease of review. Inasmuch as the 45 page motion includes about 350 pages of exhibits, bookmarks are helpful.

The summary of the motion gets right to the shocking point:

The American criminal justice system is built upon the principle that the government’s interest “is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). The Enron Task Force (the “ETF”)—a team of prosecutors and investigators formed in 2002 to address the public demand for individual accountability in the aftermath of Enron’s collapse—investigated, indicted, and prosecuted Defendant Robert Furst and his co-defendants with the goal to win at all costs. And the ETF “won”—Mr. Furst spent almost a year in prison before his conviction was overturned on appeal.

But to secure victory, the ETF engaged in a campaign of misconduct which violated Mr. Furst’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. This misconduct was necessary because the case the ETF indicted and hoped to prosecute, which would involve a sordid tale of a well-organized conspiracy to defraud Enron and its shareholders, was not supported by the facts.

The ETF could not prove that Enron or its shareholders lost any money in the barge transaction, because they did not. The form and mechanics of the transaction were thoroughly vetted through hundreds of hours of negotiation by dozens of highly-competent attorneys. Witnesses interviewed by the ETF undercut its theory of the case. In short, the barge transaction had all the markings of a legitimate business transaction, because it was.

But legitimate business transactions do not generate convictions, and the ETF needed convictions. So, in order to ensure victory, the ETF:

● withheld volumes of exculpatory, case-dispositive evidence which nullified its theory of criminal liability;

● manipulated and misstated exculpatory testimony in pretrial disclosures to make it appear inculpatory;

● silenced witnesses by indiscriminately designating nearly all material witnesses as unindicted co-conspirators; and

● sponsored inculpatory testimony that it knew was false.

The ETF’s conduct did not end with the return of the verdict. After trial, but before sentencing, the ETF received additional case-dispositive, exculpatory evidence from one of the key witnesses in the case. This evidence further nullified the ETF’s theory of criminal liability, and exculpated Mr. Furst.

Rather than disclosing this evidence to the Court, the ETF instead withheld the evidence and brazenly asked this Court to enhance Mr. Furst’s sentence for conduct which was negated by this and other evidence in the ETF’s possession. This misconduct eliminates all faith in the integrity of the jury’s verdict and warrants dismissal of the Indictment.  .   .   .

The mess that is the Nigerian Barge prosecution is a quintessential example of what happens when government is given the leeway to bastardize charges to criminalize a merely questionable business transaction and then appeal to juror resentment against wealthy businesspeople to procure politically popular convictions.

The damage to the defendants, their careers and their families that this abuse of power has caused is bad enough. But the carnage to justice and respect for the rule of law is even more ominous. Does anyone really think that they could stand upright in the winds of such abusive governmental power if that gale turned toward them?

The remaining charges against Messrs. Furst and Brown should be dismissed. Not only for their protection, but for ours, too.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 5, 2010

Understanding Adoption

One of the most discouraging aspects of the societal tide of resentment and scapegoating that has permeated the corporate criminal prosecutions since the demise of Enron has been the utter lack of perspective regarding the horrendous human cost of those prosecutions.

Even the horrendous financial cost of those prosecutions seems easier to confront.

A stark example of the human cost is what happened to Ken Lay's family, who endured the decline of a loving father and grandfather as he defended himself against dubious charges that in a less-heated climate would likely never have been pursued.

Equally barbaric is the reprehensible 24-year prison sentence assessed to former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, whose family has been deprived of their father for over three years now and is threatened to be without him for most of the rest of his life.

But the family that arguably paid the steepest cost from the wave of unjust corporate prosecutions was the family of Jamie Olis, the former mid-level Dynegy executive who was thrown to the prosecutorial wolves by his employer and then sentenced to a ludicrously excessive 24 plus-year prison term for his involvement in a structured finance transaction for which he profited not one dime.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately threw out that sentence, which resulted in a still-too-harsh six-year re-sentencing. Olis was finally paroled last year and reunited with his wife and young daughter, who literally grew up visiting her father in prison.

But even in the face of such inhumanity, the human spirit perseveres.

Throughout the Olis family's ordeal, Jamie's father -- Bill Olis -- stood out as a rock of stability and common sense.

Whether it was attending the myriad of hearings in Jamie's case in Houston, or escorting Jamie's wife and daughter the hundreds of miles to visit Jamie in far-off prisons, or lending moral support to other families who were enduring similar injustices, Bill Olis projected a sense of calm perspective that was contagious to all who came in contact with him.

He had much to be bitter about in regard to what the federal government did to his son and family, but Bill Olis never gave in to bitterness. He was a quintessential Christian gentleman and nothing that the government did to his family could change that.

Throughout his son's darkest times, Bill remained confident that he and his family would ultimately be reunited with Jamie. Yeah, the government is powerful, but no earthly force was going to destroy Bill Olis' family.

As a result, Ellen Podgor of the White Collar Crime Prof Blog re-named her "Collar for the Best Parent Award" to the "Bill Olis Best Parent Award" because -- in the category of a parent supporting an imprisoned child -- "no one comes close to Bill Olis."

What was not well known through all of this was that Bill Olis was slowly fading away physically during his son's imprisonment. Bill had an oxygen unit with him almost constantly as he tended to his family's needs throughout their ordeal. No big deal for Bill. Mere failing health was not going to stop Bill Olis from being present when his son was released from prison last year. He was there embracing Jamie with the rest of the family, oxygen tank and all.

With the work of reuniting his son with his family done, Bill Olis died over this past weekend. I understand from a family friend that Jamie was able to spend most of Bill's final two weeks with him, which I know Bill enjoyed immensely. He adored his son.

The Olis family story is a remarkable one and frankly far more interesting than the government's dishonest case against Jamie. Years ago, Bill Olis married a single Korean mother and adopted her young son. He provided his wife and son a stable and loving home, and the family flourished. His son excelled in school, obtained advanced degrees in both business and law, and embarked upon a successful career in corporate finance. And when the government targeted the son as a sacrificial lamb for the anti-business mob, Bill Olis spent his last days in this world supporting his son every step of the way and making sure that he returned to his wife and daughter.

Then he passed away.

A Christian minister friend once observed to me that a good way to embrace what is good about the Christian spirit is through understanding the nature of adoption.

Bill Olis was living proof of the truth of that observation.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 26, 2009

Again, why bother with a trial?

The popular view is that R. Allen Stanford is a crook and should spend the rest of his life in prison.

But doesn't the U.S. Constitution -- not to speak of simple human decency -- provide him with the opportunity to contest the government's charges against him fairly?

These earlier posts (here, too) touched on the indefensible prison conditions that the federal government has imposed on R. Allen Stanford as he awaits trial on criminal fraud charges arising from the demise of Stanford Financial Group.

Last week, Stanford's lawyers filed the motion below requesting that U.S. District Judge David Hittner release Stanford on strict conditions pending his trial that would make it virtually impossible for him to go to the corner drug store without the U.S. Marshals being notified immediately.

Judge Hittner promptly denied the motion without comment, which is next to inexplicable given what is contained in the motion. Here is a mere sampling:

Mr. Stanford has been incarcerated since June 18, 2009 and was moved to the [Federal Detention Center] on September 29, 2009. Immediately upon his arrival at the FDC, he underwent general anesthesia surgery due to injuries that were inflicted upon him at the Joe Corley Detention Facility. He was then immediately taken from surgery and placed in the Maximum Security Section — known as the “Special Housing Unit” (SHU) — in a 7' x 6 1/2' solitary cell. He was kept there, 24 hours a day, unless visited by his lawyers. No other visitors were permitted, nor was he permitted to make or receive telephone calls. He had virtually no contact with other human beings, except for guards or his lawyers.

When he was taken from his cell, even for legal visits, he was forced to put his hands behind his back and place them through a small opening in the door. He then was handcuffed, with his arms behind his back, and removed from his cell. After being searched, he was escorted to the attorney visiting room down the hall from his cell; he was placed in the room and then the guards locked the heavy steel door. He was required, again, to back up to the door and place his shackled hands through the opening, so that the handcuffs could be removed. At the conclusion of his legal visits, he was handcuffed through the steel door, again, and then taken to a different cell where he was once again required to back up to the cell door to have his handcuffs removed and then forced to remove all of his clothing. Once he was nude, the guards then conducted a complete, external and internal search of his body, including his anus and genitalia. He was then shackled and returned to his cell. In his cell there was neither a television nor a radio and only minimal reading material  was made available to him. He remained there in complete solitude and isolation until the next time his lawyers returned for a visit.

In short, Mr. Stanford was confined under the same maximum security conditions as a convicted death row prisoner, even though the allegations against him are for white collar, non-violent offenses. He is certainly not viewed as someone who poses a threat to other persons or the community, nevertheless, he has been deprived of human contact, communication with family and friends, and was incarcerated under conditions reserved for the most violent of convicted criminals. Officials at the FDC informed counsel that this was for Mr. Stanford’s “own protection” and to minimize their liability.  .  .  .

The U.S. criminal justice system used to be an institution that distinguished a free society from those that endured under oppressive regimes.

But with cases such as Stanford's, it's sure getting hard to tell the difference between the U.S. system and the supposedly more oppressive ones.

Mtn for Reconsideration of Detention Order

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 18, 2009

They got how much? For doing what?

Just when it looked as if progress was being made, the harsh reality of the severe trial penalty and the absurd severity of punishment parameters in white collar criminal cases reared its ugly head.

This time its the harsh sentences that U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon handed down on Thursday to three former El Paso Natural Gas Company natural gas traders -- 14 years to one defendant and 11 years and 3 months to the other two. They were convicted of multiple counts fraud and false reporting in connection with what has become known in Houston as "the trader cases."

The severity of the sentences is mind-boggling when compared with the nature of the alleged "crime."

The government alleged that the three traders provided false information to natural gas industry publications such as the Inside FERC Gas Market Report, which use data from traders to calculate an index price of natural gas.

Inasmuch as movement in index prices can theoretically affect the level of profits that traders can generate, the government's theory was that the defendants provided false information so that they and El Paso could reap higher profits on their trades.

However, the government never proved that the magazines actually used the false information that the defendants provided to them or that the information actually affected the natural gas markets at all. Indeed, a myriad of market factors affect natural gas prices, as with the price of any commodity.

That was no problem for prosecutors, though. The government contended that the market effect of providing the false information was irrelevant and that the prosecution needed only to prove that false information was reported to the magazines in order to make a gain a conviction of the defendants. And they got away with it.

So, key point to all businesspeople -- don't ever provide any information to a publication about your business that could be construed to be false. It really doesn't make any difference whether the false information affects your company. The government contends that the mere transmittal of the false information is the crime.

Meanwhile, three relatively young men (the oldest is 49) with families and promising careers are now facing over a decade of imprisonment for the "crime" of reporting false price information to a magazine.

Just what is the purpose of this?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

December 17, 2009

"Mr. Ruehle, you are a free man"

Larry Ribstein and the WSJ's Holman Jenkins -- both of whom exposed the vacuity of the federal government's backdating witch hunt from the very beginning -- provided their usual insightful perspective on U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney's decision earlier this week to dismiss the government's remaining criminal charges against former Broadcom CFO William J. Ruehle and Broadcom's co-founder, Henry Nicholas, III. A copy of the transcript of Judge Carney's inspiring ruling is below.

Given the excellence of Professor Ribstein and Mr. Jenkins' analysis of the corrupt nature of the backdating prosecutions, there is really nothing to add in that regard. The bottom line is that the unchecked prosecutorial power of the state does enormous damage to lives, families, and careers, as well as job and wealth creation.

But as I read the transcript below and the motion to dismiss that prompted it, imagine my surprise to discover that one of the prosecutors involved in the Broadcom misconduct was a member of the Enron Task Force that engaged in similar conduct in connection with the prosecution of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling and chairman Ken Lay. Frankly, as bad as the prosecutorial misconduct was in the criminal case against Mr. Ruehle and the other Broadcom executives, it pales in comparison to what prosecutors made Skilling and Lay endure.

Judge Carney provided in the Broadcom prosecutions a perspective of fairness and wisdom that was sadly lacking in the Enron cases. He reminds us that the line between freedom and oppression in civil society is often razor-thin.

His final declaration in the transcript below is one that we should all embrace:

"I don't think anything needs to be said further other than, Mr. Ruehle, you are a free man."

Download Transcript of Judge Carney's Ruling

.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 16, 2009

Criminalizing the neighborhood pharmacist

This blog has long addressed the enormous cost to American society of overcriminalization generally and particularly with regard to business and risk-taking.

But lest we think that the problem is limited to such things as business and victimless crimes, think again says Bob Wachter:

Along comes another case involving jail time for a medical mistake, this one featuring an Ohio pharmacist named Eric Cropp.

Eric was the lead pharmacist at Cleveland’s Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital on February 26, 2006. The pharmacy, understaffed that day, received a rush order for chemotherapy for a 2-year-old girl, Emily Jerry, who was undergoing treatment for a spinal malignancy.

An unlicensed and distracted (by press accounts, she was planning her wedding on the day of the event) pharmacy technician mistakenly mixed the chemo with 23% saline rather than the intended 0.9%. Eric, working in cramped quarters and rushed for time, gave final approval to the mixture, partly because, after seeing a spent bag of 0.9% saline next to the mixed solution, he assumed that it had gone into the solution.

In other words, the case was a classic illustration of James Reason’s Swiss cheese model, in which numerous safety checks failed due to a confluence of systems and human errors. Tragically, little Emily died from the hypertonic saline infusion.

On hearing of the error, a Cuyahoga County DA decided that the case merited criminal prosecution, even though Eric had no history of errors in his pharmacy career and root cause analysis of the case confirmed that its cause was simple human error compounded by systems problems. At trial, fearing even harsher penalties, Eric pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, and was sentenced to 6 months in the state prison, 6 months of home confinement, 3 years of probation, 400 hours of community service, and a $5,000 fine. Moreover, the Ohio pharmacy board permanently stripped him of his license, depriving him of his livelihood – forever.  .  .  .

During last week’s webcast, Mike Cohen described visiting Eric in prison. “Like a scene out of a movie,” he recalled, with Eric in his orange jumpsuit, speaking to visitors through a glass wall, other felons – including violent offenders – milling about. As he related the visit, Mike choked up with emotion, clearly seeing this tale as both powerfully tragic and cautionary.

How has it come to the point where the criminal justice system exacerbates the tragedy of a young girl's accidental death by ruining a career and inflicting enormous damage on an innocent family? At least the young girl's family recovered substantial financial damages resulting from the pharmacist's negligence. Where does the young pharmacist's family turn for help?

A truly civil society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 15, 2009

How many felonies did you commit today?

Overcriminalization of daily life, particularly as it relates to punishing taking risks necessary to create jobs and wealth, are common topics on this blog.

Longtime Boston attorney Harvey A. Silvergate is an expert on this troubling trend in American jurisprudence. His recent book -- Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (Encounter Books, 2009) -- examines how pliable politicians have expanded the criminal laws to the point where the freedom of virtually anyone who attempts to take risks to create jobs and wealth is subject to the whims of often avaricious prosecutors.

Silvergate is currently guest-posting over at The Volokh Conspiracy where, in this post, he examines how the crime of honest services wire fraud involved in the Skilling case has allowed prosecutors pretty much to choose whether to indict and prosecute business people at their discretion:

Because of the vague terminology increasingly used in the ever-expanding federal criminal code, combined with the erosion of intent as a requirement for conduct to be considered prosecutable, the average citizen can easily commit several felonies in any given day.  .  .  .

“Honest services” fraud is an instructive example of this trend, but the federal law books are cluttered with countless others. Creative interpretations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, obstruction of justice statutes, and controversial Patriot Act provisions—to name a few—have turned honest citizens into federal defendants and even convicted felons. [.  .  .]

This dangerous trend is exacerbated by the “win at all costs” mentality of the Justice Department. Colleagues are turned into stool pigeons as prosecutors offer deals for testimony that often bears little resemblance to the truth. (As my colleague Alan Dershowitz colorfully but all-too-accurately puts it, “prosecutors can pressure witnesses not only to sing, but also to compose.”)

Faced with the prospect of a long prison sentence, enormous costs of defense counsel, and frequent threats to indict family members who are thus held hostage, defendants often choose, to parody an old cigarette commercial, to switch rather than fight.

At some point, shouldn't we be asking the question -- why are we doing this to ourselves?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 12, 2009

The Skilling Merits Brief

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing earlier this week in Conrad Black's appeal of his criminal conviction on honest services wire-fraud charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 ("Section 1346), former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling filed his brief on the merits of his similar appeal with the Supreme Court yesterday.  Oral argument on Skilling's appeal will take place on March1st of next year at 1 p.m.

A copy of the Skilling's merits brief is below. The sections of that copy are bookmarked in Adobe Acrobat to facilitate ease of review, so download a copy to take advantage of those features.

This earlier post and Lyle Denniston's ScotusBlog post on the Skilling merits brief provide thorough analysis of the issues involved in Skilling's appeal, which differ a bit from Lord Black's appeal. So, I won't reiterate those points here.

However, the following are some highlights of the brief, which is well-written and forceful. Citations to the appellate record that are contained in the brief are deleted in the following excerpts.

The following excerpts get to the heart of the appeal:

Skilling not only was tried by jurors drawn from a community passionately committed to convicting him, but he was prosecuted under a vague statute that virtually ensured jurors would vindicate that objective.

Section 1346 is an unconstitutionally vague statute. A federal criminal statute must define the conduct it proscribes so that ordinary persons have notice of what is prohibited, and prosecutors are constrained in what they can prosecute. But everyone agrees that § 1346 on its face says nothing about the conduct it proscribes. To identify its meaning, one must consult almost two decades worth of Federal Reports, searching for cases describing or enforcing the judicially-created crime of honest-services fraud, before this Court rejected them all as exceeding the judicial function in McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350 (1987).

But those cases reflect only the same morass of conflict and confusion that, in part, led this Court to require that Congress define the crime clearly in the first place. Congress did not do so. And it is beyond the judicial function to identify, through common-law exegesis of pre-McNally precedents, the crime that Congress failed to define. [.  .  .]

The Government’s theory is not that Skilling received bribes or kickbacks, or that he directed money or property to an entity in which he had a personal interest, or indeed that he acted for any private gain that was distinct from his ordinary compensation incentives. The Government openly conceded at trial that Skilling stole no money from Enron, that the case against Skilling was not about “greed,” that Skilling sought to pursue Enron’s “best interests,” and that every act for which he was prosecuted was undertaken for the purpose of protecting Enron and promoting its share value.

The Government proceeded on the theory that Skilling nonetheless committed honest-services fraud simply because he took on too much risk for the long-term good of Enron, and improperly touted the company. It did not seek an instruction requiring jurors to find that Skilling acted pursuant to undisclosed personal financial interests in conflict with Enron’s. Instead the Government urged the jury to send Skilling to prison simply because he breached his “duty to do [his] job and do it appropriately.” That theory of honest-services fraud has no grounding in pre-McNally caselaw, and is totally at odds with the Government’s current conception of the statute.

The implications of that theory, moreover, extend far beyond what Congress reasonably could have intended when it enacted § 1346 to overrule McNally, a public-official kickback case. In the private sector, corporate officers are expected to take business risks and cheerlead for their enterprises. A rule that criminalizes every business decision that seems imprudent to prosecutors or lay jurors in hindsight — but does not involve the corrupt pursuit of private gain— would force officers to proceed at their peril in making everyday business judgments. Fortunately, the theory of honest-services fraud the Government advanced below is not the law, as the Government now recognizes.

In that regard, Skilling reminds the Court of the chillingly scant basis of the "crime" the Enron Task Force prosecutors told the jury that Skilling had committed:

In closing argument, the Government declared that Skilling and Lay committed honest-services fraud because they violated a duty to Enron’s “employees” — one prosecutors described as “a duty of good faith and honest services, a duty to be truthful, and a duty to do their job … and do it appropriately.” [.  .  .]

[The Enron Task Force's] consistent position in this case has been that the evidence needed only to show—and did only show—“a material violation of a fiduciary duty that defendants owed to Enron and its shareholders.”

In other words, making a bad decision or doing a poor job in running a business is a crime. Almost nothing else need be said in explaining why the Skilling appeal is of paramount importance to the protection of taking risk and creating wealth in the American business community.

On the issue of why Skilling should have never been tried in Houston, check out part of the brief's summary of the community prejudice against Skilling that the leader of the mob promoted:

What follows is a sampling of the searing media attacks. One column in the Houston Chronicle, entitled “Your Tar and Feathers Ready? Mine Are,” demanded a “witch hunt.” Houstonians maintained that Skilling and Lay had “stole[n] money from investors,” “ripped off their stockholders for billions,” and “destroyed a great corporation.”

Skilling and Lay were compared to Al Qaeda, Hitler, Satan, child molesters, rapists, embezzlers, and terrorists and encouraged to “go to jail” and “to hell.” Some suggested they should face “the old time Code of the West.” A local rap song (entitled “Drop the S Off Skilling”) threatened Skilling’s murder. Polling showed that Houstonians routinely labeled Skilling a “pig,” “snake,” “crook,” “thief,” “fraud,” “asshole,” “criminal,” “bastard,” “scoundrel,” “liar,” “weasel,” “economic terrorist,” “evil,” “deceitful,” “dishonest,” “greedy,” “devious,” “lecherous,” “despicable,” “equivalent [to] an axe murderer,” and a man who had “no conscience,” “stole from employees,” and “swindled a lot of people.” Skilling’s picture was “used as a dartboard” and placed on “Wanted” posters next to Osama bin Laden. When Skilling was indicted, the Chronicle proclaimed: “Most Agree: Indictment Overdue.” The paper’s negative coverage extended to articles on sports, education, music, and more.

After detailing how potential jurors' pre-trial questionnaire answers about the case mirrored the foregoing community prejudice, Skilling describes U.S. District Judge Sim Lake's nominal questioning of the jurors that was hopelessly inadequate to overcome the presumption of community prejudice:

Skilling sought extensive, non-public, individualized voir dire to try to screen out all the potentially biased jurors—especially in light of the questionnaire responses exposing specific prejudices. But the court took the opposite tack, holding voir dire before throngs of reporters in a ceremonial courtroom, limiting it to just five hours, and twice chastising defense counsel for asking too many questions about potential prejudice because the court had prohibited “individual voir dire.” Just 46 people were questioned—eight more than the minimum necessary—and only for a few minutes each. Only seven were struck for cause, with one excused for hardship.

Skilling then explains what should have happened in the face of such clear bias:

[I]f the [District Court] had presumed prejudice among all potential jurors, it could not have refused to permit probing inquiry into each individual juror’s biases. To the contrary, the Government would have been forced to make detailed inquiries of each juror in order to prove each juror’s impartiality beyond a reasonable doubt, and of course the defense would have been entitled to pursue similar lines to smoke out concealed or latent prejudices.

None of that happened here. Instead the district court satisfied itself that Skilling failed to prove actual prejudice for little reason other than the court looked jurors “in the eye” and decided to credit their promises of fairness. If the presumption of prejudice can be rebutted on that kind of showing, the presumption has no meaning at all.

As I've noted many times previously, a humane and civil society would find a better way than what was done to Jeff Skilling to hold people responsible for their errors in business judgment while they are attempting to create jobs for communities and wealth for investors. I remain hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree.

Jeff Skilling's Merits Brief at SCOTUS

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 28, 2009

Noticing injustice

Following on a point made in these earlier posts, the Chron's Mary Flood reports on the indefensible conditions that the federal government has imposed on R. Allen Stanford as he awaits trial on criminal fraud charges arising from the demise of Stanford Financial Group.

Sort of reminds you of the way in which certain other countries handle the prosecution of business executives, doesn't it?

Ironically, while rightfully questioning whether Stanford is being given a fair shake, the Chron continues to avoid examining its equally dubious record in creating a presumption of community prejudice against Jeff Skilling.

Witch hunts do not reflect well on the participants.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 25, 2009

"People get put in jail for importing lobsters"

The disturbing trend of an increasingly powerful federal government criminalizing all sorts of conduct that should not be criminalized has been a frequent topic (see also here) on this blog.

Adam Liptak of the NY Times, who has written extensively about the over-criminalization of American society, reports that a bipartisan group is finally organizing to do something about it:

“It’s a remarkable phenomenon,” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “The left and the right have bent to the point where they are now in agreement on many issues. In the area of criminal justice, the whole idea of less government, less intrusion, less regulation has taken hold.”

Edwin Meese III, who was known as a fervent supporter of law and order as attorney general in the Reagan administration, now spends much of his time criticizing what he calls the astounding number and vagueness of federal criminal laws.[.  .  .]

There are, the [Heritage Foundation] says, more than 4,400 criminal offenses in the federal code, many of them lacking a requirement that prosecutors prove traditional kinds of criminal intent.

“It’s a violation of federal law to give a false weather report,” Mr. Meese said.

“People get put in jail for importing lobsters.”

Nice quote from Meese, but Radley Balko points out that his involvement in the movement would mean more if he admitted his past involvement in the problem.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 24, 2009

Who fears freeing whom?

In this lengthy NY Times Magazine piece from this past weekend, Andrew Meier decries the Russian government's unjust prosecution and treatment of former Yukos chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky:

Many can’t quite embrace an oligarch as a prisoner of conscience. He is a titan who fell from favor, some say, not a dissident physicist or a novelist arrested for a subversive manuscript. Whatever his sins, though, Khodorkovsky was not jailed for breaking the law. His courting of the Bush White House and pursuit of oil partners at home and abroad infuriated the Kremlin. But his gravest error was to challenge Putin. The reason behind his imprisonment, Khodorkovsky claims, “is well known and widely discussed. It was my constant support of opposition parties and the Kremlin’s desire to deprive them of an independent source of financing. As for the more base reason, it was the desire to seize someone else’s efficient company.”

His motives may have been mercenary, but Khodorkovsky in his cell has come to embody the fiat of the state, its arbitrary and boundless power. To date, the authorities have brought charges against 43 former Yukos employees and associates, conducted more than 100 raids .   .   .

Meanwhile, the Times and most of the rest of the mainstream media have largely ignored -- and often promoted -- similar mistreatment and persecution of business executives in our own country.

Yeah, Russian criminal justice system is corrupt, America's is far superior.

Old narratives die hard.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 11, 2009

Refusing to throw in the towel is not a crime

Thank goodness.

Despite the government's sordid expansion of crimes against business people over the past decade, at least it's not a crime to decline to throw in the towel on a business venture simply because there are signs that it might fail. As John Carney eloquently points out, that's in all of our best interests.

Sort of makes one wonder what would have happened if Jeff Skilling had been tried in even a reasonably fair environment?

And the government's response of putting Messrs. Cioffi and Tannin through hell over the past year?:

"Of course, we are disappointed by the outcome in this case, but the jurors have spoken, and we accept their verdict," said Benton Campbell, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, in a written statement.

Of course, the off-the-record response was a tad less diplomatic toward the jury. But at least Campbell should know about failed prosecutions. Is a result such as this the reason why he insists on continuing to bring them?

Update: Frostburg State Economics Professor William Anderson, who has written extensively on the adverse economic impact of the government's criminalization of business policy, followed the trial closely and provides this insightful postscript, which includes the following insightful observation about the obstacles that defendants face even in the face of a weak prosecution:

If anything, the slanderous and dishonest post-acquittal remarks by prosecutors drive home just how contemptuous federal prosecutors are of everyone else. The jury did not acquit because they were too stupid and vapid to understand the clarity of the prosecution’s case; they acquitted because they did understand that the government’s simple, clear presentation was not true, or, at very best, did not do a good job of meeting the "reasonable doubt" standards.

I was not surprised at the acquittal, given what I knew was presented in court and given what my sources had been telling me. My only fear was a federal jury being, well, a federal jury that throws sops to those poor, underpaid prosecutors who claim they only are trying to do justice.

In the end, however, the jury did its job, and judge did his job, the defendants were innocent, and the prosecution continued to lie. Oh, and the media will continue to be the media. Like the Bourbons, they "learn nothing and they forget nothing."

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

October 27, 2009

Ellen Podgor on the trial penalty

Stetson College of Law Professor Ellen S. Podgor, who authors the popular White Collar Crime Prof Blog, has written an important law review article on a key issue that is confronting defense attorneys and courts in this age of criminalizing merely unpopular business people and practices -- the onerous trial penalty that a defendant faces for electing to exercise the right to force the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:

This Article  .  .  . shows that innocence is no longer the key determinant in some aspects of the federal criminal justice system, even for those charged with white collar offenses. Rather, our existing legal system places the risk of going to trial, and in some cases even being charged with a crime, so high, that innocence and guilt no longer become the real considerations. This is especially true for upper level white collar offenders like CEOs3 and corporate entities. In these cases maneuvering the system to receive the least onerous consequences may ensure the best result for the accused party, regardless of innocence.

Arthur Andersen LLP, Jamie Olis, and Jeffrey Skilling proceeded to trial after criminal charges were brought against them. In contrast, KPMG, Gene Foster, and Andrew Fastow secured plea agreements or deferred prosecution agreements with reduced sentences and finite results. As one might imagine, the latter group's sentences or fines were significantly below those of the individuals and entities that proceeded to trial. The pronounced gap between those risking trial and those securing pleas is what raises concerns here. [.  .   .]

The reward of a "not guilty" verdict at trial comes at a high cost. There is the high cost of going to trial, a cost that far exceeds the typical street crime because of the long investigation and trial and in large part be-cause these cases are predominantly a product of documents. It can also be a short-lived verdict when the government decides to proceed against the individual with a second prosecution, even after a not guilty finding. [.  .  .]

This means that innocence or guilt does not frame the judicial process in white collar cases. The risk of trial becomes so great that in order to minimize the possible consequences innocence becomes an irrelevancy. Although the plea bargain to trial differential existed for many years in crimes outside the white collar crime context, the high sentences now being given to individuals and entities charged with white collar crimes place those crimes in comparable stead with street crimes. This gives pause to whether the next phase of wrongful convictions might move beyond street crimes into the white collar world.

My sense is that many prosecutors these days have come to the conclusion that merely obtaining an indictment in a business-related case means that they probably won't have to bother with a trial -- the trial penalty that the defendant faces will almost always prompt a plea bargain. Thus, the indictment itself has become the punishment for risky business behavior that prosecutors simply do not like.

We live in scary times indeed.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

October 22, 2009

More thoughts on business "crimes"

Clear Thinkers favorite Holman Jenkins has yet another excellent column this week entitled When Bad Luck is a Crime (or, stated another way, the new crime of violating the obligation to throw in the towel).

Among other points, Jenkins notes that the mainstream media to date has done a poor job of resisting hindsight bias in reporting on business failures:

When it comes to cheering CEOs, booing them or throwing them in jail, a consideration that ought to be nagging is whether we're reacting to luck or design.

Ken Lay, to cite a notorious example, was prosecuted not for the sins that brought down Enron, but for failing to tell investors the company was predestined to fail even as he tried to save it. Exactly the same treatment is now being meted out to two ex-Bear Stearns hedge- fund managers on trial in New York this week. Then there's Ken Lewis, the Bank of America chief, who hasn't been indicted (yet) but is being roundly booed in the media because his acquisition of Merrill Lynch is deemed in retrospect to have been a mistake.

Now we might be tempted to say journalists are especially susceptible to the hindsight fallacy. But a truer statement is that we thrive on it, are its avenging angels, forever treating every bad outcome as proof of incompetence if not malfeasance, and every good outcome as the result of far-seeing excellence. [.  .  .]

.  .  .  Here, journalism, and perhaps only journalism, can unpack the final puzzle—albeit a journalism that properly understands the role of luck in determining the outcomes that so excite journalists and sometimes prosecutors in the first place.

Meanwhile, Stephen Bainbridge and Larry Ribstein -- both of whom have been pre-eminent blogosphere leaders in educating the public about business law issues -- provide insightful analysis of the legal and policy issues involved in the Galleon insider trading case that the Department of Justice initiated late last week.

As noted here before, criminalizing insider trading risks harming legal and socially beneficial trading. The line is thin indeed between illegal insider trading, on one hand, and an entirely legal and productive hedge fund operation on the other.

Sort of makes one wonder whether the criminalization of insider trading does more harm than good?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 21, 2009

An Enron Task Force-induced nightmare ends

So, the Fifth Circuit followed the instructions of the U.S. Supreme Court and finally directed the U.S. District Court in Houston to dismiss all remaining charges against former Enron Broadband executive, Scott Yeager. The appellate court's order effectively ends a prosecution that was an abomination from the very beginning.

No convictions from trial resulted from the Enron Broadband criminal case. The prosecution generated only a few plea bargains (see also here and here) that were clearly motivated by the onerous trial penalty and expense of defending against the government's intransigent pressing of its dubious theory of criminal liability. The Houston Chronicle's Mary Flood interviewed Yeager and touches on the pressures he endured in fighting the charges.

Meanwhile, Jeff Skilling has now served over three years in prison because of a flawed conviction based on a similarly dubious theory of criminality. And Jamie Olis lost six years of his life away from his young family as a result of an equally bogus prosecution.

The prosecutors who pursued these cases ruined careers and harmed families by abusing the state's overwhelming prosecutorial power. They remind me of Ayn Rand's observation about socialists who use state power to further their supposedly altruistic goals:

"[T]he truth about their souls is worse than the obscene excuse you have allowed them, the excuse that the end justifies the means and that the horrors they practice are means to nobler ends."

"The truth is that those horrors are their ends."

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2009

The Leader of the Mob reacts

You know, it's not every day that a federal appellate court concludes that a newspaper's coverage of a particular event was a major factor in the creation of a presumption of community prejudice.

But that's precisely what the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did with regard to the Houston Chronicle's coverage of the demise of Enron generally and the prosecution of Jeff Skilling specifically  (see pp. 41-45 of the Fifth Circuit decision).

And now the Supreme Court has decided to review the Fifth Circuit's refusal to grant a Skilling a new trial in another venue because of that presumption of community prejudice. That almost never happens.

So, what does Loren Steffy -- the Chronicle's main business columnist and one of the main leaders of the mob against Skilling (see here, here, here, here and here) -- have to say about the Supreme Court's decision to review his handiwork?:

More surprising was the court's decision to review the venue issues. The district court never gave much credence to the argument that pretrial publicity and Enron's stature in Houston tainted potential jurors, and Skilling's attorney, Dan Petrocelli, never mentioned it his is argument before the appeals court.

As I've said before, the media coverage issue is especially interesting, given that someone from Skilling's legal team apparently was actively engaging in the media coverage by making anonymous posts on Chronicle blogs, including this one.

So, let's review. Houston's only daily newspaper reports on the demise of one the city's largest employers in such a biased fashion that an appellate court uses it as a basis for finding a presumption of community prejudice in the criminal trial of one of the company's leading executives. Then, the Supreme Court of the United States finds the issue so troubling that it decides to review it, which rarely happens in regard to this particular issue.

And the leader of the mob's reaction to all this?:

(1) That "the district court never gave much credence" to the issue?

Well, the Fifth Circuit has already decided that the district court was wrong about that.

(ii) That Skilling's lawyer "never mentioned it" during oral argument?

Oral argument is driven by the appellate judges' questions to the lawyers, which in this case were directed to the honest services wire-fraud issue. A substantial part of Skilling's appellate briefs addressed the community prejudice issue.

(iii) That the Chronicle's biased coverage was no big deal because someone from Skilling's team attempted to provide at least a small dose of balance to the Chronicle's biased coverage of the Skilling trial by commenting on Chronicle blog sites?

So much for fair and balanced reporting, eh?

Meanwhile, over the past couple of years, precisely what happened to Enron has also taken down numerous trust-based Wall Street firms and substantial evidence has arisen that the Enron Task Force engaged in widespread prosecutorial misconduct in prosecuting Skilling.

The Chronicle has not even acknowledged the former, while it has soft-pedaled coverage of the serious scandal represented by the latter.

Wouldn't it be ironic if that, in its haste to lead the mob against Skilling and Enron, the Chronicle misses what Larry Ribstein has characterized as the real crime in regard to Enron -- the prosecution of Skilling?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

October 14, 2009

The reeling prosecution in the Skilling case

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision earlier this year to hear Conrad Black's appeal of his criminal conviction on honest services wire-fraud charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 ("Section 1346), the Court yesterday granted former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling's appeal on similar grounds. A copy of the Skilling's cert petition and its appendix, which are bookmarked in Adobe Acrobat to facilitate ease of review, can be downloaded here.

My sense is that Skilling has a good chance of having the Supreme Court overturn his conviction. Here's why.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Skilling's appeal -- which is looking by the minute similar to the Fifth Circuit's decision in the Arthur Andersen case that was overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court -- made a mess of two key issues:

(i) application of the honest services wire-fraud statute to Skilling's actions, and

(ii) application of the standard for deciding the proper venue for Skilling's trial in the face of a presumption of community prejudice against Skilling.

As noted previously, the Fifth Circuit panel's decision in Skilling's appeal failed to reconcile the reasoning in upholding Skilling's conviction for honest services wire-fraud with earlier Fifth Circuit panel decisions on the same issue in the Nigerian Barge and Kevin Howard cases. Inasmuch as there is now a split between Fifth Circuit decisions and several other circuit appellate courts on the scope of honest services wire-fraud, the issue is ripe for Supreme Court consideration. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year urged the Supreme Court to take up the issue in his dissent from denial of certiorari in Sorich, et al v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1308, 1310 (2009):

"Without some coherent limiting principle to define what ‘the intangible right of honest services’ is, whence it derives, and how it is violated, this expansive phrase invites abuse by headline grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators, and corporate CEOs who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.  .   .   . Indeed, it seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail.”

Since Justice Scalia's dissent in Sorich, at least four other Justices (the number it takes to grant an appeal to the Supreme Court) have repeatedly voted over the objection of the Department of Justice to confront the meaning and constitutionality of Section 1346, first in the Black appeal, again in another case in June (Weyhrauch v. U.S.) and now in the Skilling appeal.

As I've noted many times over the years, the Enron Task Force's use of honest services wire-fraud charges to criminalize Enron executives has been the legal equivalent of trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.

Honest services wire-fraud under Section 1346 was intended by Congress to penalize corporate executives and governmental officials for accepting bribes and kickbacks and for engaging in self-dealing at the expense of the employer-- i.e., the private gain requirement of the crime.

The Task Force faced a big problem with prosecuting Skilling at all because he never stole a dime from Enron (that is, no private gain). In fact, the Task Force conceded at trial that, not only did Skilling not embezzle any money from Enron, the case against him was not about “greed,” that Skilling always sought to pursue Enron’s “best interests,” and that every act for which he was being prosecuted was undertaken for the purpose of protecting Enron and promoting its share price.

Despite the foregoing, the Task Force persuaded U.S. District Judge Sim Lake to allow the prosecution to proceed against Skilling on a much broader honest services theory -- that is, that Skilling simply took on too much risk for the long-term good of Enron and improperly touted the company to the markets.

However, all corporate executives take business risks and promote their companies, so a rule that criminalizes any business decision that seems imprudent to prosecutors or lay jurors operating with hindsight bias -- even if if the executive was pursuing the interest of the company -- would force corporate executives to proceed at peril of criminal liability in making day-to-day business judgments. Indeed, in a civil case, Skilling would have had the protection of the "business judgment rule" for his business decisions,  but the Enron Task Force's theory of honest services in Skilling’s case provided for no such defense. Instead, the Task Force lawyers urged the jury to send Skilling to prison effectively for life simply because he breached his duty to do his job and do it appropriately.

Thus, the essence of Skilling's appeal on the honest services wire-fraud issue is that bribes, kickbacks, and self-dealing is what Congress intended to criminalize under Section 1346, not lapses in business judgment. Where a corporate executive has not sought private gain, his conduct -- no matter how questionable, unwise, or wrongful -- should not be subject to prosecution under Section 1346, but should be left to assessment for damages that it caused in a civil lawsuit in which responsibility can be assessed to all potentially responsible parties.

The Supreme Court will also consider Skilling's arguments that (i) if Section 1346 is not limited as described above, it must be struck down entirely as unconstitutionally vague, and (ii) strongly negative publicity about Enron and Skilling in Houston made it impossible for him to be tried by an impartial jury. 

On that latter issue, Skilling argues that the Fifth Circuit improperly allowed Judge Lake to rebut a presumption of community prejudice against Skilling through a superficial voir dire of individual jurors even though the Fifth Circuit concluded that Judge Lake had improperly failed to apply the presumption of community prejudice against Skilling. Frankly, given the extensive evidence of both pervasive local media bias and prospective juror bias against Skilling, if the Supreme Court allows the Fifth Circuit's decision to stand on the venue issue, then a denial of a motion to change the venue of a trial within the Fifth Circuit will effectively no longer be grounds for an appeal.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court's review of Section 1346 in the Skilling appeal and the two related cases directly confronts how avaricious prosecutors have abused the open-ended nature of the statute. The amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys in the Skilling appeal sums it up well:

[T]e time has come to resolve the confusion that engulfs the honest services statute. [.  .  .] [The fundamental issue is] whether courts have the power to engraft limiting principles -- none of which has any strong textual basis -- on the vague language of Sec. 1346.  If federal judges lack that power, then the Court must decide whether the honest services statute, shorn of judge-created limiting principles, is void for vagueness  .   .   . The effort by courts to infuse meaning into Sec. 1346 collides .  .  . with the principle that there is no federal common law of crimes.   .    . Federal crimes are defined by statute rather than by common law.

Meanwhile, back down in the trial court part of the Skilling case, things are looking even worse for the prosecution.

First, the Fifth Circuit ordered Judge Lake to re-sentence Skilling because of an error that was made in applying a sentencing enhancement in assessing Skilling's 24-year sentence. The District Court's  docket of Skilling's criminal case reveals that Judge Lake originally scheduled Skilling's re-sentencing for July 30th but that Skilling and the prosecution filed a joint motion requesting Judge Lake to put off the re-sentencing indefinitely pending the filing of Skilling's motion for a new trial, the prosecution's response to that motion, and the Court's disposition of the motion.

In that regard, the Fifth Circuit decision invited Skilling to file a motion for new trial based on issues of prosecutorial misconduct that Skilling raised in the appeal after discovering the evidence post-trial. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit was particularly concerned about the failure of the Enron Task Force to comply with federal rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense from the Task Force's pre-trial interviews with main Skilling accuser, former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

Fastow testified at trial that he told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement, which purportedly documented a series of illegal "side deals" between Fastow and former Enron chief accountant Richard Causey that guaranteed Fastow would not lose money on certain special purpose entities that he was managing. Skilling denied any knowledge of the purported agreement.

After Skilling's conviction, the Skilling defense team discovered Fastow interview notes that the Enron Task Force had failed to disclose to the Skilling team prior to trial. Among other things, those notes revealed that Fastow had told the Task Force lawyers that he didn't think he had told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement. The Fifth Circuit characterized the Task Force's non-disclosure as "troubling" in inviting Skilling to file a motion for new trial with the District Court.

Interestingly, the docket reflects that the parties have requested that the deadline for Skilling's motion for a new trial be pushed back several times over the past six months. The deadline is now in mid-November and, as a result of the Supreme decision to review of Skilling's appeal, will probably be pushed back until after the Supreme Court rules.

So, what is going on here?

Could it be that Skilling's team has discovered even more exculpatory evidence that the Task Force failed to disclose to the Skilling defense prior to the trial?

Could it be that the government's current lawyers -- who were not members of the now-disbanded Task Force --  are now finding themselves dealing with a serious failure of the Task Force members to comply with rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense in Skilling's case and have little incentive to cover for their predecessors?

In short, could the Skilling case in the trial court be turning into something similar to this?

Finally, as if to remind us how little we have learned from the Enron debacle, on the same day that the Supreme Court announced that it would consider Skilling's appeal, the parties began picking a jury in the criminal case against two Bear Stearns executives who are accused of committing the "crime" of violating the obligation to throw in the towel on their business venture. Larry Ribstein has more.

A humane and civil society would find a better way to hold people responsible for their errors in business judgment while creating jobs for communities and wealth for investors. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

October 8, 2009

The mind of a true thief

Disgraced New York City attorney Marc Dreier's letter to his sentencing judge was quite interesting. His recent 60 Minutes interview is just as fascinating.

Dreier -- who unquestionably stole over $400 million -- received a lighter prison sentence than former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, who didn't steal a dime.

There is a huge difference between what Marc Dreier did and what Jeff Skilling did. It reflects poorly on us that our criminal justice system cannot distinguish between the two.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 16, 2009

While you're at it, Judge Rakoff

The legal and business communities are still buzzing over U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's scathing refusal earlier in the week to approve the proposed $33 million "settlement" (i.e., sweep under the rug) between the SEC and Bank of America over that the Bank's failure (at least transparently) to disclose to its shareholders the billions in bonuses that the Bank agreed that an insolvent Merrill Lynch was allowed to pay to its employees.

The 12-page decision is certainly worth a read. Judge Rakoff tears into into the SEC for contradicting its own guidelines in penalizing BofA shareholders rather than the executives and lawyers who supposedly approved the lack of disclosure. The settlement "does not comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality, in that it proposes that the shareholders who were the victims of the Bank's alleged misconduct now pay the penalty for that misconduct." The Judge didn't buy the SEC's contention that this punishment will result in better management, characterizing it as "absurd." Sort of like the notion that the SEC can really police this type of thing in the first place.

Judge Rakoff goes on in his opinion to raise at least another half-dozen or so good questions about the proposed settlement. But there's a couple more that I wish he'd asked.

A few years ago, former Enron chairman Ken Lay was prosecuted to death for promoting Enron to its shareholders even though he had a reasonable basis for believing that what he was saying about his company was true.

In contrast, the BofA executives and lawyers could not even offer the defense in a criminal fraud trial that the bad things they intentionally failed to tell BofA shareholders about the Merrill Lynch deal were immaterial.

So, isn't it about time that somebody in the federal government acknowledge that it was a mistake to prosecute Ken Lay to death? And isn't it about time that the government do something about this barbaric injustice?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 28, 2009

A real head scratcher

The Stanford Financial Group scandal has been anything but typical, but yesterday's developments may have been the most bizarre yet.

The big news, other than the hospitalization of R. Allen Stanford, was the guilty plea that Stanford's right-hand man and long-time friend, James Davis, entered in connection with a plea bargain that he worked out with federal prosecutors.

The background section of the plea deal makes for some entertaining reading (bribes to, and a blood oath with, an Antiguan bank regulator?). But the more interesting aspect is that Davis' plea is the latest chapter in a most curious defense strategy.

From almost the outset of the Stanford Financial scandal, Davis' attorney -- Dallas-based attorney David Finn -- has been telling any media outlet that was willing to quote him that his client was guilty of a huge fraud on Stanford investors and that Davis was going to plead guilty to charges as soon as he could work out details of a plea deal with federal prosecutors. Even the most rabid prosecutors would never risk making such public statements, so effectively Finn has been doing much of the prosecutors' public relations work for them.

And now we finally know the terms of the plea deal between the prosecutors and Davis.

On one hand, David pled guilty “in exchange for” a Level 43 under the Sentencing Guidelines (reduced from a Level 46 -- do the Sentencing Guidelines even go up that high?!) “with acceptance” deal. Based on my understanding, that means that Davis has agreed to a prison sentence of 30 years to life. Davis is 60, so assuming that he gets the full benefit of the the traditional 1/3rd off under the guidelines for being a good snitch (no cinch bet in Judge Hittner's court), Davis will do 20 years and be 80 by the time he shuffles out of prison.

On the other hand, the prosecution "gets” Davis as their primary witness, who -- according to the prosecution's own theory of the case -- was one of the key participants in a six billion dollar scam from the beginning. If, as prosecutors alleged during the hearing, Stanford Financial was a “giant house of cards," then why cut a “deal” with the guy who was one of the lead architects of the scam?

Well, we now have the answer to that question. The plea deal is not a "deal" at all. It's total surrender.

Davis is reportedly working as a day laborer at $10 per hour to pay his legal fees. From the looks of it, he is getting the quality of representation that he is currently capable of paying for.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 17, 2009

Where is the outrage?

A couple of stories caught my eye over the weekend.

The first was the one involving Bob Dylan being pulled over by a couple of young cops while taking a walk in a New Jersey neighborhood a few hours before his show that evening. The theme of the story is how funny it is that neither of the 20-something year-old policeman recognized the iconic musician.

However, my thought was the same as Radley Balko's -- how sad it is that a 68 year-old grandfather cannot go for a walk in a neighborhood without being confronted by a couple of policeman and ultimately escorted back to his hotel. Dylan was doing nothing wrong and there was no report of a crime in the area, yet he is pulled over and taken off the street simply because he left his ID back at the hotel. As with the Gates affair, the primary reason that police are getting away with treating citizens in such a manner is that most of the public is simply making light of it when it happens to someone else.

Meanwhile, the Dylan affair received more publicity than even a greater outrage -- that is, the guilty plea to racketeering charges of Gary S. Kaplan, who did nothing other than create and help run the publicly-owned internet gambling company named BetOnSports (previous posts here).

You may remember this lurid case from 2006. Avaricious federal prosecutors, with apparently nothing else to do, indicted BetOnSports, Kaplan and several other of the company's executives were arrested while changing planes in the U.S. despite the fact that the company was not accused of doing anything dishonest toward its customers, who simply enjoyed placing bets online. As a result of the arrests and the indictment, BetOnSports ultimately liquidated, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for American customers.

In essence, Kaplan and his associates were thrown in U.S. jails for years before trial and told that a business that they believed was legal was a criminal enterprise even though it was being run in the open and publicly-traded on the London Stock Exchange. Apparently, U.S. prosecutors now believe they can enforce even ambiguous U.S. laws on any business, wherever based, solely because some of the customers of the business happen to be Americans. The legal theory is bad enough, but the imprisonment of foreign businessmen passing through the U.S., while at the same time causing American citizens to suffer undeserved financial losses, reflects a serious lack of adult supervision at the Department of Justice.

Sure, Dylan is a funny old man now. And who cares about a few foreign businessmen who get inconvenienced by the American criminal justice system?

But as Sir Thomas More reminds us, "when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? .   .  . do you really thing you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

One of the clearest lessons of the 20th century is that large governments, unrestrained by their citizenry, have the capacity to cause unspeakable evil. As injustices such as the foregoing unfold with nary a protest from citizens, is that lesson already forgotten?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

August 13, 2009

The Stanford D&O Policy

This earlier post noted that alleged Ponzi-schemer R. Allen Stanford has been denied use of proceeds of a director's and officer's insurance policy to pay his defense costs because of claims made on that policy by the receiver appointed in the SEC's civil lawsuit against Stanford Financial Group.

Inasmuch as Stanford's personal assets have been frozen in that civil lawsuit, the lack of insurance coverage under the D&O policy has effectively prevented Stanford from finalizing arrangements for his defense in the criminal case. That state of affairs has certainly contributed to this unfortunate situation.

Thus, the issue of who is entitled to the proceeds of the Stanford D&O policy is extremely important, and Kevin LaCroix over at The D&O Diary has done this excellent analysis of the issues involved. It looks to me as if the Stanford officers have the better case than the receiver to the proceeds, but what do I know?

At any rate, if I am right, then Stanford and other Stanford Financial Group officers are being severely damaged as a result of the insurers declining to pay claims under the policy pending resolution of the receiver's claim to the policy proceeds.

It sure doesn't look as if anyone in the judiciary cares about that much.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

August 10, 2009

Reflecting on astonishing abuses of power

As Congress contemplates an historic extension of governmental control in regard to health care finance, a couple of stories relating to the growth of unrestrained exercise of governmental power in another area grabbed my attention.

First, former Dynegy executive Jamie Olis was formally released from federal prison on Friday. Along with the egregious prosecution of Arthur Andersen, the prosecution and barbaric sentencing of Olis represents a festering wound for anyone who believes in principles of limited government and innocence until proven guilty. That the judicial system allowed the executive branch to bully Dynegy into serving Olis up as the initial sacrificial lamb of business corruption in the wake of Enron's collapse is a frightening example of how little protection citizens have from dubious prosecutions. For whatever purpose, Olis remains on probation for another three years.

Meanwhile, reinforcing the point made above, Mary Flood reports that the Department of Justice -- apparently with not enough to do in investigating the meltdown on Wall Street over the past year and a half -- is actually considering another Enron-related prosecution of the disgraceful Nigerian Barge case, which has already resulted in the unjust imprisonment of four former Merrill Lynch executives for over a year before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out their convictions.  As noted in this post from over four years ago (!), the Nigerian Barge prosecution was baseless from the start and, as later developments revealed, trumped-up to boot. That this outrage is allowed to continue is yet another indication that the judiciary has ceded its role as an effective check on executive branch excesses.

Finally, the docket of the prosecution of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling now reflects that the deadline for Skilling's motion for new trial based on pervasive prosecutorial misconduct has been extended to September 9th. As noted in this previous post, a reasonable interpretation of the reason for the extensions of the deadline for Skilling's motion is that the government has turned over massive amounts of exculpatory evidence that the Enron Task Force illegally withheld from Skilling's defense team during the prosecution of Skilling and the late Ken Lay. Skilling's Fifth Circuit-ordered re-sentencing that will reduce his inhumane 24-year sentence has been put off indefinitely pending disposition of his motion for a new trial.

The Olis, Nigerian Barge and Skilling prosecutions are the other side of the coin of what happened to Professor Gates. What protection do we have that the same won't happen to you and me?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 7, 2009

The increasing cost of public equity

Frank Quattrone, the former CSFB investment banker who has an interesting perspective, notes a dynamic of the now almost decade-long criminalization of business that I have been warning business owners and lawyers about for quite some time now -- the increasing cost of public equity:

[W]hy did [public offerings] disappear in the first place?

One reason is the heightened bar for small companies to go public, Mr. Quattrone said. Throughout his career, he said, some of the greatest companies he was associated with had $30 million to $50 million in revenue when they went public. Today, he said, bankers require companies to have $100 million or even $200 million in revenue.

Part of the underappreciated societal impact of prosecutors such as those on the Enron Task Force implementing the criminalization of business lottery is that the days of small companies tapping public equity for relatively cheap venture capital are gone. Moreover, the supply of executives who are willing to work for public companies is smaller because many of the best and the brightest simply do not consider the risk of operating in the public domain worth the draconian downside. The result is that investment alternatives for investors in public markets are declining.

Not exactly a policy to encourage economic revival, now is it?

Update: Along the same lines, Larry Ribstein reviews the destruction of public equity wealth in regard to AIG that resulted in no small part from Eliot Spitzer's machinations. It's a risk that I first noted in regard to AIG way back in early 2005. When will we learn?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 5, 2009

What's the purpose of the Madoff sentence?

When Bernie Madoff was sentenced a few weeks ago, my reaction was that it is utterly absurd to imprison a 72 year-old white collar criminal for 150 years. I mean, really -- what's the point?

Herb Hoelter agrees:

Bernie Madoff's 150-year prison sentence was an affront to the federal criminal justice system.  .  .  .

I've been a professional federal sentencing consultant for more than 32 years. I have worked with hundreds of white-collar offenders over the past 25 years - Madoff, most recently - whose punishments dramatically increased in direct proportion to the government trumpets of justice, punishment and deterrence. Having lived through the past two decades of federal sentencing guidelines (no longer to be "presumed reasonable," ruled the Supreme Court this year), I know that the Madoff sentence was the crown jewel for the government.

In imposing sentence, however, the court ignored virtually all statutory sentencing principles and trumped the defunct federal sentencing guidelines. The sentence was imposed, acknowledged Judge Denny Chin, for symbolic purposes, which violates the supposed blindfolds of our nation's justice system.

The sentence was, of course, within the law. But being within the law does not always mean a sentence is appropriate. Legal scholars will be hard-pressed to find a first-offender sentence of Madoff proportions - the maximum statutory term imposed on each count, to be served consecutively. [.  .  .]

The court's responsibility is to deliver justice, not respond to emotional tactics. The Madoff sentence - with its "symbolic" justification - failed a big test.   .   .   .

In the meantime, this even more egregious sentence of a man who didn't steal a dime from his company or investors continues to fade from our society's consciousness.

A truly civil society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

July 28, 2009

Why bother with a trial?

This earlier post noted the troubling indications that R. Allen Stanford and that the federal judiciary to date is doing precious little to check the prosecutorial power of the executive branch as it applies to Stanford. This is not the first time that the prosecutorial power has run amok in a Stanford case.

Now, the motion below reveals that the Department of Justice has placed Stanford under jail conditions that are roughly comparable to those that prisoners endure in third world prisons.

Meanwhile, Stanford essentially has no ability to assist his counsel in the defense of a complicated white collar criminal case.

Increasingly, the U.S. criminal justice system is resembling this one. Yet, after the judiciary and the local media allowed the Enron Task Force to get away with various outrages against Jeff Skilling and various other former Enron executives, it's as if even the most overreaching actions of the executive branch are now considered acceptable. Or at least not worth the effort of an objection. Or serious media scrutiny.

We live in scary times.

Stanford Mtn Re Jail Conditions

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 10, 2009

Marc Dreier's letter to his sentencing judge

It will take awhile before you will read a more interesting -- and really quite extraordinary -- letter from a defendant to a sentencing judge than the one below that disgraced New York lawyer Marc Dreier wrote.

It's hard to imagine, much less understand, the personal hell that Dreier created for himself. Dreier's letter provides a glimpse of how it happened.

The webs we weave.

Marc Dreier Letter to Judge

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 9, 2009

Is Allen Stanford being railroaded?

I recognize that he is not the most popular fellow in Houston investment circles these days, but is anyone else but me a tad uncomfotable that the federal government is running roughshod over R. Allen Stanford?

As everyone following the Stanford Financial Group scandal knows by now, at the request of the Department of Justice, U.S. District Judge David Hittner overruled a federal magistrate's order last week that would have allowed Stanford to remain free on bond pending his trial on business fraud charges. As a result, Stanford is imprisoned in Houston's Federal Detention Center pending his trial, which will probably not occur until sometime next year.

Meanwhile, the DOJ, the SEC, a federal court-appointed receiver and a British receiver operating in Antigua have frozen all of Stanford's personal assets, as well as the assets of the Stanford Financial empire. Consequently, Stanford has no funds with which to retain counsel.

And now he doesn't even have the freedom to help his attorneys prepare his defense.

However, it's now become reasonably clear that the DOJ and the SEC's repeated public allegations that Stanford was running a Ponzi Scheme through Stanford Financial are, if not outright false, at least misleading and irresponsible.

Stanford Financial clearly owned substantial assets, including the Antiguan Bank that also owned substantial assets itself. Perhaps those assets were over-valued and perhaps Stanford and his associates misled investors on the bank's capability of repaying the certificates of deposit that the company promoted and sold. But that's a far cry from running a Ponzi Scheme.

Moreover, the government's efforts to prevent Stanford from paying for defense counsel are downright scary.

The fact that Stanford Financial is not in a position to pay them is not particularly surprising. The company would probably be in bankruptcy if it were not already in receivership, and it's unlikely that either a bankruptcy judge or a U.S. district judge would allow the company to pay for Stanford's criminal defense.

But putting aside for the moment the issue of Stanford not being allowed to use his personal assets to defend himself, Stanford Financial has a Director's & Officer's insurance policy that provides for payment of at least a portion of Stanford's defense However,  the Stanford Financial receiver has threatened to seek contempt charges against the insurer (Lloyds) if it pays Stanford's defense costs as it is contractually obligated to do under the policy. At the same time, the receiver, the DOJ, and the receiver are spending millions in preparing the case against Stanford. My conservative estimate is that the government's tab is more than $25 million already (the receiver alone has a pending request for $20 million in fees).

Finally, Stanford has exhibited absolutely no inclination to flee from the charges against him. He has numerous family ties to Texas and the Houston area, and he has no prior criminal record. And it's not as if Stanford can just walk away from the charges if he is allowed out on bond. He has no passport and, with the GPS tracking device that the U.S. Marshal's Office requires criminal defendants to wear these days, the U.S. Marshals know immediately when a defendant is going somewhere that he is not supposed to be.

It's easy to look the other way when this type of concerted effort by the federal government essentially strips an unpopular businessman of the capacity to defend himself against charges that could imprison him for the rest of his life.

But remember -- if it can happen to R. Allen Stanford, then it can certainly happen to you and me.

A copy of Stanford's motions seeking release of funds for his defense and for reconsideration of his detention order are below.

 

Stanford Mtn to Release Funds

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

July 2, 2009

The Chronicle's continuing Enron hypocrisy

Being generally an optimistic sort, I keep thinking that the financial crisis of the past year or so will eventually prompt the Houston Chronicle to reconsider its generally biased coverage of the demise of Enron over the past seven years. After all, it's not every day that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concludes that a newspaper's coverage of a particular event was a major factor in the creation of a presumption of community prejudice.

Nevertheless, the local paper's recent coverage of disgraced financiers R. Allen Stanford and Bernard Madoff reflects that no such soul-searching is likely to emerge anytime soon down on Texas Avenue.

Take this recent Loren Steffy column in which he asks the following: "Why, then, does Madoff get a sentence six times that of [former WorldCom CEO Bernie] Ebbers or Enron’s Jeff Skilling?"

I mean, really. Is the answer to that question all that difficult?

Madoff turns himself in and admits from the outset that he was stealing money from investors for years by running a Ponzi scheme. Any wonder why he was hammered by the sentencing judge?

Ebbers was essentially convicted of covering up accounting fraud at WorldCom, but he at least put up a colorable defense that he was not responsible for such matters and had no knowledge of the fraud.

Moreover, Skilling wasn't even accused of accounting fraud. He was convicted essentially of making too many rose-colored statements about Enron, notwithstanding that his belief in the truth of those statements was never seriously challenged.

Finally, neither Ebbers nor Skilling stole a dime from the investors of their respective companies. Yet, Steffy insists upon comparing them with the larcenous Madoff. who essentially stole tens of millions. The Greed Narrative prevails again.

But here's my main point. Now that what happened to Enron has happened to numerous other trust-based Wall Street firms, shouldn't the Chronicle be advocating that similarly aggressive criminal prosecutions be mounted against numerous executives of the Wall Street firms who made the same type of rosy statements about their wobbling companies as Skilling made about Enron?

Now, I don't believe that there was widespread criminal fraud at Enron. The only true criminal fraud there was relatively small and isolated in Andrew Fastow's Global Finance unit. Similarly, I don't believe that there was widespread criminal fraud at the Wall Street firms that endured the same downward spiral that engulfed Enron.

But inasmuch as the Chronicle fanned the flames of criminal prosecutions against dozens of Enron executives and others involved in transactions with them, shouldn't the Chronicle be taking the same position with regard to executives at the similarly-situated Wall Street firms? Or at least shouldn't the Chronicle be explaining why it threw dozens of Enron executives under the bus even though it now fails to advocate similar treatment for executives of the failed Wall Street firms?

It seems like the least that the local newspaper can do.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 12, 2009

Not a good week for freedom

First, in the face of a duplicitous government prosecution and a draconian trial penalty, Kevin Howard was forced to plead guilty to a crime that he did not commit.

Then, the executive branch of the federal government, unchecked by feckless legislative and judicial branches, undermined the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by preferring certain Chrysler creditors over others while improperly using the TARP legislation (see also here) -- which was expressly limited to financial institutions -- as a basis to loan billions to Chrysler. Moreover, the government's shots in regard to such matters are being called by a rank rookie.

Finally, the federal government seized $34 million of American citizens' funds without notice or judicial process simply because those citizens enjoy playing poker.

One of the clearest lessons of the 20th century is that large governments have the capacity to cause unspeakable evil. As these injustices unfold with nary a protest from our leaders, is that important lesson already forgotten?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

June 9, 2009

The thin line of business criminality

In this earlier post regarding former Enron Broadband CFO Kevin Howard's recent plea deal, I predicted that the factual basis for the plea deal would barely describe wrongdoing, much less criminality.

Turns out I was right. Check out paragraph 14 of the plea agreement at the bottom of page 6, which sets forth the factual basis of the deal.

That paragraph describes that Enron had told the market that its Broadband unit had great potential, but that it expected to lose at least $60 million for the year. Inasmuch as Enron's prediction was turning out to be correct, Howard helped arrange a joint venture transaction that monetized a portion of Broadband's lucrative deal with Blockbuster. Nothing unusual about that.

So, what's the problem, you ask? Essentially, the factual basis provides that Howard did not disclose to Enron's auditor (Arthur Andersen) that Enron's joint venture partner was not expecting to be a long-term partner in the joint venture, even though the partner verified by signing the joint venture agreement that it was not relying on any such expectation in connection with entering into the venture. Nevertheless, if Andersen had known that the partner was really not expecting to be in the venture for the long haul despite the terms of the written agreement, suggests the factual statement, then the auditor may not have allowed Enron to account for the deal in a way that reduced the Broadband unit's losses to the $60 million level that the company had projected and ultimately reported.

That's the basis for a crime?

Frankly, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore should have the same reaction to Howard's proposed plea deal that U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes had to the equally vacuous deal that Enron Task Force prosecutors crammed down the throat of former Enron mid-level executive Chris Calger back in 2005. At least the DOJ ultimately threw in the towel on the stinky Calger plea deal.

Based on the foregoing, any business executive who engages in a transaction for the purpose of helping his company achieve earning projections is at risk of being indicted and convicted of a crime, and sentenced to a long prison sentence.

And by a long prison sentence, I don't mean the 4-12 months of home confinement to which Howard agreed in his deal.

Remember, the foregoing transaction is one for which Jeff Skilling is currently serving 24 years in prison.

We live in truly perilous times.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

June 2, 2009

Chalk up another trial penalty deal

With no valid case against former Enron Broadband CFO Kevin Howard, what was the Department of Justice to do?

Rattle the saber of the trial penalty and cut a deal.

On one hand, the deal appears to be an extraordinarily good one for Howard. The DOJ has already run him through two financially and emotionally draining trials and related appeals, both of which resulted in embarrassing defeats for the DOJ. Had the DOJ been able to persuade a jury to make even a small portion of the charges stick (not particularly difficult in this climate), Howard would probably have been looking at doing between 5-10 years of prison time while appealing his convictions (believe me, there is precedent for that in the Enron-related criminal cases). So, serving four to 12 months of probation or home confinement doesn't look too bad in comparison.

But on another level, the deal that Howard was forced to take stinks.

As with Jeff Skilling, Kevin Howard didn't steal a dime from Enron and was simply trying to do the best job he could of preserving value in the company's broadband unit under difficult market conditions.

Moreover, it's not as if the unit didn't have potential -- Enron's joint venture with Blockbuster was intended to bring video on demand to millions of households. Almost a decade later, this technology exists on cable and is quite similar to the technology used in Apple Computer's popular iPod. This latter system is a elegant accommodation to copyrighted music and video programming in which artists are compensated and consumers have tremendously enhanced access to information and entertainment.

As Skilling testified during his trial, although Enron's investment in its broadband unit turned out to be a loser, Enron's bet on broadband had been the right one to make:

"And one last thing -- I'll make the last one argument for Broadband because people criticize me about Broadband, and I will take the criticism. We -- certainly, we made a mistake. But it wasn't big. I mean, it was a billion dollars. We invested a billion dollars in the Broadband business. If it had worked, it could have been worth $30 billion. It didn't work. We lost a billion dollars, but if you can make those kinds of bets, that's the kind of the risk you [should be taking] as a corporation. And if you do a lot of [deals with a] downside of a billion and upside of $30 [billion], you're doing a good job for your shareholders in the long run, in my opinion. This one didn't work."

That, as Skilling noted, is the type of risk that management needs the freedom to take in order to create wealth for shareholders. Criminalizing those types of failed bets is a sure way to dampen the climate for wealth creation.

Thus, confronted with no evidence of criminal wrongdoing outside of Andrew Fastow's relatively small Enron circle of friends, and under heavy political pressure to identify some Enron scapegoats, the Enron Task Force made up a crime against Howard and others. It turned out to be violation of the honest services wire-fraud statute under 18 U.S.C. § 1346. 

However, there was a problem with the Task Force's theory of criminal liability. Honest services wire-fraud is normally supposed to address the situation where a business executive takes a kickback or a bribe in violation of his fiduciary duty to his company. Howard wasn't even accused of doing any such thing. In Howard's case -- as with the case against Skilling -- the Task Force simply used those inapplicable charges as a means to appeal to juror resentment (see also here) against anything having to do with Enron.

In reality, Howard was involved in representing Enron in the negotiation of legitimate business transactions that were evidenced by written agreements that provided that all agreements or representations between the parties that are not contained in the written agreements were void and unenforceable.

But that's not what really happened, contended the prosecution -- Howard entered into "secret side deals" that changed the risk allocation of the written agreements and eviscerated Enron's accounting treatment of the transactions. The prosecution "paid" a couple of witnesses to testify against Howard by cutting favorable plea deals with them and "presto" -- the DOJ had a colorable criminal case to pursue against Howard. Who cares whether the statute under which the prosecution is brought has nothing to do with the alleged crime?

Now, two expensive trials and related appeals later, Howard was confronted with the choice of, on one hand, admitting to a crime that he did not commit and a soft sentence or, on the other, a third trial and a draconian trial penalty.

Howard's dilemma sheds light on the disparate burdens on civil and criminal defendants in business misconduct cases. While a defendant in a civil business misconduct lawsuit has protections against another party's vexatious litigation tactics, those protections do not exist in a criminal business misconduct case against an unpopular businessman-defendant. Indeed, many of the Enron Task Force prosecutors who promoted these failed Enron-related prosecutions have gone on to lucrative careers in private practice.

Meanwhile, the damaged lives, ruined career, and destroyed wealth that lie in the wake of the prosecutions of Kevin Howard is tangible evidence of the enormous cost of such prosecutions.

The statement of facts upon which Howard's plea is based is still not available online; I will post it when it is filed with the District Court. But my bet is that most of the statement will not even describe wrongdoing, much less criminal conduct.

During a time in which we ought to be thinking about how to create incentives for generating wealth and jobs, a truly civilized society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

May 19, 2009

SCOTUS takes up the honest services issue

Well now, that certainly did not take long, now did it?

Just a week after former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling appealed his criminal conviction and monstrous 24-year prison sentence to the U.S. Supreme Court on an allegedly erroneous application of the honest services wire-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1346), the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of former Hollinger International chairman Conrad Black on similar grounds. The briefs in support and opposition to Black's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court can be reviewed here.

Black's conviction revolves around allegations that he diverted about $6 million from Hollinger International, which owned the Sun-Times and a number of other newspapers. He and two other former executives whose appeals will also be heard by the Supreme Court -- former Hollinger CFO John Boultbee and corporate counsel Mark Kipnis -- were convicted of three counts of mail fraud based on the theory that they improperly arranged the transfer of $5.5 million from a Hollinger subsidiary under sham non-compete agreements.

The high court's decision to hear Black's appeal on the honest services wire fraud issue leaves the Skilling petition somewhat in limbo. Although Skilling's appeal arguably frames the issue better than Black's, the Court could simply carry Skilling's petition along with Black's appeal and then remand Skilling's case to the Fifth Circuit once it has adjudicated Black's appeal.

But regardless whether the Supreme Court grants cert in Skilling's appeal, the Court's decision to hear Black's appeal is very good news for Skilling.

By the way, as if on cue, Lord Black from his prison cell provides this entertaining evisceration of the forces that prevented him from selling for the benefit of shareholders the now bankrupt and worthless Chicago Sun-Times. Here's a taste of Lord Black's analysis of the situation:

[Former Bush I administration SEC chairman Richard] Breeden, whose career highlights include whitewashing George W. Bush on his lucrative insider trade in Harken Energy shares before the Gulf War in 1991, while he was Bush Sr.'s SEC chairman, and his immensely well-paid stints as special monitor or counsel of KPMG, WorldCom, and Fannie Mae, produced his special committee report in August 2005. (He has since, with no background at all, set up an offshore hedge fund and has promptly lost more than half his investors' money.)

The report had cost over $100 million, accused us of a $500 million kleptocracy, and promised a future of unheard-of profitability for the company. On this, Breeden has delivered, as no profit has been heard of since he usurped the management. He also promised $1 billion of recoveries for the shareholders, and has instead wiped them out; $2 billion from the pockets and retirement and college funds of scores of thousands of people.

His report did fulfill his objective of generating criminal charges that, if substantially successful, could vacate or at least mitigate my $1 billion libel suits against him, the largest defamation claims in Canadian history.

Lord Black is a genuine piece of work.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 13, 2009

The state of the Skilling case

The attorneys for former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, which is quite interesting and is being widely reported in the mainstream media.

However, as interesting as a Supreme Court appeal is, that is not the most interesting aspect of the Skilling case right now.

But first the petition. As usual, Skilling's legal team at O'Melveny & Myers did an outstanding job in lucidly presenting why the Supreme Court should consider Skilling's appeal. A copy of the petition and its appendix, bookmarked in Adobe Acrobat to facilitate ease of review, can be downloaded here.

In short, Skilling's petition contends that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Skilling's appeal made a mess of two key issues:

(i) application of the honest services wire fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1346) to Skilling's actions, and

(ii) application of the standard for deciding the proper venue for Skilling's trial in the face of a presumption of community prejudice against Skilling.

As noted previously, the Fifth Circuit panel's decision in Skilling's appeal failed to reconcile its reasoning in upholding Skilling's conviction for honest services wire-fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 with earlier Fifth Circuit panel decisions on the same issue in the Nigerian Barge and Kevin Howard cases. Inasmuch as there is now a clear split between Fifth Circuit decisions and other circuit appellate courts on the scope of honest services wire-fraud, the issue appears ripe for Supreme Court consideration. Indeed, Skilling's petition notes Supreme Court Justice Scalia's recent observation about the need for the high court to take up the issue:

"Without some coherent limiting principle to define what ‘the intangible right of honest services’ is, whence it derives, and how it is violated, this expansive phrase invites abuse by headline grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators, and corporate CEOs who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.” Sorich v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1308, 1310 (2009). [.  .  .]

There is a “serious argument” that, as Justice Scalia put it, “a freestanding, open-ended duty to provide ‘honest services’—with the details to be worked out case-by-case”—amounts to “nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct.” Sorich, 129 S.Ct. at 1310. And because the notion that courts can “discover[]” whether conduct is criminal using common-law reasoning is “utterly anathema,” [cite deleted] there is an equally serious argument that § 1346 is unconstitutionally vague. [cite deleted[.

It should not be the task of federal courts to save a facially vague and unenforceable statute from itself. Only Congress can properly demarcate the boundaries of honest-services fraud. .  .  .

Yeah, we know all about those "headline grabbing prosecutors," don't we?

The venue issue is even simpler. Skilling argues that the Fifth Circuit improperly allowed U.S. District Judge Sim Lake to rebut a presumption of community prejudice against Skilling through a superficial voir dire of individual jurors even though the Fifth Circuit concluded that Judge Lake had improperly failed to apply the presumption of community prejudice against Skilling. The Fifth Circuit's ruling is at odds with several other circuit courts decisions that maintain that such a presumption simply cannot be rebutted, so that conflict between the circuits tees up another Supreme Court issue.

Frankly, given the extensive evidence of both pervasive media bias and prospective juror bias against Skilling, if the Supreme Court allows the Fifth Circuit's decision to stand on the venue issue, then a denial of a motion to change the venue of a trial within the Fifth Circuit will no longer be grounds for an appeal.

But now for the more interesting developments in Skilling's case.

Flying almost completely under the radar screen is the fact that the Fifth Circuit decision remanded a portion of Skilling's case for two reasons.

First, the Fifth Circuit ordered Judge Lake to re-sentence Skilling because of an error that was made in applying a sentencing enhancement in assessing Skilling's 24-year sentence.

Moreover, the Fifth Circuit decision invited Skilling to file a motion for new trial based on issues of prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit was particularly concerned about the failure of the Enron Task Force to comply with federal rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense from the Task Force's pre-trial interviews with main Skilling accuser, former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

Fastow testified at trial that he told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement, which purportedly documented a series of illegal "side deals" between Fastow and former Enron chief accountant Richard Causey that guaranteed Fastow would not lose money on certain special purpose entities that he was managing. Skilling denied any knowledge of the purported agreement.

After Skilling's conviction, the Skilling defense team discovered Fastow interview notes that the Enron Task Force had failed to disclose to the Skilling team prior to trial. Among other things, those notes revealed that Fastow had told the Task Force lawyers that he didn't think he had told Skilling about the Global Galactic agreement. The Fifth Circuit characterized the Task Force's non-disclosure as "troubling" in inviting Skilling to file a motion for new trial with the District Court.

So, where does the Fifth Circuit's remand of the Skilling appeal stand in the District Court?

Well, a review of the District Court docket of Skilling's criminal case reveals that Judge Lake originally scheduled Skilling's resentencing for July 30th.

However, in a highly unusual move, Skilling and the prosecution filed a joint motion requesting Judge Lake to put off the re-sentencing indefinitely pending the filing of Skilling's motion for a new trial, the prosecution's response to that motion, and the Court's disposition of the motion. Moreover, the parties requested that the deadline for Skilling's motion be pushed back to July 10th, which Judge Lake approved.

So, what is going on here?

Could it be that Skilling's team has discovered even more exculpatory evidence that the Task Force failed to disclose to the Skilling defense prior to the trial?

Could it be that the government's current lawyers -- who were not members of the now disbanded Task Force and who have little incentive to cover for their predecessors -- are now finding themselves dealing with a serious failure of the Task Force members to comply with rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense in Skilling's case?

Could the Skilling case be turning into something similar to this?

Stay tuned.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 29, 2009

Permanent Enron myopia

Inasmuch as what took place with regard to Enron earlier in the decade has now happened to much of Wall Street, the vacuity of the Houston Chronicle's coverage of Enron-related matters has become clear.

Nevertheless, Chronicle business columnist Loren Steffy still cannot work himself out of his small Enron shell.

Most recently, Steffy wrote this column in which he compares Sir Allen Stanford of the beleaguered Stanford Financial Group to former Enron executives, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling:

All this finger pointing should bring a strong sense of déjà vu to Houstonians, who watched Enron’s meteoric rise and fall, as well as the unsuccessful efforts of the late company chairman Ken Lay and CEO Jeff Skilling to plead ignorance of the company’s fraudulent accounting practices and blame any criminal behavior on the chief financial officer, Andy Fastow.  .  .  .

If Stanford is any indication, the “I’m not a crook, I’m an idiot” defense for CEOs remains alive and well. For those who buy the idea that people who construct and direct massive financial enterprises are really dunces who haven’t a clue how they function, we’ve got a truckload of Enron shares to sell.

Of course, the foregoing is a complete misrepresentation of Skilling and Lay's defense. Rather than contending that he did not know what was going on at Enron, Skilling contended that he was a hand's-on manager over virtually all facets of Enron's far-flung business operations. Similarly, Lay contended that he became intimately involved in day-to-day management of the company after re-taking the Enron CEO role when Skilling resigned unexpectedly in August, 2001. Thus, Skilling and Lay's position was that they were totally engaged in Enron's massive business operations, that there was no wide-ranging fraud, and that Enron's trust-based business model failed when skittish post-9/11 markets became spooked over conflict-of-interest allegations regarding Fastow's role in generally legitimate special purpose entities.

That's a bit different than Sir Allen's defense that "he left all the financial stuff" to Stanford Capital's CFO James Davis, don't you think?

Steffy has done this before in regard to Enron-related matters, so another misrepresentation isn't really surprising. But what is troubling is the Chronicle's continued promotion of Steffy's simplistic world view in which most troubled businesses are seen as merely a vehicle by which greedy and unethical executives exploit helpless investors. Indeed, Steffy's fatuous viewpoint casts complex business events as merely struggles by honest investors against bad executives. Not only does this viewpoint ignore reality, it provides Steffy comfort by allowing himself to feel morally certain and superior to those he is belittling, while saving himself from the hard work of performing any serious analysis.

Morality plays are comfortable and easy to tell. The truth is more nuanced and harder to explain. In choosing to take the easy way out, the Chronicle and Steffy have forfeited the opportunity to provide a valuable service to investors and businesspeople by furthering understanding on such key subjects as the importance of hedging risk and the fragile nature of trust-based businesses.

That type of understanding sure would have come in handy for many investors in Wall Street firms over the past couple of years.

April 30, 2009 Update: Loren Steffy responds here and points out that the quote that I used above is from a Chronicle editorial that he did not write. For that error, I apologize.

However, Steffy's related column here makes the same misrepresentation regarding Ken Lay's defense and Steffy's blog post continues to fail to respond to the misrepresentation.

Some things never change.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

April 24, 2009

Remember Ken Lay?

Joe Weisenthal and Henry Blodget over at Clusterstock have been all over the breaking story yesterday that, as many of us suspected, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and perhaps other governmental officials threatened Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis and the BofA board if the bank exercised its right to terminate the Merrill Lynch acquisition based on a material change in Merrill Lynch's financial condition.

Of course, this is not the story that Lewis and Paulson were telling to BofA shareholders. They were assuring the shareholders that the Merrill Lynch acquisition was a great deal for BofA.

A few years ago, former Enron chairman Ken Lay was prosecuted to death for promoting Enron even though he had a reasonable basis for believing that what he was saying about his company was true. In contrast, neither Lewis nor Paulson could even offer the defense in a criminal fraud trial that they thought that the good things that they were telling BofA shareholders about the Merrill Lynch deal were true. We now know that they knew that the assurances were false.

This is not to suggest that Paulson or Lewis should be prosecuted for criminal fraud. They were in an extremely difficult situation -- they and others were concerned that the U.S. and world financial system might collapse if the markets became spooked by BofA backing out of the Merrill Lynch deal. I didn't agree with that concern, but I understood the position of those that did. They may have been correct. At this point, we'll never know for sure.

However, regardless of whether that view was correct, neither Paulson nor Lewis should be prosecuted for a violation of criminal law for their actions. Although they made intentionally false statements to the markets regarding BofA's acquisition of Merrill Lynch, there is no question that they thought what they were doing was essential to saving the financial system and firms such as BofA. If their actions make them responsible for damages to BofA shareholders, then let that liability be sorted out in civil court where liability can be allocated fairly to everyone who had a hand in causing those damages. What's to be gained by throwing them in prison? They simply were not operating on the same fraud plane as Bernie Madoff.

But here is my other point -- Ken Lay was prosecuted to death for conduct that was not even intentional. Now that what happened to Enron has happened to many of the biggest and most prestigious Wall Street firms, isn't it about time that somebody in the federal government acknowledges that what was done to Ken Lay was a massive injustice?

And in the meantime, isn't it about time that this barbaric injustice be rectified, too?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 14, 2009

The Chronicle's Enron myopia

Even when it is on the right side of an issue, the Chronicle reminds us of its failings.

As noted earlier here, it has become fashionable among the Old Media to support the recent decision of the Justice Department to request dismissal of the criminal case against former Alaska senator Ted Stevens because of the DOJ's misconduct in handling the prosecution. The Chronicle chimed in last week with this self-righteous editorial.

Of course, for anyone paying attention, prosecutorial misconduct by the DOJ is not unusual. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan sanctioned the DOJ by dismissing indictments against 13 former KPMG partners. Federal prosecutors in Miami are in hot water with a federal judge there over abusive tactics in a criminal drug case against a local doctor. There even appears to be a connection between the prosecutorial misconduct in the Steven case and the dubious case against former Vice-Presidential aide, Scooter Libby.

As the always-insightful Larry Ribstein points out, could it be that there are agency costs in managing corporate criminal prosecutions just as there are in managing corporations? Along the same lines, Doug Berman suggests that an insidious culture within the DOJ has produced the abuse of power.

But the most galling aspect of the Chronicle's emergent awareness of abusive state power is that it has virtually ignored the egregious examples of prosecutorial misconduct in its own hometown, particularly in the case against Jeff Skilling that resulted in a barbaric and indefensible 24-year prison sentence.

As conflicted publications such as the Wall Street Journal promoted Enron myths and the demonization of Enron executives, the Chronicle could have provided a valuable public service by providing balanced reporting and analysis of what really caused Enron's demise and how such a company can be better-structured to survive in even the most adverse market conditions. When clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct emerged early in the Enron-related criminal cases, the Chronicle could have provided an even greater public service by taking a strong stand against such dangerous abuse of state power. It's certainly not hard to find historical reminders of the injustice that results from such abuse.

So, what did the Chronicle do instead? It embraced the Enron Myth and led the mob in demonizing Enron executives. From the beginning of the Enron-related criminal cases, the Chronicle editorial staff simply elected to ignore mounting evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in favor of the easier approach of leading the angry mob. The Chronicle's coverage of the Skilling prosecution was so inflammatory and biased that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made the highly unusual finding that the Chronicle created a presumption of community prejudice against Skilling (see pp. 41-45 of the Fifth Circuit decision).

Even now, despite the legacy of prosecutorial misconduct in the Enron-related criminal cases and the fact that what happened to Enron has now happened to many big Wall Street firms, the Chronicle stubbornly clings to the Enron Myth and refuses even to acknowledge that the evidence of prosecutorial abuse in the Enron-related cases is worse than what caused the dismissal of the Stevens case.

As with most Old Media newspapers these days, the Chronicle is struggling to survive. Winning that first Pulitzer Prize sure would sure provide a boost to the Chronicle's flagging spirits.

Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if the decision to lead the angry mob against Enron distracted the Chronicle from a truly enthralling story of prosecutorial misconduct that could have won the newspaper that elusive Pulitzer?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 1, 2009

The Wavering Rule of Law

So, because of prosecutorial misconduct, the Justice Department decides to move for dismissal of the political corruption case against former Alaska senator Ted Stevens (previous posts here and here).

Meanwhile, Jeff Skilling, who created billions of dollars in wealth and thousands of jobs by revolutionizing risk management of natural gas prices for producers and industrial consumers, sits in a Colorado prison cell under the weight of a barbaric 24-year prison sentence. Skilling's conviction involved even more egregious prosecutorial misconduct than the Stevens case. The criminal case against Skilling was materially weaker than the case against Stevens, too.

It is a sad reflection of the current state of American rule of law that the DOJ readily concedes prosecutorial misconduct against an arguably corrupt legislator, but ignores it in a shaky case against a businessperson who created many jobs and great wealth.

And how bizarre is it that America's primary business newspaper rightly decries the government's abuse of Stevens' due process rights but continues to ignore even worse abuses with regard to a creative and productive businessperson?

Update: Larry Ribstein chimes in, too.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 26, 2009

Losing the grip on AIG

The business blogosphere was abuzz yesterday over publication of AIG executive Jake DeSantis' remarkable resignation letter to AIG CEO, Ed Liddy.

But what was even more remarkable was the reaction of some commentators that makes abundantly clear that common sense often evaporates in the face of big money.

DeSantis is a longtime AIG executive who worked for one of AIG's profitable units. When AIG was going down the tubes last year because of losses incurred in the company's untethered CDS trading unit, DeSantis agreed to stay on at a nominal salary and continue making profits in his unit in return for a substantial, but not over-market, bonus.

Such arrangements are not unusual for financially-troubled companies and might very well have been arranged even had AIG gone into a chapter 11 reorganization rather than become the subject of an ill-advised government bailout. In short, it's a good thing for creditors of AIG -- including now U.S. taxpayers -- that the company retain people such as DeSantis who might make the company profitable and valuable again.

Or course, we all know what happened when AIG disclosed publicly that it had made the bonus payments to DeSantis and other AIG executives. They were demonized in a manner that has not been seen since Enron.

DeSantis' resignation letter lays this all out and notes the indisputable hypocrisy of AIG executives and government officials who knew about these compensation arrangements, but who flamed the public uproar rather than provide the quite simple and reasonable explanation for the bonuses.

I mean really. Who could argue that DeSantis and the other similarly-situated AIG executives were treated in an abominable manner?

Well, up to the plate steps one Brian Montopoli, a CBSNews.com political reporter, who establishes beyond any doubt that he needs to remain a political, rather than business, reporter:

Mr. DeSantis is not a plumber. He is a Wall Street executive who has made millions of dollars. And it’s safe to assume that most plumbers don’t believe he has gotten a bad deal, AIG scandal notwithstanding.

In essence, Montopoli reasons that other people are working just as hard as DeSantis and they would gladly trade places with him if they could have made as much scratch as he has earned over the years. Given that DeSantis made a lot of money while he was at AIG, Montopoli thinks he is "tone deaf" for pointing out the injustice of being unfairly demonized and cheated out of the compensation that was promised to him in return for staying on at AIG under extremely difficult circumstances.

In short, those evil capitalist roaders deserve most of our scorn and they should just shut the hell up.

In the face of such addled reasoning, it's hard to know where to begin. But let's start by pointing out that Montopoli ignores the rather important fact that no one has stopped him or anyone else from attempting to compete with DeSantis in his area of business and make just as much money as he has over the years. The reality is that there are relatively few people who do what DeSantis does well. That's why he commands a larger salary than most of us.

The fact that DeSantis makes more money than we do doesn't mean that it's OK to screw him out of his compensation or that he shouldn't be heard to set the record straight when such an injustice takes place.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

March 11, 2009

Trampling Stanford

As most folks following the upfolding Stanford Financial Group scandal know by now, Laura Pendergest-Holt was the first Stanford executive arrested in connection with the scandal.

If only a few of the allegations contained in the motion below are true, it looks as if the Justice Department and the SEC are well on their way to trampling the Constitutional rights of Ms. Pendergest-Holt, R. Allen Stanford and the other targeted Stanford executives in a manner that we've seen before.

Pendergest-Holt Motion to Set Aside Receiver #141

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

March 3, 2009

An uncivilized routine

Former Hollinger International chairman and CEO Conrad Black's daily routine these days is not quite as civilized as the one followed by Winston Churchill, wouldn't you agree?:

I get up just after 7 except on the weekends and holidays when it is possible to sleep in. I eat some granola and go to my workplace where I tutor high school-leaving candidates, one-on-one, though sometimes I have to deal with up to four at a time, around my desk, and talk with fellow tutors and other convivial people. I lunch around 11 with friends from education, work on e-mails, play the piano for 30 to 60 minutes, return to my tutoring tasks by 1, return to my unit at 3, deal with more e-mails, rest from 4 to 6, eat dinner in the unit then, and go for a walk in the compound or recreation yard for a couple of hours, drinking coffee well-made by Colombian fellow-residents, and come back into the residence about 8:30, deal with e-mails and whatever, have my shower etc., around midnight, read until 1-1:30 a.m. and go to sleep. On the weekends it is pretty open. [.  .  .]

The days and weeks tend to resemble each other. Time does go by quickly but a bit imperceptibly. I have quite a lot of e-mail and correspondence and limited telephone traffic. Essentially, I try to keep as well in touch with people and events as possible and I am lucky that many friends outside want to correspond. I psychologically live outside this facility most of the time.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 28, 2009

The Price of Progress

As noted here last fall, one of the key dynamics that is delaying the recovery of financial markets is the resistance of many societal forces to allow the markets to allocate the risk of loss among the various investors in failed businesses.

Inasmuch as private capital will not invest in even a potentially viable business until that company's financial condition is likely to reward such an investment, the liquidation of unviable companies is an essential part of the process that has allowed market-based economies to generate the most wealth and jobs throughout modern history.

Despite the foregoing, the beneficial aspects of liquidating unprofitable businesses remains often unappreciated. A scene from the 1991 Norman Jewison film "Other's People Money" illustrates this truth wonderfully, first as Gregory Peck's character demonizes the forces of liquidation and then as Danny DeVito's "Larry the Liquidator" shatters the myths upon which such demonizing rests. Enjoy.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

February 23, 2009

The Journal's curious case of myopia

Bully for the Wall Street Journal for running this editorial last week decrying the prosecutorial misconduct of the Justice Department in obtaining the conviction of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens on ethics charges (Mike over at the Crime and Federalism blog has posted a copy of the defense motion describing the prosecutorial misconduct here).

However, where was the nation's leading business newspaper when even more egregious prosecutorial misconduct was involved in criminal cases that the DOJ brought in regard to Enron, particularly the prosecution of Jeff Skilling?

Could it be that the Journal was invested in the DOJ's myth regarding Enron?

How ironic that the WSJ condemns prosecutorial misconduct with regard to the case against a politician, but largely ignores it in cases against businesspeople.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 18, 2009

Stanford blows up

Well, that certainly didn't take long, now did it?

As noted here this past Sunday, R. Allen Stanford's Stanford Financial Group has been well-known around Houston as a smoke-and-mirrors investment outfit for quite awhile. Joe Weisenthal over at Clusterstock has the best overview of Stanford's collapse, while Felix Salmon does a good job of summarizing the SEC complaint and asking the right questions about the principals of the firm. The Chron's Kristen Hays and Tom Fowler provide the local angle here.

Meanwhile, the Chronicle's business columnist Loren Steffy bemoans the fact that government regulators -- who have been investigating Stanford for at least the past four years -- were again behind the knowledge curve in protecting investors from Stanford's apparent investment fraud.

However, Steffy's expectations are simply misplaced. A government regulatory body will rarely be as effective or efficient as the information marketplace in preventing or mitigating investment fraud loss. Had the investors in Stanford relied on Houston's information market in deciding on whether to invest in the company, they wouldn't have needed the "protection" of government regulation.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 30, 2009

Considering the whole man

Over the years, I've written quite a bit (for example, here, here and here) on the questionable nature of the prosecutions of the executives who were involved in the AIG/General Re finite risk transaction that prompted Eliot Spitzer to demonize Hank Greenberg.

However, I've never written as eloquently about the injustice of those prosecutions as Anthony O'Donnell does in this I&T post about the sentencing of former AIG vice-president of reinsurance, Christian Milton.

As noted previously here, the human toll of the criminalization-of-business lottery is incalculable. Careers destroyed while lives and families are shattered.

A truly civil society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 27, 2009

The potential consequences of being tricky

It's rarely pleasant for a businessman to have his personal affairs splashed across the front page of the New York Times business section.

But it has to be particularly unsettling for the businessman when he is already the target of numerous civil lawsuits and, quite possibly, a criminal prosecution.

Frankly, I've never understood the reasoning of lawyers who advise their clients at the center of such a litigation firestorm to transfer assets to their family members. Fuld and his wife are reportedly quite wealthy, so maybe they have legitimate estate planning reasons for Fuld to transfer his interest in a multi-million dollar home to his wife for nominal consideration.

But Fuld is also subject to numerous civil lawsuits in connection with the Lehman Brothers meltdown. Those lawsuits seek hundreds of millions in damages, and the company's officers and directors' insurance likely will not come close to covering those damages. Thus, the fact that Fuld is transferring a valuable interest in an asset to his wife for nominal consideration at this particular time will be of more than passing interest to the plaintiffs in those lawsuits.

Inasmuch as Fuld is the only person in his family who has any civil liability in those lawsuits, why subject other family members to possible fraudulent transfer liability?

Similarly, in the unlikely -- but certainly possible -- event that Fuld's litigation problems force him into a personal bankruptcy case, why take the risk that his legal right to a discharge of personal liability for claims against him would be denied because of the transfer to his wife?

However, beyond the civil liability concerns, the main reason that Fuld should not have engaged in this type of transfer under his particular circumstances is simply that it looks bad. Real bad. Not only to potential creditors, but more importantly, to prosecutors who will make the decision on whether to indict Fuld. And, most importantly, to jurors who will decide Fuld's fate.

For example, remember the criminal case against former Enron chairman, Ken Lay? The prosecutors conceded (bragged?) afterward that it was a very weak case. So, rather than focus on the supposed criminal conduct, the prosecutors hammered away on Lay's indiscrete use of his personal line of credit with the company. As noted in my concluding post on the seventeen-week trial:

[I]f there was a defining moment in the trial that sealed the defendants' fate, then it likely came in Week Fourteen during Task Force prosecutor John Hueston's cross-examination of Lay over the use of his company line of credit.

Although Lay's line of credit was legal and the company disclosed his use of it in accordance with applicable law, Lay's repayment of the large draws on the line with Enron stock at a time when he was encouraging employees and the market to buy company stock was an apparent contradiction that the jurors could easily grasp.

Similarly, Lay's decision to draw down $1 million on the line five days before Enron's bankruptcy [to help pay off the mortgage on Lay's condominium] was a disastrous decision for the defense. Although done on advice of counsel, Lay's last-minute draw as the company was sinking into insolvency looked so bad that reference to that testimony by leaders of the jury during deliberations was probably enough to seal any wavering non-leader juror's view on whether to convict.

If Fuld is indicted, then you can rest assured that prosecutors will bring his recent transfer to his wife to the attention of the judge during proceedings over the amount of his bond pending trial. And although the transfer has nothing to do with the probable criminal charges against Fuld (i.e., violating the obligation to throw in the towel), prosecutors will try to use it anyway to make him look tricky in the eyes of jurors.

You see, such a transfer plays right into the real presumption these days in business crime prosecutions -- Fuld is wealthy and his company collapsed, so he must be guilty of some crime in connection with his company's demise.

Sadly, being proven greedy is often enough to be convicted of a crime.

 

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 26, 2009

Making bad policy

It sure is getting hard to keep up with all the rules involved in determining whether an important person gets prosecuted for an alleged business crime.

First, there was the Apple Rule, which was quickly followed by the Dell Rule.

Next, there was the Buffett Rule.

And then we had the GM Rule.

Now, Larry Ribstein reports that we have the Geithner Rule.

None of which is likely to help Wachovia's Bob Steel, who the SEC apparently believes violated the obligation to throw in the towel.

Does anyone really believe that all these rules and the criminalization-of-business lottery constitutes a coherent policy for regulating questionable business deals?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 13, 2009

The criminalization-of-business lottery

The owners of Long Term Capital Management may have been the earliest winners in the most recent era of what Larry Ribstein has coined the criminalization-of-business lottery.

On the other hand, Jamie Olis may have been the earliest big loser.

Martha Stewart lost, but at least never lost her business enterprise. Frank Quattrone also lost, but then he won, although I suspect that he believes that he lost overall.

Subsequently, Theodore Sihpol won while Bill Fuhs and his family lost a year of his life before he won, too. But he and his family will never get that year back.

Then, Ken Lay lost big even though he had a reasonable basis for believing that he should have won. Same with Jeff Skilling.

Meanwhile, mainstream media darlings Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett won, although several of Buffett's associates did not fare as well. Neither did relative media unknown Greg Reyes.

But General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner appears to be a winner, even though those two Bear Stearns executives probably aren't.

And who knows about those Lehman Brothers executives -- they may be winners, after all? I mean, everyone was doing it, right?

Finally, for awhile, it looked as if David Stockman was going to be a big loser. But in a startling turnaround, Stockman is now a winner.

Just as with a gambling lottery, there is no rhyme or reason as to who wins or loses in the criminalization-of-business lottery. But in this lottery -- which does little or nothing to deter the true business criminals of the world -- the losers and their families give up much more than merely money.

A truly civil society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

January 8, 2009

Another Angry Mob

The Fifth Circuit's decision yesterday reminded us of the angry mob that lynched Jeff Skilling.

Now, as this timely Roger Parloff/Fortune article notes, an even larger mob is gathering to lynch the businesspeople who were attempting to save their companies in the wake of last year's financial meltdown on Wall Street:

The level of fury surrounding these inquiries is of a different order from what we saw with, say, the backdating scandals or the Enron and WorldCom failures. Today's credit collapse has already vaporized about $9 trillion in investment capital, while ripping another trillion in assorted bailout money from the pockets of enraged taxpayers - also sometimes known as "jurors."

Based on the Fifth Circuit's Skilling decision, those targeted businesspeople would be wise not to rely on the courts for protection from the mob.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 7, 2009

The Fifth Circuit rules in the Skilling appeal

In this current anti-business climate, not many folks were expecting that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would set aside former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling's conviction.

On the other hand, not many folks expected this decision, either.

In the curiously detached 104 page opinion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Skilling's conviction, but reversed his sentence and remanded that part of the case to U.S. District Judge Sim Lake for resentencing based on the appellate court's rejection of Judge Lake's four level enhancement under the sentencing guidelines for for "substantially jeopardizing a financial institution."

Based on my rough calculations, I think that means that the range for Skilling sentence would be reduced from 292-365 months to 188-235 months. If Judge Lake resentences Skilling at the bottom of new range, then Skilling's 24 year sentence would be reduced by 104 months, which computes to an 8.5 year reduction.

That's certainly better than nothing.

In reading the opinion, I gathered the impression that the Fifth Circuit panel really did not have its heart in it. Despite the 104 page length, the opinion mostly glosses over the hotly-disputed fact issues regarding the government's charges against Skilling. And even in affirming Skilling's conviction, parts of the decision provide hope to Skilling that his monstrously unjust 24 year sentence will be set aside completely or reduced even further.

Rather than parse the decision in a blog post, here is a copy of the decision in which I have used Adobe Acrobat to bookmark the sections of the decision, as well as highlight and annotate comments on my initial reading of the decision.

First and foremost, the decision muddles the adjudication of Skilling's argument that his conviction was tainted by the government's legally invalid "honest services" theory.

If you've been following the Enron-related criminal cases from the first one (Arthur Andersen), you know the drill -- in an effort to facilitate prosecutions, the Enron Task Force developed a fallacious theory of criminal liability out of the honest services wire fraud statute that is normally used in corporate crime cases involving bribes or kickbacks. In short, the government's new theory attempted to stick a square peg in a round hole.

As a result, none of the Enron-related prosecutions proceeded smoothly. The government would normally bludgeon former Enron executives into plea deals, have them testify about "secret side deals" that changed the nature of an otherwise valid business transaction and then accuse defendants such as Skilling of breaching their fiduciary duty to the company and committing the crime of honest services wire fraud by allowing the transactions to be accounted for pursuant to the terms of written agreements rather than the "secret side deal." The fact that all of the written agreements contained provisions that rendered any such oral agreements void has been regularly ignored by the government and most courts throughout the entire Enron ordeal.

After the Enron Task Force used this theory of honest services wire fraud to convict Skilling, the Fifth Circuit struck down the theory in the Nigerian Barge case by concluding that it does not apply where employees "breached a fiduciary duty in pursuit of what they understood to be a corporate goal."  Accordingly, the Skilling team based a major part of his appeal on the Fifth Circuit's decision in the Nigerian Barge case.

Without expressly saying so, the Fifth Circuit in Skilling creates a "policymaker exception" to the rule that a breach of fiduciary duty that is aligned with corporate interests cannot be an honest services wire fraud. The Court reasons that, since Skilling was the person who authorized the fraudulent means to achieve the corporate goal, he could be held criminally liable under the honest services wire fraud statute even if his employees could not (pp. 21-23).

Not particularly persuasive reasoning, but there you go.

Some other observations:

At several points in the prosecutorial misconduct section, the Court invites Skilling to file a motion for a new trial with Judge Lake, particularly in regard to the Fastow interview notes that the prosecution failed to turn over to Judge Lake during the trial. The Court specifically finds that "the omission of this statement [that Fastow did not think he discussed Global Galactic with Skilling] from the [FBI Form] 302's is troubling."

The Court clearly is not impressed by the objectivity of the Houston Chronicle, citing the newspaper's highly inflammatory coverage of Skilling's case in finding presumed community prejudice against Skilling. Of course, the Chronicle's most vitriolic critic of Skilling doesn't even notice (see also here and here) the Court's criticism.

On one hand, the Fifth Circuit finds that Judge Lake committed error by failing to presume jury prejudice for purposes of Skilling's change of venue and jury prejudice argument. Then, on the other, the Court rules that Skilling waived his jury prejudice argument on appeal by failing to register objections for cause on 11 of the 12 jurors.

The Court concludes that Judge Lake's "exemplary voir dire" helped the government fulfill its burden of establishing that an impartial jury had been impaneled despite the presumed prejudice against Skilling. I have my doubts.

The Court chides Judge Lake for his remarks during a pre-trial hearing that there was a "reasonable likelihood" that the witnesses did not cooperate with Skilling because the witnesses were guilty of related crimes and wished to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid incriminating themselves. However, the Court concludes that Judge Lake's improper remarks were harmless error.

The Fifth Circuit lets former Enron Task Force Andrew Weissmann off the hook with regard to Skilling's allegation of witness intimidation, but notes that "Weissmann would have done well to have brought the issue [of alleged conflict of interest] to the court's attention instead of emailing [former Enron executive Ken] Rice's lawyer."

The opinion starts out by observing that "[A]n initial investigation uncovered an elaborate conspiracy to deceive investors about eh state of Enron's fiscal health." The Court does not identify who conducted this "initial investigation" or who the participants were in the "elaborate conspiracy." Not particularly convincing.

Although the Fifth Circuit opinion provides Skilling with some running room to continue challenging his conviction and sentence, it is foreboding to the dozens of business executives who are currently subjects of various pending grand juries investigating the meltdown on Wall Street. Given the paper-thin nature of the government's allegations of criminal conduct against Skilling and the substantial evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, the Fifth Circuit's decision sweeping most of that under the rug is a strong indicator that obtaining convictions in future prosecutions of business executives will be akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

December 24, 2008

Playing fair

So, now Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is finding out that some federal prosecutors do not play fair (H/T Doug Berman). Of course, we've known that for quite some time down here in Houston.

Oh well, at least the mainstream media has strong incentives to expose such abuses in the case of a major political figure.

But do the same media incentives exist in the prosecution of a wealthy and unpopular businessperson?

What if the reporter most responsible for such a prosecution is, might we say, not particularly motivated to expose prosecutorial abuses? Or what if the reporter for the nation's most prominent business newspaper is so conflicted that he ignores the abuses even when they are playing out in front of him?

And the foregoing doesn't even consider what we should think when one of those reporters in another case actively attempts to help investors score on their positions at the expense of a company and its chief executives.

It's hard enough to maintain innocence against the overwhelming resources of the federal government when the prosecution plays fair. It's next to impossible to do so when it doesn't. What chance is there if the people responsible for exposing prosecutorial abuse have incentives that override that responsibility?

Ask Jeff Skilling.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 18, 2008

Making sense of Madoff

Loren Steffy, the Houston Chronicle's business columnist, has been having a hard time lately.

You will recall that Steffy was one of the leaders of the mainstream media lynch mob that embraced the myth of the Greed Narrative in calling for harsh criminal prosecutions of former Enron executives, particularly the late Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling.

However, now that pretty much the same thing that happened to Enron has happened to Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG and any number of other trust-based businesses during the current financial crisis, Steffy has had difficulty making sense of it all. We can't just throw all of those executives in prison, can we?

Now to make things even more confusing for Steffy, Bernard Madoff's alleged Ponzi scheme has unraveled. Steffy's column from yesterday bemoans that Madoff, as with Enron, was at least in large part the result of lax regulation:

And so the era of lax regulation that began with Enron ends with the Madoff madness looming as a monument to the SEC’s ineptitude. Already under fire for smelling the flowers while Bear Stearns — to cite one example — charged toward collapse, the SEC’s days may be numbered. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson introduced a sweeping reform plan earlier this year that would relieve it of much of its oversight role.

But wait a minute. The SEC had been continually warned about Madoff's company (see Henry Markopolos' 2005 notice to the SEC here). Moreover, the "lax regulation" that Steffy complains about came at a time of unparalleled growth in the SEC during the supposedly pro-business Bush Administration:

Since 2000 and especially after the fall of Enron, the SEC's annual budget has ballooned to more than $900 million from $377 million.  .  .  . Its full-time examination and enforcement staff has increased by more than a third, or nearly 500 people. The percentage of full-time staff devoted to enforcement -- 33.5% -- appears to be a modern record, and it is certainly the SEC's highest tooth-to-tail ratio since the 1980s. The press corps and Congress both were making stars of enforcers like Eliot Spitzer, so the SEC's watchdogs had every incentive to ferret out fraud.

Yet, the regulators couldn't put the pieces of the puzzle together (even Spitzer's family was a victim of Madoff!). So, Steffy's solution is the SEC "needs to be put out to pasture." In other words, rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Look, as J. Robert Brown and Larry Ribstein point out, there are understandable systemic reasons why Madoff was able to slip through the regulatory cracks for decades. Most of those flaws are not going to be fixed by simply creating a Super-SEC. Indeed, the suggestion that such regulatory remedies are the best protection against the next Madoff (and, rest assured, there will be many) actually is counter-productive to understanding the truly best protection from such schemes.

The primary justification for this regulatory retrofitting is the plight of the innocent investors (and it sure is an interesting bunch) who lost millions when Madoff's company went bust. Although nothing is wrong with compassion for folks who lose money in an investment fraud, it's important to remember that those investors who lost their nest egg in the Madoff implosion were imprudent in their investment strategy. They should have diversified their Madoff holdings or done some real due diligence into his operation if they were going to bet the farm on it. Even though every one of Madoff investors carry insurance on their homes and cars, one can only speculate why they didn't attempt to understand the risk of their investment in Madoff's company better than most did. Most likely, many of the investors simply did not care to truly understand how Madoff claimed to create wealth for them in the first place. Chidem Kurdas' speaks to this dynamic in his timely study on the demise of the Manhattan Capital hedge fund:

As the failure of the hedge-fund firm Manhattan Capital demonstrates, both government regulators and market players can make mistakes resulting from cognitive biases. Responding to such mistakes by strengthening government watchdogs, although often recommended, reduces both the watchdogs’ and the public’s incentive to learn, thereby creating a vicious spiral of regulation, regulatory failure, and even more regulation.

Thus, as Larry Ribstein has been advocating for years, no amount of increased regulation is likely ever to do a better job than the market in mitigating fraud loss. It's easy to throw Madoff in prison for the rest of his life, simply attribute the investment loss to him and pledge to do a better job of policing the crooks next time. It's a lot harder to understand how Madoff's investors could have hedged their risk of Madoff's fraud. As this WSJ editorial concludes, "expecting the SEC to prevent a determined and crafty con man from separating investors from their money is no more sensible than putting your life savings with a Bernard Madoff."

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

December 17, 2008

A tuna wins a small lottery prize

As a result of the Buffet Rule, the federal government decided to land a bunch of tuna rather than the barracuda in regard to an AIG-General Re finite risk insurance transaction that was not clearly illegal, much less criminal.

Subsequently, after convicting the business executives (sort of like shooting tuna in a barrel these days), the federal prosecutors proposed that the tuna get effective life sentences. For what?

Thankfully, a federal judge in Connecticut showed unusual restraint on Tuesday in rejecting the government's brutal behavior. He handed the first of the tuna to face sentencing a two-year prison term.

Meanwhile, former Enron executive Jeff Skilling continues serving an effective life prison sentence in Colorado pending his appeal after being convicted (although not fairly) for pretty much the same thing as the tuna above.

So, during a financial downturn when we need to be promoting our best and brightest to be engaging in the business risks that generate jobs and wealth, our federal government continues promoting its corporate criminal lottery.

Why would the best and brightest risk that?  Do any investors really feel safer now that Skilling is off the streets? And does anyone really think that keeping Skilling locked up for most of the rest of his life will deter the next Bernie Madoff?

A truly civil and wise society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 5, 2008

But what about that case in which the threat worked?

This Wall Street Journal editorial from earlier in the week rightly notes that the "Department of Justice finally got something right" by electing not to appeal the Second Circuit's decision earlier this year upholding U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan's dismissal of tax fraud indictments against 13 former KPMG partners.

In the KPMG case, the DOJ made KPMG an offer that it couldn't refuse -- either ignore the firm's long-standing policy of paying the criminal defense costs of its indicted partners or be prosecuted out-of-business ala Arthur Andersen.

Judge Kaplan concluded that dismissal of the indictments was the only reasonable remedy in the face of the DOJ's deck stacking. I'm happy for the former KPMG partners, who at least get their lives back (but probably not their careers) from the threat of long imprisonment.

But what about Jamie Olis?

Unlike the KPMG case, the DOJ actually got away with undermining Olis' criminal defense by threatening Dynegy with indictment unless it quit paying Olis' criminal defense costs. Dynegy cratered to the DOJ's threat and a cash-strapped Olis was unable to mount an effective defense at his trial. The result was a conviction and a barbaric 24 year sentence, later reduced to a merely unconscionable six year term.

Olis is currently scheduled to be released from prison in mid-2009. This man and his family have already been tortured for over five years in one of the most egregious examples of prosecutorial abuse and excess of the misguided post-Enron governmental crusade to punish businesspeople.

Isn't it about time that the DOJ finally got something right in the sad case of Jamie Olis?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 25, 2008

He should know

You just never know what those former Enron Task Force prosecutors are going to say.

Last week, one of them was incongruously advocating limitation of corporate criminal liability.

This week, David Westheimer points out that former Task Force prosecutor John Hueston is opining that the Securities and Exchange Commission's insider trading case against Mark Cuban is so weak that it should not be pursued.

A weak case that shouldn't be pursued?

Hueston sure ought to know.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 22, 2008

Do as I say, not as I do

Andrew Weissmann is a rather odd advocate (see here and here) for limiting corporate criminal liability, don't you think?

Let's take a look back on Weissmann's business prosecution scorecard. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court overturned Weissmann's dubious prosecution of Arthur Andersen, which was the final blow in putting that hallowed institution of American accounting out of business.

And the Fifth Circuit has largely eviscerated the notorious Nigerian Barge prosecution in which Merrill Lynch served up four executives to Weissmann to avoid an indictment of the firm.

But now, in United States v. Ionia Management, S.A., Weissmann is attempting to persuade the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to limit prosecutors from doing precisely what he did to Arthur Andersen and Merrill Lynch

In view of all this, I wonder whether any of the Second Circuit judges thought to ask Weissmann why he used his stint as a prosecutor to cause tens of thousands of job losses and enormous wealth destruction?

Or why Weissmann used criminal prosecutions to cause destruction of numerous good business careers of Arthur Andersen partners and Merrill Lynch executives where the only thing that they did wrong was to do business with what became a social pariah, Enron.

Had Weissmann been asked such questions, would he have attempted to defend his conduct at the expense of his current clients?

If so, that would not have been a winning appellate argument.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 14, 2008

Ghosts of Enron

Ken Lay was prosecuted to death for promoting Enron even though he had a reasonable basis for believing that what he was saying about his company was true.

Fast forward a couple of years. Yesterday,  the W$J reported (NYTimes here) that General Motors may not be able to avoid bankruptcy because of political problems involved in obtaining a bailout loan package from the federal government. GM is "rapidly burning through cash reserves as car sales plummet and their access to credit tightens. GM has warned it may run out of money within months without outside help."

From what I can tell, no one is calling for the scalp of GM CEO Rick Wagoner because of confident public statements that he made just a few months ago about his company.

So, the corporate crime lottery continues. A truly civilized society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 7, 2008

The NatWest Three are finally going home

The NatWest Three -- the three U.K. bankers who were dragged through the Enron mud for the past five years -- are finally going home after serving about six months of their sentences in U.S. prisons.

After a hearing in New York yesterday, the three men have completed the prolonged transfer process from the U.S. prison system to the U.K. system. Accordingly, they will fly to England next week to serve the remainder of their three-year sentences there. Hopefully, they will be paroled in short order under the U.K.'s more humane sentencing laws pertaining to white-collar crimes.

Although the treatment of these men by U.S. criminal justice authorities has been mostly scandalous, the mainstream media continues to misrepresent their story (see this earlier example). More recently, see this London Telegraph article that gets just about everything wrong about the case and the plea bargain that the three men struck.

Read this if you want to know what really happened with regard to the NatWest Three. It's a nuanced and far more interesting story than the mainstream media's morality play.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 31, 2008

The Prince of Regulation

Get a load of the letter that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the new Prince of Regulation, sent to about ten Wall Street firms the other day:

We believe that the Board of Directors is most appropriately positioned to respond to our requests as the firm's top management likely has a significant interest in the size of the bonus pools. In this new era of corporate responsibility we are entering, boards of directors must step up to the plate and prevent wasteful expenditures of corporate funds on outsized executive bonuses and other unjustified compensation.

As my Office has told AIG, now that the American taxpayer has provided substantial funds to your firm, the preservation of those funds is a vital obligation of your company. Taxpayers are, in many ways, now like shareholders of your company, and your firm has a responsibility to them.

Accordingly, we also ask that the Board inform us of the policies, procedures, and protections the Board has instituted that will ensure Board review of all such company expenditures going forward. Please provide this Office with an accounting of the actions the Board plans to take that will protect taxpayer funds.

So, Cuomo charts the same political course as Eliot Spitzer before him and Rudy Giuliani before Spitzer. Embrace the Greed Narrative and then sit back and let the mainstream media do the rest. Before you know it, even both major presidential candidates tout the myth that business failure is always about dastardly villains and innocent victims.

My question for Cuomo and his mainstream media minions is quite simple: What is the likely quality of the management and board members who are willing to stick around and put up with Cuomo's grandstanding?

My bet is that you won't see many Hank Greenbergs.

Meanwhile, those less-than-stellar management teams all have tickets to feed at the Fed's money trough.

Ah, the webs we weave.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2008

Hedging the Enron trial penalty

On the heels of this news, and given the mainstream media's ubiquitous characterization of Enron as the harbinger of the current Wall Street financial crisis, it's really not surprising that former Enron Broadband co-CEO Joe Hirko opted to cop a plea on Tuesday rather than face a draining re-trial of the notorious Enron Broadband case. A copy of the plea deal is here.

Although Hirko and his co-defendants overcame enormous odds to win acquittals and a hung jury in the initial Broadband trial, Hirko and his family have already endured over five years of uncertainty as the Damoclean Sword of a relentless federal prosecution hung over their heads. Inasmuch as Hirko could have easily been looking at a decade behind bars if he were to be convicted in the re-trial, a probable sentence of 12-16 months in a plea deal is a reasonable hedge of what has become the draconian trial penalty for business executives.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

October 14, 2008

Refracting Enron myopia

One of the more entertaining aspects of the current Wall Street financial crisis has been reading how some of the business columnists have been interpreting it.

Take, for example, Houston Chronicle business columnist, Loren Steffy. You may remember him from his acerbic coverage of the trial of former Enron executives, Jeff Skilling and the late Ken Lay, or his perpetuation of the Enron Myth regardless of the circumstances.

Dismissing me as an Enron apologist, Steffy regularly disputed my long-held theory that the run-on-the-bank that felled Enron could well happen to any trust-based business.

Apparently confused by the fact that what happened to Enron has now happened to Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG and any number of other trust-based businesses impacted by the current credit crunch, Steffy reaches for insight from one of the fellows who set the stage for this mess:

Investigators are poring over the failed firms, looking for signs that executives misled shareholders. Some evidence may be found, but Sam Buell, the former prosecutor who led the effort to indict Enron's Jeff Skilling, doesn't think we'll see widespread prosecutions.

"It's not a conspiracy if everybody's in on it," said Buell, who's now a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. "In order to have a fraud conspiracy, you've got to have some effort by one group to deceive another group."

In this case, individual investors may not have understood what Wall Street bankers were doing with complex debt securities, but those charged with safeguarding the marketplace were certainly aware.

Regulators knew and approved. So did credit rating agencies. And auditors, both internal and external. With a mouse click, investors could find public documents that described the debt instruments with hundreds of pages of detail. [.   .   .]

"If everybody's in a bubble mentality, if they're betting the price of real estate will keep going up, disclosure doesn't address the problem of what happens when all those assumptions turn out to be wrong," Buell said. "Everybody knows what they're doing. They're just making bad decisions."

Yes, you read that correctly. Buell implies that Skilling was guilty of criminal conspiracy because not "everybody" was "in on it" at the time Enron was making its supposedly opaque disclosures. However, since "everybody's in on it" now, Buell doesn't think there will be widespread prosecutions because "[i]t's not a conspiracy if everybody's in on it."

With such reasoning, is there any doubt now why this outfit generated this record?

For the record, I actually hope Buell is right this time that few businesspeople are prosecuted for misjudging business risk. But for a more rational explanation of how financial regulation fits into the current crisis, check out these Larry Ribstein posts here, here and here and this masterful one by Arnold Kling.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

October 11, 2008

230 years?

So, the Justice Department is seeking a sentence of 230 years for former General Re senior counsel Robert Graham, a 60-year old man who has never been involved in any wrongdoing in his life.

Mercifully, the pre-sentencing report recommends a sentence of "only" 12-17 years.

Graham was convicted earlier this year of securities fraud in connection with his involvement in a finite risk transaction between General Re and AIG that was one of the transactions that led to the downfall of former AIG CEO, Hank Greenberg (prior posts here).

Ironically, AIG is now fighting for its life -- even after receiving loans from the Fed in amounts approaching $150 billion -- as a result of thousands of transaction decisions that were far more questionable than the one Graham made.

230 years. For involvement in a transaction that was not even clearly improper, much less criminal in nature.

230 years. As a result of a prosecution that required application of the Buffett rule.

230 years. What does that portend for the AIG executives who engaged in this bit of bad judgment? Or those who were involved in this? Did they commit a crime because they breached an obligation to throw in the towel?

This is our government doing such things, folks. It is a reflection of us. And that reflection is not particularly attractive these days.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

September 16, 2008

That other hurricane

So, while the Houston area was enduring a hurricane, the financial markets were enduring one, too.

As with Enron and Bear Stearns, the demise of Lehman Brothers reinforces the inherently fragile nature of a trust-based business (related posts here). 

Larry Ribstein has been insightfully pointing out for years that more regulation of those businesses will not prevent the next meltdown, just as the more stringent regulations added after Enron's collapse did not prevent Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers from failing. More responsive forms of business ownership certainly are a hedge to the inherent risk of investment in a trust-based business. Better investor understanding of the wisdom of hedging that risk would help, too.

But as Warren Meyer eloquently wonders, what must Jeff Skilling be thinking about all this? Is Skilling's inhumane sentence -- as well as the barbaric handling of the criminal case against him and other Enron executives -- the sacrifice that American society needs to quench its blood thirst to do the same to the leaders of trust-based businesses that suffer the same fate as Enron? I hope not, but  .   .   .

The truth is that Enron -- as with Bear and Lehman Brothers -- was simply a highly-leveraged, trust-based business with a relatively low credit rating and a booming trading operation that got caught in a liquidity crunch when the markets became spooked by revelations about Andrew Fastow embezzling millions in the volatile months after September 11, 2001.

Fastow's embezzlement is a crime, but Enron's demise is not, nor should it be. Beyond the shattered lives and families, the real tragedy here is that an angry  mob convicted Skilling, trumping the rule of law and the dispassionate administration of justice along the way. None of us would be able to survive "in the winds that blow" from the exercise of the government's overwhelming prosecutorial power in response to the demands of the mob.

I continue to hope that Skilling's unjust conviction and sentence are reversed on appeal. Not only for his benefit, but for ours.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 26, 2008

Glass houses

Dan Slater of the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog notes the Kremlin's recent refusal to grant parole to former OAO Yukos CEO Michael Khodorkovsky, who is serving an eight-year prison sentence in Siberia for tax evasion and fraud.

Khodorkovsky's conviction and prison sentence are widely viewed within the U.S. as evidence that the Russian business and judicial systems remain largely corrupt and not conducive to honest commercial investment.

Maybe so, but what does the same reasoning conclude about a system that produces barbaric injustices such as this, this, this and this, to name just a recent few?

People who live in glass houses .  .  .

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 9, 2008

Criminal justice?

The always-insightful Larry Ribstein points out that Jamie Olis would have been better off providing material support for Osama Bin Laden than working on the beneficial structured finance transaction that ultimately led to his criminal conviction.

The sad case of Jamie Olis remains one of the most egregious abuses of the government's prosecutorial power during the post-Enron criminalization of business. The relative lack of outrage over it reflects poorly on all freedom-loving Americans.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 6, 2008

Cutting the Pai

Former Enron executive Lou Pai's recent settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirmed that the Greed Narrative is still embraced by much of mainstream American society. Take, for example, Charles Kuffner's reaction:

Reading this story reminds me why I was bothered less than folks like Tom were about the criminal cases that were brought against the likes of Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and so on. Pai was (eventually) punished through the civil process, but the punishment he received doesn't come close to balancing the scales, in my view. He's still a millionaire many times over - assuming he hasn't blown it all, of course - while so many other people, employees and shareholders, got wiped out. I think the only way the civil justice system could really make these guys pay for their wrongdoings is if it left them in the same shape as the people who were affected by their actions - namely, in a situation where they'd have to work for the rest of their lives because they no longer had any accumulated wealth. Here's a bit I wrote from my review of "The Smartest Guys In The Room":

There's a really poignant scene in which Portland General Electric lineman Al Kaseweter matter-of-factly states that he sold his entire retirement portfolio, which was worth $348,000 at its peak, for $1200.

PGE had been bought by Enron before the crash; like most Enron employees were encouraged to do, Kaseweter put the bulk of his retirement funds into Enron stock. Put Lou Pai in Al Kaseweter's shoes, and I'd agree that justice had been served. Same with Skilling and the rest of that crowd. But that's not how it works, so despite the problems associated with the Enron prosecutions, I think they were necessary.

Stated simply, Charles' view is that "Pai got rich at Enron and a bunch of people lost money when Enron went down in flames, so he must have done something criminal and must be punished." Chron business reporter Loren Steffy, who really ought to know better, spews a similar view.

Frankly, given the societal bias against nearly everything related to Enron, such reactions are not particularly surprising. But it remains disappointing -- and, frankly, a reflection of our human instinct to demonize those in regard to whom we feel morally superior -- that reasonably intelligent people dismiss as a virtual white-collar criminal a man of considerable talent without even passing mention of what he supposedly did wrong.

In reality, Pai was a former SEC economist who became one of the commodities traders who helped Jeff Skilling transform Enron into a multi-billion dollar corporation with earnings that rose from a couple of hundred million dollars in 1990 to $1.6 billion in 1998, over half of which was generated by Enron's trading division. By 2000, Enron's revenue had risen to $100 billion and, on in late August of that year, Enron’s stock price peaked at $90 per share.

As virtually every mainstream media article about Pai's settlement reported, Pai had a legendary fondness for strippers and was a frequent patron of Houston's famous topless club near the Galleria, Rick's Cabaret. Pai met a woman at Rick's with whom he had a long affair, leading Pai and his wife to divorce in 2000 (Pai eventually married his mistress). Pai sold a large amount of his Enron stock in 2000 to fund the divorce settlement, so although he was a wealthy man before selling the stock, Pai was a wealthy and liquid man after doing so.

But the SEC charges against Pai did not involve any of that. Rather, the SEC alleged that between May 18, 2001 and June 7, 2001, Pai sold 338,897 shares of Enron stock and exercised stock options that resulted in the sale of 572,818 shares. According to the SEC, before making those sales, Pai -- who previously headed an Enron division called Enron Energy Services ("EES") -- learned from the successor EES management team that it had identified substantial contract-related losses in the division. The SEC theorized that, had Enron reported EES's contract-related losses in its retail energy services segment, that segment would have shown a quarterly loss of at least $60 million rather than the profit of $40 million that Enron reported in its Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2001. By selling in May and June, the SEC alleged that Pai avoided the substantial losses that he would have suffered had he still been holding the stock when Enron's stock price collapsed in late 2001.

However, the SEC's allegations against Pai were anything but a slam dunk. Mirroring the SEC's theory of the case against Pai, the Enron Task Force attempted in the Lay-Skilling trial to prove that Enron and Skilling had lied about EES’s growth while simultaneously hiding mounting EES losses. Relying on the testimony of plea-bargainers David Delainey and Timothy Belden, the Task Force asserted that EES first moved an allegedly non-collectible account receivable to Enron's profitable Wholesale division in the fourth quarter of 2000 and then transferred the entire EES risk management book to Wholesale in the first quarter of 2001 ("the resegmentation"). According to the Task Force's theory against Skilling and the SEC's theory against Pai, these events occurred solely to make EES look more profitable than it really was.

Unfortunately for the Task Force and the SEC, that's not what the testimony reflected during the Lay-Skilling trial. The various witnesses expressed differing opinions as to the purpose for the moves with regard to EES, but not one of them stated that anyone had told them that the reason for the moves was to bolster EES’ profitability. Likewise, not one of the witnesses attributed knowledge of that alleged motive to Pai (or Skilling, for that matter). With respect to the transfer of the fourth-quarter 2000 receivable, Enron auditor Arthur Andersen had analyzed the transfer and approved the accounting treatment. Indeed, Skilling defense witness Diann Huddleson testified that Enron management believed it could collect on the questionable receivable and ultimately did collect most of it.

As for the resegmentation, Skilling testified that moving the EES risk book to Wholesale made sense from a business standpoint, and former Wholesale division executive Rogers Herndon confirmed Skilling's version by testifying that the Wholesale unit improved the efficiency and value of that risk book. Even Delainey, the Task Force's main witness on this issue, conceded that he ultimately recommended to Skilling that the risk book be moved. Indeed, the only independent accounting expert who testified during the Lay-Skilling trial -- Walter Rush -- testified that the transfer of the risk book complied with applicable accounting rules.

Thus, the SEC's civil case against Pai was similar to what we've seen in most of the criminal cases against former Enron executives -- long on bombast, short on substance.

But the promoters of the Greed Narrative protest, what about the innocent victims who lost their nest eggs as a result of Enron's collapse?

Well, one of the main reasons that those victims' nest eggs ever had value in the first place was because Pai helped Skilling transform Enron into the world's leading energy risk management company through the creative use of futures and options contracts to hedge price risk for natural gas producers and industrial consumers. Although there is nothing wrong with feeling compassion for folks who lose money on an investment, rarely is it mentioned in the Greed Narrative with regard to Enron that many of those "victims" who lost their nest eggs were imprudent in their investment strategy. They should have diversified their Enron holdings or bought a put on their Enron shares that would have allowed them to enjoy the rise in Enron's stock price while being protected by a floor in that share price if it fell below a certain value. Such is the risk of investing in the trust-based business model. 

Thus, while virtually all of those Enron "victims" hedged the risk of their investment in their homes by purchasing homeowner's insurance, few of them hedged the risk of their investment in Enron stock. More than likely, most of them simply did not understand how Enron's risk management services created their nest egg in the first place. Thus, when those nest eggs evaporated during the bank run on Enron, they didn't even try to understand what had occurred. They simply embraced the easy-to-understand Greed Narrative.

Sadly, apart from the its egregious human toll and the serious abuse of state power that its promoters ignore, the Greed Narrative's devastating impact is that it obscures the true nature of investment risk and fuels the myth that investment loss results primarily from someone else's misconduct. As Larry Ribstein has been asking for years, do we really want to be sending a message to investors that risk is bad when it often leads to valuable innovation and wealth creation? For example, self-settled derivative prepay transactions are not particularly intuitive (no product actually changes hands) and are not well-understood outside the trading business. Nevertheless, such transactions provide the valuable benefit of hedging risk for companies, who pass along that benefit to consumers in the form of lower prices for their products and services.

Do we really want to allow prosecutors and regulators to paint such beneficial transactions as frauds and then manipulate the public's ignorance to demonize innovative risk-takers who were attempting to create wealth? How does throwing creative and productive business executives such as Michael Milken and Jeff Skilling in prison do anything to educate investors about the true nature of risk and the importance of diversification and hedging?

A truly civil society would find a better way.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 18, 2008

The Usual Suspects

Given the recent turmoil in the financial markets, it's a bit hard to keep up with the morality plays and the villains.

After the Enronesque fall of Bear Stearns, the villains of the moment were the two Bear Stearns executives who were indicted for not throwing in the towel timely.

Then, over the past several weeks, speculators who facilitate markets to hedge energy costs became targets of the demagogues.

And now this week, with the demise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox issued an emergency order attempting to curtail naked short-sellers of the stock of the embattled government sponsored entities and also the stocks of Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley.

What on earth is Christopher Cox, a supposedly sophisticated securities lawyer, doing issuing orders that hinder the efficient functioning of markets?

Folks, the problem is not that stock prices of the GSE's and the investment banks are low because some nasty market manipulators have been targeting them. Larry Summers has a much more rational explanation for the GSE's demise. Instead of rethinking those misguided policies that led to the bubble in the GSE's stock price, Cox is engaging in a classic case of shooting the messenger by attempting to limit a price-setting mechanism for shares of stock.

Short selling -- the act of betting against a stock by borrowing it, selling it and then purchasing the stock later at a lower price to repay the loan -- plays an important role in well-functioning markets. If short selling is repressed, then optimists will dominate in the marketplace, which generally results in stocks becoming overpriced. Stated simply, persecuting the short-sellers contributes to stock bubbles. Larry Ribstein summed up the absurdity of the Cox's action well:

“[I]n our wacky world of regulation, as we step up liability to get out the truth about securities, we stomp down an important mechanism for getting the truth out about securities.”

And in addressing the above question about Cox, Craig Pirrong had an interesting 1993 encounter with the SEC chaiman regarding short-selling (and with Hillary and Bill Clinton, too, but that's a sideshow) that prompts him to make the following observation about Cox:

Given my 1993 experience with Chris Cox, I have my suspicions that the new short selling restrictions aren’t based on any empirical evidence or deep economic reasoning -– instead they are a reflection of Cox’s anti-shorting prejudices (and the prejudices of like-minded folks at the SEC) -– prejudices that he displayed in 1993.

When are we going to learn that knee-jerk regulatory responses such as Cox's latest often do more economic harm than good, not the least of which is the perpetuation of myths that distract investors from prudent risk allocation?

Update: Chron business columnist Loren Steffy agrees with me. And Don Boudreaux today identifies the underlying human dynamic behind such witch hunts:

We humans have a long and embarrassing history of blaming devils for distressing aspects of reality that we don't understand.   Droughts, floods, plagues, and erupting volcanoes have all been ascribed to the machinations of unseen super-powerful entities – as ill-defined as they are ill-intentioned – who manipulate a reality to which they are immune but to which we mortals must inevitably bend.

Today's witch hunt for speculators who allegedly are driving oil prices to heights unconnected with the realities of supply and demand is just the latest entry in this pageant of ignorance.

This post from two years ago addressed the same dynamic in connection with the death of Ken Lay. And Arnold Kling chimes in with an absolutely spot-on analysis about the folly of attempting to limit the pricing mechanism of markets:

In the mortgage market, people saw risk-takers outperforming prudent lenders. So they took more risks. There is no simple fix for that. For the foreseeable future, we can count on investors sticking to prudence when it comes to mortgage lending. We don't need any regulations to close that barn door.

But somewhere, some time, in some other market, there will be another outbreak of excessive risk-taking. You can't make the system idiot-proof. They'll just build a better idiot.

Update II: The SEC is already retrenching from its "emergency" order (W$J article here).

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 14, 2008

Be careful, Mr. Wagoner

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner made some interesting public comments this past week in Dallas regarding the besieged automaker's bankruptcy prospects:

"Under any scenario we can imagine, our financial position, or cash position, will remain robust through the rest of this year," Mr. Wagoner said Thursday while in Dallas to speak to a business organization. He said the company has plenty of options to shore up its finances beyond 2008, although he declined to outline them.

The comments failed to boost investor sentiment as GM shares fell 6.2% to $9.69 in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading Thursday. The stock has been trading at its lowest levels in more than 50 years as concerns mount about the company's financial position amid a steep decline in U.S. sales.

GM and other U.S. auto makers are reeling as the slow U.S. economy depresses sales and as high gasoline prices push many would-be buyers to small, more-fuel-efficient vehicles and away from the higher-margin SUVs and trucks. Through June, for instance, GM's U.S. sales slipped 16%, more than offsetting strength in overseas markets.

GM has about $24 billion in cash but is burning an estimated $3 billion a quarter, prompting talk that it will need a significant cash influx to get to 2010.

"We have no thought of [bankruptcy] whatsoever," Mr. Wagoner said in response to an audience question during the Dallas event.

Now, I am not involved with GM, but I have been involved over the past 30 years in my share of big company reorganizations. Contrary to Wagoner's statements, GM has almost certainly "thought" of bankruptcy and GM management probably continues to examine whether a reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code makes sense for the company, which it just might. Frankly, not to examine such alternatives would be egregious mismanagement. Any seasoned investor knows this and the market is clearly pricing that risk by lowering the company's stock price.

So, despite all that, if GM ends up in bankruptcy, is Wagoner at risk of being indicted for misleading investors regarding the company's ongoing bankruptcy analysis? Stated another way, will Wagoner be indicted for breaching the obligation to throw in the towel?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 11, 2008

An Enron "hero" is looking for work?

This JoAnn Greco/Portfolio.com article bemoans that "famed Enron whistleblower" Sherron Watkins is having a hard time finding a job. Those dastardly employers just don't trust honest employees such as Watkins, now do they?

On the other hand, perhaps the reason that Watkins can't find a job is that prospective employers do more research than Ms. Greco bothered to do for her article and discover that Watkins wasn't really a whistleblower even though she disingenuously presented herself to Congress, the mainstream media and the public as one.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 8, 2008

The latest Enron book

Harvard Business School issued this press release and interview yesterday of Malcolm S. Salter, the Harvard professor who has written the latest book -- Innovation Corrupted: The Origins and Legacy of Enron's Collapse (Harvard University Press) -- in what seems to be a continuing stream on the demise of Enron. From the looks of it, Professor Salter has figured out that the recent collapse of Bear Stearns is a good hook for his book:

Q: Can an Enron-type calamity happen again? Why or why not?

A: Perverse incentives are legion throughout our system today. For example, perverse incentives for both mortgage brokers and investment bankers helped create the subprime crisis that we are now living through. Many boards are also still struggling to improve their oversight. Preventing future Enron-type disasters will require the kind of attention to board oversight, financial incentives, and ethical discipline that I address in Innovation Corrupted.

You don't say?

Interestingly, Professor Salter notes that Enron's collapse was triggered by its third-quarter 2001 charge against earnings and equity write-down, which were relatively small in comparison to the losses, charges and write-downs that Wall Street firms have endured over the past year during the sub-prime meltdown:

In the third week of October 2001, Arthur Andersen, Enron's highly compromised outside auditor, "discovered" several large accounting irregularities related to the off-balance-sheet partnerships. This forced Lay—who returned as CEO after Skilling resigned that August—to announce a $544 million charge against earnings, and a $1.2 billion write-down in shareholders' equity, largely related to the impending closure of Enron's Raptor partnerships. Within weeks, Enron collapsed into bankruptcy as its trading partners quickly lost faith—proving, once again, that even a hint of negligence or misconduct can be devastating to a company.

Ah, yes. That pesky trust-based business model.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 4, 2008

Nice job, but what about that other case?

This Wall Street Journal editorial pats itself on the back justifiably for swimming against the mainstream media tide in opposing from the outset former New York Attorney General Eliot's Spitzer's popular but dubious litigation and propaganda campaign against former New York Stock Exchange chief executive officer, Richard Grasso. The Spitzer-inspired case against Grasso fell apart earlier this week under the weight of multiple negative appellate decisions.

The Journal deserves much credit for standing up to Spitzer's bullying tactics when few others in the mainstream media were willing to do so. But what does the Journal say about turning a relative blind eye toward this even worse prosecutorial abuse?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 20, 2008

The obligation to throw in the towel

So, the shoe finally dropped on the two Bear Stearns executives who managed the two Bear hedge funds that imploded in mid-2007. A copy of the indictment is here.

As I read the indictment, the government is contending that Messrs. Cioffi and Tannin were required to disclose to investors immediately in February and March, 2007 that the two of them feared that the two funds might be "toast" even as Cioffi and other Bear executives were fighting market pessimism toward the funds and urging investors to maintain trust in their ultimate financial merit. So, with their careers riding on whether the funds would survive, Cioffi and Tannin were supposed to throw in the towel and light a match to the funds by disclosing to the market their concerns about the heightened risk of a meltdown.

Stated simply, according to the Feds, about the time you think your trust-based business might be toast, it's already too late. Inasmuch as you are required to disclose to the markets that you think the business might be toast, that disclosure will understandably prompt the market to lose trust in your business, which means that your company is kaput. So, the smart thing to do is never to voice (and sure as heck don't write any emails!) your concern to anyone regarding the downside risk of your business. That lack of communication might dampen internal company analysis regarding risk of loss, but what the hell -- at least you won't get indicted for misleading investors when your company fails.

Just another chapter in the twisted policy implications that result from regulating business through criminalizing businesspeople's risk-taking. Larry Ribstein has typically insightful observations along the same lines, while Bess Levin muses over the Feds' suggestion that investors didn't know exactly what they were buying when investing in Bear's funds.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

June 17, 2008

Criminalizing Failure

As Larry Ribstein reports, the Enron prosecutorial veterans are already picking up the usual suspects in regard to the Bear Stearns meltdown.

Meanwhile, John Carney wonders whether any investors really feel safer as a result of these criminal probes?

And although Bear struck out, do we really want to deter potentially beneficial risk-taking by criminalizing it when it fails?

Finally, wouldn't it make more sense to allocate the resources spent on criminalizing such risk-taking toward educating investors in trust-based businesses on how to hedge their risk of loss?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 16, 2008

Bill King's story

As Republican presidential nominee John McCain is doing his best to stoke public prejudice against job-creators and wealth builders, longtime Houston lawyer and businessman Bill King is promoting his new book, Saving Face (Somerset 2008), which is King's personal history of the savings & loan crisis of the late 1980's and early 1990's. Ironically, McCain knows quite a bit about the back story to King's book. McCain was one of the Keating Five, the Congressional supporters of former Lincoln Savings & Loan chairman and CEO Charles Keating, who was convicted of various corporate fraud crimes and served four years in prison as a result of highly-stoked but substantively-thin prosecutions that were ultimately overturned on appeal. Keating eventually pled guilty to a single count of bankruptcy fraud to limit further prison time and insulate a family member from prosecution. For a thorough review of the mendacity of the Keating prosecutions, pick up a copy of Dan Fischel's book, Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and his Financial Revolution (HarperCollins 1995).

King's story is the Houston version of Keating's and a precursor of the prosecutorial abuse that the post-Enron criminal prosecutions in Houston generated a decade later. Not only does King do an excellent job of explaining the financial, economic, regulatory and political underpinnings of the S&L crisis, he explores how the government wielded its prosecutorial power indiscriminately to serve up scapegoats to a salivating mainstream media and an ill-informed public. King is thinking about running for Houston mayor in 2009 and, based on the depth and perspective that he exhibits in Saving Face, King would probably be a fine mayor. The following is King's overview of Saving Face, which I recommend highly:

These days I find myself cringing when I hear media accounts that fraudulent and greedy mortgage brokers are responsible for all of the woes of the current housing bubble and the sub-prime defaults. I do so because the recriminations are an all too familiar echo of an earlier debacle. One to which I had a ring-side seat.

Many of you who have known me for some years know that shortly after law school I made the somewhat less-than-fortuitous career decision of joining a law firm that specialized in representing savings and loans. At the time it did not seem like a bad decision. The Houston real estate market was enjoying an unprecedented boom and the savings and loan industry had just been deregulated. Investors were clamoring to get into the business.

Within a few years of joining the law firm, I began investing in savings and loans and related businesses. By 1986, notwithstanding that I had started with barely two nickels to rub together after working my way through law school, I had built a small, but respectable, business empire consisting of savings and loan holdings, title companies, and real estate investments. However, within a couple of years, everything I had built evaporated into thin air.

The Houston market collapsed when the price of oil fell from over $34 per barrel in 1984 to $9 the next year. It did not recover to above $20 until 2002. Manufacturing jobs in the region fell by nearly 50% and for the first time in history Texans' personal income declined.

Bankruptcies in Houston tripled between 1983 and 1987. All but one of Texas' major banking holding companies failed. Harris County's population actually declined from 1985 to 1989. It was the first and only time in Houston's history that it has lost population. If you did not live through these times, the magnitude of melt down is hard to imagine.

It is certainly difficult to lose everything that you have worked for, but the environment that existed in the late 1980s and early 1990s had an even more ominous aspect. As the public became increasingly aware that the savings and loan crisis was going to take a major taxpayer bailout, there were ever more strident cries to hold someone responsible.

The complexity of confluence of interest rates, regulatory policy, oil prices, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and the collapse of large portions of the real estate market that actually explained the collapse was too great to be reduced to sound bites. Politicians and bureaucrats began pointing the finger at those in the industry, and soon, the "S&L crook" was born. And there were enough egregious cases for the politicians and bureaucrats to hold up as "proof" of their argument that the "S&L crooks" caused the crisis.

The proposition that fraud and insider abuse had sunk the savings and loan industry was eventually discredited. In 1993, a National Commission concluded that fraud had caused less than 15% of the total problem. But in the heat of the moment, there was little interest in cool, scholarly reflection on the problems of the industry.

As the 1980s came to a close I watched as many friends, associates and former clients in the S&L industry were swept up in a maelstrom of civil and criminal litigation. Naively, it never occurred to me that I might be caught up in such a dispute as well. But I was.

Eventually, I prevailed in my battle with the regulators, but as you might imagine, it was an experience that left an indelible mark and from which it took me many years to recover. For some time I have been jotting down notes for a book about these experiences. For a couple of reasons, I recently decided to finalize such a book.

First, as many of you know, I am considering a candidacy for mayor of Houston in 2009. We all know too well that "negative campaigning" has become the standard today. Certainly going bankrupt in the savings and loan business will provide potential opponents ready ammunition. So first and foremost, I want to put the issue squarely on the table. If I decide to become a candidate, there will undoubtedly be some voters who will be troubled by these experiences. Some will believe difficult times such as the ones I went through are a crucible that better prepares a person for leadership. Most, I expect, will simply want to be advised of the facts so that they can be weighed with other issues bearing on their decision.

But beyond the potential political implications, the troubling similarities between what I saw in the S&L collapse of the 1980s and the sub-prime crisis playing out before us now demands some consideration. It is a well worn adage, but nonetheless true, that if we do not learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes. Perhaps relating what I saw during the saving and loan industry collapse will provide some perspective on the current financial crises.

So for these reasons I have written Saving Face: An Alternative and Personal Account of the Savings and Loan Debacle. I have attempted in the book to tell the story of what I experienced during these times, but at the same time, to place my experiences in a larger, national context. I believe my story has some relevance to anyone experiencing trying times generally, and certainly to those in the Houston real estate industry, many of whom lived through these times as I did.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 15, 2008

The Refco Question

Ellen Podgor has the sentencing memos in regard to former Refco CEO Phil Bennett's plea deal. They are interesting reading, but what they do not answer is the most intriguing question that remains unanswered from the entire Refco affair:

Why did Bennett risk taking Refco public in the first place?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 12, 2008

An odd spokesman for limiting corporate criminal liability

The always-alert Ellen Podgor notes that former Enron Task Force chief Andrew Weissmann (see also here and here) recently wrote an amicus brief on behalf of various business and defense-oriented organizations in the United States v. Ionia Management, S.A. case currently pending at the Second Circuit. In the brief, Weissmann advocates that the appellate court "adopt a standard for vicarious corporate criminal liability" . . . that limits "the application of respondeat superior."

As you may recall, Weissmann promoted precisely the opposite standard while engineering the destruction of enormous wealth and tens of thousands of jobs in prosecuting Arthur Andersen out of business.

It's better late than never that Weissmann apparently now understands the error of his prior ways. I wonder whether he will admit that to the Second Circuit panel?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 3, 2008

So, what's the difference?

 Mel Weiss was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison yesterday for making undisclosed payments to class representatives in class action lawsuits that his firm handled. As noted here about a year ago, Weiss didn't have much of a choice given the trial penalty that he was facing.

Meanwhile, in return for being the key witness against former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, Enron Task Force prosecutors "paid" Andy Fastow with a lighter prison sentence than the one the prosecutors disclosed to the jury and the judge during Skilling's trial. Those same prosecutors also withheld from Skilling's defense team exculpatory statements about Skilling that Fastow made before he elected to accept the prosecutors "payment" of a lighter sentence and testify against him. The lead prosecutors involved in arranging Fastow's testimony have gone on to presumably lucrative careers in private practice. Skilling is serving an effective life prison sentence.

As Larry Ribstein has long contended, paying kickbacks should not be condoned. However, the hyprocrisy reflected by the above-described state of affairs is not going to be solved by demonizing Mel Weiss.

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 30, 2008

The Bear Stearns lesson

Yesterday brought the final installment of Kate Kelly's extraordinary three-part W$J series on the fall of Bear Stearns (Kelly also contributed to today's story on Bear's final shareholders meeting). My goodness, was Kelly a fly on the wall over at Bear's office during all of this? Dear John Thain has an interesting critical analysis of the series here, here and here, while Larry Ribstein and John Carney point out that Kelly apparently fell for what has become known as "the loophole legend" in regard to JP Morgan's buyout of Bear.

Although all the articles in the series are fun reading, Kelly's most insightful observation comes from the second installment:

It was the beginning of a frantic 72 hours that would bring the Wall Street firm to its knees and threaten the stability of the global financial system.  .  .  . The brokerage's sudden fall was a stark reminder of the fragility and ferocity of a financial system built to a remarkable degree on trust. Billions of dollars in securities are traded each day with nothing more than an implicit agreement that trading partners will pay up when asked. When investors became concerned that Bear Stearns wouldn't be able to settle its trades with clients, that confidence evaporated in a flash. Trading partners, eager to avoid losses, began to disappear almost as quickly. That further fueled rumors of trouble. Some partners, spotting a chance to profit, made bets against Bear Stearns, helping accelerate its demise.  .  .  .

Even after the Bear Stearns lesson, our understanding of the pesky trust-based business model is still not what it should be. Improving the investing public's understanding of how best to hedge the risk of investing in trust-based businesses is a far more productive response to Bear Stearns-type business failures than this. 

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 29, 2008

The instinct against the money-makers

I swear, you can't make this stuff up.

As Larry Ribstein cogently explains, Southwest Airlines has taken advantage of futures markets over the past several years to hedge its fuel costs (previous posts on Southwest's hedging program are here). That hedging program has been one of the major factors in allowing Southwest to remain one of the only profitable U.S. airlines. Along the same lines, Bloomberg's Matthew Lynn explains how such markets provide an essential function in re-directing resources in the overall economy.

Meanwhile, Congress is trying to hamstring the very markets (see also here) that provided Southwest and many other businesses with the platform on which they hedged fuel-cost and other business risk. The wealth and lower prices generated from those hedges is not inconsequential.

Finally, the Justice Department continues its advocacy of an effective life sentence for one of the men primarily responsible for developing the robust markets that facilitate Southwest and others' wealth creation for shareholders and lower costs for customers.

And these folks in Congress and the Justice Department are supposed to be representing our interests?

Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 19, 2008

The cost of Spitzerism

On Friday, February 11, 2005, shares of American International Group closed at $73.12 per share.

Last Friday, after Eliot Spitzer and the meltdown in the subprime mortgage markets, AIG's shares closed at $39.34 per share.

James Freeman of the Wall $treet Journal, one of the only mainstream media outlets to expose Spitzer's extortion of AIG for what it truly was, reports here on the massive reduction of wealth to which Spitzer's unbridled regulation of AIG contributed greatly. Larry Ribstein, who was one of the first bloggers to shed light on this injustice, surveys the economic carnage here.

My question: Where is the rest of the mainstream media in reporting on this enormous destruction of wealth to AIG shareholders?

Posted by Tom at 5:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

May 17, 2008

Look at what Mary Flood has been reading

Chronicle legal reporter Mary Flood covered many of the Enron-related criminal trials, so it was only natural for her to pick up a copy of former Enron Task Force prosecutor, law professor and current Oregon attorney general candidate John Kroger's new book, which includes several chapters on his work in several Enron-related criminal cases.

You may remember Kroger. He is the fellow who tried early on to broker his experience on the Task Force to make a name for himself in academic circles. He was involved in preparing some of the worst carnage that the Task Force generated -- the Arthur Andersen debacle, the Enron Broadband disaster, and the Nigerian Barge abomination.

Ms. Flood reports on her blog that the Enron-related chapters of Kroger's book are downright bizarre:

[Kroger's book] is a self-congratulatory look at Kroger's years as a federal prosecutor. The four somewhat conflicted chapters on Enron talk alternately about his prowess, his lack of knowledge, how careful prosecutors were, how ruthless prosecutors were, how terrific his case against the Enron broadband executives was and how it hasn't been successful in court. [.  .  .]

What may be most surprising about the book is Kroger's admission of a lack of knowledge about how to go about these cases, an admission that the DOJ was out for quick scalps, and an admission that they threatened many witnesses. These are especially odd to see in print given that one of the allegations the defense made was prosecutorial misconduct in this case -- too much threatening and coercing of witnesses. One witness in the 2005 case even testified a member of the task force tried coerce him out of testifying for the defense.

Kroger frequently brags about his own prowess as an interrogator and lawyer, even guessing the broadband cases might be over now if he'd tried them. And he casts doubt on just about everyone else in the process.

Despite talking about the pressure the task force was under to get scalps and how aggressive they were, he creates a hypothetical conversation to illustrate how a defense attorney might try to trick a witness into saying no crimes were committed.

Amid the sometimes stunning hubris seems to be much angst about the decision of others to charge Lea Fastow in order to get to her husband and thus get to Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay.

He questions his colleagues, not just over the Lea Fastow charging decision (even including a mean-spirited comment a fellow prosecutor made about the Fastow children possibly winding up in foster care) but in general saying, in his career as a prosecutor he learned:

". . . that even well-intentioned prosecutors can present false testimony at trial, that a just process and a just result cannot always be obtained at the same time, that informants are both necessary and deceitful, that a certain small percentage of agents are corrupt, that our law enforcement policies often encourage crime rather than prevent it, and that successful interrogation requires the ethically questionable manipulation of other human beings.''

Just another chapter in the