First excerpt from “Conspiracy of Fools”

This NY Sunday Times article provides the first excerpt from Kurt Eichenwald‘s new book about the collapse of Enron Corp. — Conspiracy of Fools — that was the subject of this earlier post.
The entire excerpt is well worth reading, but the following part of the excerpt is particularly interesting. It involves an Enron management crisis meeting in late October 2001 as public revelations of Enron’s off-balance sheet partnerships began making Enron’s bank creditors extremely nervous. At the outset of the meeting, Greg Whalley, Enron’s chief operating officer, fired Andrew Fastow as Enron’s chief financial officer and replaced him with Jeff McMahon, who Fastow had canned as Enron’s treasurer a year and a half earlier after McMahon had objected to then Enron CEO Jeff Skilling about Fastow’s conflict of interest in managing the partnerships:

The men made their way to a tiny conference room upstairs, crowding around an oblong table. Fifteen minutes later, Whalley blew into the room.

“O.K., let’s get going,” he said. “Let’s start with the organization first.”
Whalley shot a look at Fastow, pointing at him.
“Andy,” he said rapidly. “As we discussed, you’re no longer C.F.O., effective right now.”
Fastow’s face fell. “Wait …”
Ignoring Fastow, Whalley swept his arm across the table, pointing at [former Enron treasuerer Jeff] McMahon.
“Jeff, you’re now C.F.O.”

What was that? McMahon wasn’t sure he heard Whalley correctly.

“Excuse me?” McMahon said. “I’m C.F.O.?”
“Yes, you’re C.F.O.”

McMahon glanced across the table. Fastow was shaking his head, looking shocked. The moment was surreal.

“Wait a minute!” Fastow sputtered. “That was not my understanding of the deal!”
Whalley held up a hand. “Andy,” he said, “I don’t know the legal stuff. You get with Ken and work it out.”

That was it. Whalley turned away from Fastow.

Read the entire excerpt.

Small PUD’s anti-Enron P.R. campaign appears to working

This earlier post told the story of the Snohomish County Public Utility District, which is riding an unparalleled wave of popularity among its customers despite hiking electricity rates 50 percent in the past four years and disconnecting a record number of customers for failure to pay bills.
The reason for this rather incongruous situation? The utility has been leading the public charge against the popular business whipping boy of the moment, Enron Corp.
Well, the utility’s anti-Enron public relations campaign appears to be working. Yesterday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order that determined that Enron was engaging in illegal activity at the time it entered into contracts with West Coast utilities during the West Coast power crisis of 2000-2001. Accordingly, FERC has ordered a hearing to determine whether Enron should be allowed to collect profits it would have received had those contracts been fulfilled. The hearing is expected to occur in May, and that hearing will be followed by FERC’s final decision later this year.
The decision is a landmark for West Coast utilities that continue to fight their Enron contracts because it is the first time that FERC has acknowledged that the contracts were signed under fraudulent pretenses. The utilities and cities involved terminated their contracts with Enron or watched as Enron terminate its contracts with them when the company slid into bankruptcy in late 2001.
When Enron went bankrupt, the Enron bankruptcy estate sued the utilities and cities for the money it would have made had the contracts been fulfilled. Enron is seeking a cool $300 million from a couple of Nevada utilities, and $122 million from the Snohomish County PUD, which signed a nine-year contract with Enron in January 2001 for power that was four times as expensive as it had been just months earlier. To come up with the $122 million, Snohomish contended that it would have to collect about $400 per customer.
As noted in the previous post, Snohomish searched through thousands of pages of Enron documents and paid for hundreds of hours of taped conversation transcripts involving Enron traders. The material turned out to be Watergatesque — the Enron traders joked about stealing money from California grandmothers and about the possibility of going to jail for their actions. With this explosive evidence, Snohomish sought a finding from FERC that it did not have to pay any damages to Enron under the terminated Enron contract. The FERC ruling on Friday means that Snohomish is inching closer to that goal.
Despite the FERC ruling and the tape recordings, the Enron Task Force has not taken much of an interest in pursuing former Enron traders on criminal charges. In October 2002, former Enron trader Tim Belden pleaded guilty to wire fraud for participating in trading schemes to game the California market, and two other former Enron traders — Jeffrey Richter and John Forney — later pleaded guilty to similar charges. However, those are the only former Enron traders who have been charged with crimes to date and, during a deposition in an Enron-related civil case last month, former Enron Online trading desk executive Louise Kitchen disclosed that the Justice Department had never even interviewed her.
Meanwhile, despite all of these legal machinations, the customers of the Snohomish PUD continue to pay much higher utility bills than utility customers in most other parts of the country. Perhaps the excess amount should be called the “flog Enron premium?”

More courthouse steps settlements in WorldCom class action

Deutsche Bank AG, German bank WestLB AG and Italian bank Caboto Holding Sim joined most of the other financial institution-defendants in the WorldCom class action yesterday in agreeing to settle fraud allegations for their participation in the sale of WorldCom Inc. bonds in 2000 and 2001. The settlements come on the eve of a scheduled trial of the case next week, and leaves JP Morgan Chase and a couple of smaller financial institutions as the only remaining defendants in the case. This link will take you to the previous posts on the WorldCom class action settlements.
Deutsche Bank’s settlement amount is $325 million, while WestLB agreed to pay $75 million and Caboto $37.5 million. Those amounts increase the WorldCom class action settlement pot to about $3.7 billion, which is for the time being the largest recovery ever in in a securities class-action lawsuit. Nevertheless, sharpies on such matters are already betting that the settlement pot and/or damages awarded against the financial institution-defendants in the Enron class action will lap the WorldCom settlement pot by several billion.

Texas Pacific’s purchase of Enron Oregon utility scuttled

The Oregon Public Utility Commission announced Thursday that it had decided not to approve Texas Pacific Group‘s proposed $2.35 billion purchase of Enron subsidiary Portland General Electric because “the potential harms or risks to PGE customers from the deal outweigh the potential benefits.” Here are the earlier posts on this situation.
PGE is Oregon’s largest utility with about 755,000 customers. Texas Pacific is the closely-owned Fort Worth investment firm that has been trying to buy PGE out of Enron’s bankruptcy estate for more than a year despite widespread public resistance in Oregon. Even such major industrial customers of the utility such as Intel Corp. came out against the deal.
State law required the state regulators to decide whether ratepayers would benefit from the takeover and that no public harm would result. Inasmuch as the commission could have approved the deal outright or conditioned approval of a sale on certain additional requirements, the outright denial of the proposed purchase is a crushing defeat for Texas Pacific and Enron creditors.
If Texas Pacific does not win an appeal of the utility commission’s ruling, then Enron’s creditor’s committee will essentially decide what to do with PGE. The two most likely results are just to distribute new stock of the utility among Enron creditors or reopen the bidding for the utiity. Representatives of the City of Portland has publicly stated that it would make a bid for the utility.

Enron-related developments

The Chronicle’s Mary Flood, who continues to do a bang up job of keeping up with the unfolding events relating to the various aspects of the Enron scandal, has a couple of Enron-related news items today.
First, she reports that the next Enron-related criminal trial — the one known as “the Enron Broadband case” — has been pushed back to at least April 18 as a result of U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore‘s involvement in this case. Here are the previous posts on the Broadband case.
Although the intensity of the media attention given to Enron makes it seem as if there have been a plethora of criminal trials related to the case, the Broadband case is only the second criminal case involving former Enron executives that will go to trial. Interestingly, the first case — the trial of the Nigerian Barge case — resulted in convictions of four Merrill Lynch executives and one Enron mid-level executive. However, of the two Enron defendants in that case, the Enron accountant who was closest to the alleged sham transaction in that case — Sheila Kahanek — was the only defendant who the jury acquitted in the case.
The Broadband case is interesting in that it involves a division of Enron that was one of the company’s more auspicious business failures, but one that undeniably had great potential. The five remaining former Enron executives in the case will argue that Enron’s other financial problems undermined the broadband division’s business potential, and that none of their public statements regarding the division’s business opportunity were false or intentionally misleading. Although the Enron Task Force’s public stance on the case has been typically bullish, the two former Enron executives who have copped pleas in the case to date — Ken Rice and Kevin Hannon — pleaded guilty to only one count of securities fraud in their plea bargains. The nature of those pleas does not exactly reflect that the government thinks it has a lock cinch winner in this prosecution.
Meanwhile, Ms. Flood reports in this article that the Chronicle has requested that U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein unseal a couple of pleadings that three of the convicted Nigerian Barge defendants filed in connection with their upcoming sentencing hearings. There appears to be no basis for the pleadings to be sealed permanently, so Judge Werlein will likely grant the Chronicle’s request. Probably the only reason that the pleadings have not been unsealed to date is that the Judge probably just has not gotten around yet to ruling on the defendants’ motion to seal the pleadings.
Finally, in what could be one of the more entertaining interviews of the year, former Enron chairman and CEO Ken Lay will be interviewed on this Sunday’s 60 Minutes show in connection with the release of the new Enron book, Conspiracy of Fools by New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald. According to Mr. Lay’s publicist, Mr. Lay rather enjoyed the book.

Bad Bankruptcy bill clears Senate

The Senate on Tuesday rejected further opposition to approval of the horrific bankruptcy “reform” legislation, which clears the way for a final Senate vote on the bill over in the next couple of days. House Republican “leaders” have already publicly announced that they would approve the Senate bill next month and send the bill to the White House later this spring.
Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren wrote the following about this special interest-backed abomimation on a temporary “subweblog” on the bankruptcy bill that she has been contributing to over on Josh Marshall’s blog:

So the bankruptcy bill moves forward, speeding toward inevitable passage in the Senate and the House. That’s good news for credit card companies, particularly those that are loading their cards up with surprise interest rate jumps and a dozen other tricks and traps. Good news for payday lenders, for banks raking in profits on overdraft accounts, and for car lenders that focus on no-credit-check lending. Good news for all of those who squeeze the American family when someone loses a job, gets sick, or otherwise falls behind in a tough economy.

Previous posts on this dubious legislation may be reviewed here, here, here and here.
Banks, credit-card companies and retailers have poured money into Republican campaign war chests for the past decade while pushing for this ill-conceived legislation. The demagouges supporting the bill contend that it is “too easy” for consumers to run up debt and then use bankruptcy protections to bail themselves out.
The Senate bill would limit the ability of individuals to use a liquidation under chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to eliminate credit-card debt or certain loans. It would require those with the means to pay some of their debts to file under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that the debtor propose a plan for repayment of a portion of his debts from future income.
On the other hand, wealthy individuals will not be affected all that much by the legislation because the bill retains many of the same exemptions that can be used to shelter valuable assets from the bankruptcy estate that is established upon the filing of a bankruptcy case. The new legislation even retains a loophole that permits people to set up so-called “asset protection trusts,” which are exempt from being used to pay off debts in a bankruptcy case.
The most important change in the legislation makes it more difficult and expensive for families under heavy debt loaks from filing a chapter 7 liquidation case, which provides the “fresh start” discharge of personal liability for debts that is central to American insolvency law. The new legislation will force more debtors to file Chapter 13 cases, in which the Bankruptcy Court oversees a three to five year repayment plan. About 70% of individuals currently filing for bankruptcy do so under chapter 7.
The legislation does retain the liberal real estate homestead exemption of Texas and several other states, which allows wealthy debtors to come out of a bankruptcy case retaining the value of their high-priced homestead. However, the legislation does limit the exemption by requiring that debtors own their homes for 40 months to qualify for the exemption.
During yesterday’s Senate debate on the bill, the Senate also rejected efforts to drop the loophole in the legislation that permits wealthy people to protect assets by opening special trust accounts in several states, including Alaska, Delaware, Rhode Island, Nevada and Utah. Doctors in those states have been setting up these asset-protection trusts for years to protect themselves from potential malpractice liability, and many business executives are now doing the same out of concern for potential liability for corporate accounting scandals. Experts estimate that approximately 1,500 domestic asset-protection trusts holding more than $2 billion in assets were created between 1997 and 2003.
Finally, the reform legislation also provides a potential procedural nightmare for bankruptcy courts in that it imposes a strict “means test” to assess whether a prospective debtor would be allowed to liquidate under chapter 7, and adds new paperwork and legal burdens on debtors’ lawyers that will undoubtedly increase the cost of filing bankruptcy.
Make no mistake about it, I am against this bankruptcy “reform” legislation because it is an ill-conceived modification of a well-thought out but underappreciated bankruptcy system that contributes much to the strength of the American economic system. The “fresh start” of a bankruptcy discharge encourages entrepreneurs to take risk and create businesses and jobs, and gives individuals hope that they can rebound from a financial disaster to rebuild wealth for their families. I, for one, am not interested in giving that system away for the parochial benefit of the credit card industry.
Meanwhile, as Republican legislators harp about this “business-friendly” bankruptcy legislation, the Bush Administration’s criminalization of business continues unchecked. When are business leaders going to wake up and realize that the marginal benefit to business interests of “reforming” bankruptcy legislation pales in comparison to the damage done by the federal government’s increasing regulation of business through criminalization of merely questionable business transactions?

Feds bear down on Berkshire

On the heels of Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders that was silent on such matters, federal and state investigators are focusing on whether a four year old transaction between Berkshire Hathaway’s General Reinsurance Corp. and American International Group Inc. transferred sufficient risk to AIG to allow the company to account for it as an insurance policy. Here is an earlier post on this investigation.
AIG booked the transaction as insurance, which increased its premium revenue by $500 million and added another $500 million to its property-casualty claims reserves. Generally accepted accounting principles require insurance and reinsurance transactions to transfer significant risk from one party to another if either party accounts for the transaction as insurance. Absent risk transfer, such transactions must be booked as financing, which defeats the purpose of the transaction. In the General Re-AIG deal, $600 million of potential losses were transferred from General Re to AIG in return for the $500 million premium paid by General Re. Investigators are evaluating whether the risk transfer was illusory based on the structure of the transaction. AIG confirmed last month that the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office are examining its accounting for certain reinsurance contracts.
You know, doesn’t all of this sound eerily similar to this case?

Fifth Circuit issues its first post-Booker decision

In its first decision since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Booker that overruled the mandatory nature of the federal sentencing guidelines, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on this past Friday explained how Booker issues are to be handled within the Fifth Circuit in its opinion in United States v. Mares. Interestingly, the opinion notes that it was circulated among the judges of the circuit and changed to reflect their comments. Here are the prior posts over the past year on the Booker decision and the developing case law regarding the federal sentencing guidelines.
The Booker analysis in the opinion has two basic parts. First, the Fifth Circuit explains how the sentencing guidelines are to be applied post-Booker. Second, the Court establishes the plain error analysis that it will use in analyzing future Booker issues.
The following is how the Fifth Circuit described the Booker issue in Mares:

Mares? sentence was enhanced based on findings made by the judge that went beyond the facts admitted by the defendant or found by the jury. The jury found that Mares, a felon, possessed ammunition. The judge enhanced the sentence based on his finding that Mares was involved in a felony when he committed the offense.

In regard to the sentencing guidelines under Booker, the Fifth Circuit states as follows:

Even in the discretionary sentencing system established by Booker/Fanfan, a sentencing court must still carefully consider the detailed statutory scheme created by the SRA and the Guidelines, which are designed to guide the judge toward a fair sentence while avoiding serious sentence disparity. Although Booker excised the mandatory duty to apply the Guidelines, the sentencing court remains under a duty pursuant to ß 3553(a) to ?consider? numerous factors. . .
If the sentencing judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range, in our reasonableness review we will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. Given the deference due the sentencing judge?s discretion under the Booker/Fanfan regime, it will be rare for a reviewing court to say such a sentence is ?unreasonable.?
When the judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence within the Guideline range and states for the record that she is doing so, little explanation is required. However, when the judge elects to give a non-Guideline sentence, she should carefully articulate the reasons she concludes that the sentence she has selected is appropriate for that defendant. These reasons should be fact specific and include, for example, aggravating or mitigating circumstances. . .

Then, in regard to the particular facts of the Mares case, the Fifth Circuit employed its plain error analysis for Booker issues in rejecting Mares? claim of plain error:

An appellate court may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless there is ?(1) error, (2)that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.? Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631. ?If all three conditions are met an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.? Id.

The third factor is the most important in that it requires the defendant to show that the trial court’s error affected the outcome and that it undermined confidence in the outcome. On this particular point, the Fifth Circuit enunciated a difficult burden for the defendant to fulfill:

Since the error was using extra verdict enhancements to reach a sentence under Guidelines that bind the judge, the pertinent question is whether Mares demonstrated that the sentencing judge – sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one – would have reached a significantly different result.
Based on the record before us, we reach the same conclusion … We do not know what the trial judge would have done had the Guidelines been advisory. Except for the fact that the sentencing judge imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months(when bottom of the Guideline range was 110 months), there is no indication in the record from the sentencing judge?s remarks or otherwise that gives us any clue as to whether she would have reached a different conclusion. Under these circumstances the defendant cannot carry his burden . . .

Finally, the Court noted the split that is developing among the circuit courts in handling post-Booker decisions, with the Fourth and Ninth Circuits taking a different approach in remanding post-Booker cases than the First, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits are taking.
Although certainly not a slam dunk, my sense is that the Mares decision is a reasonably favorable one for both Jamie Olis — who is serving an unjust 24 year sentence — and the Nigerian Barge defendants, who would be facing mandatory sentences of similar length but for the Booker decision. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake made comments during Mr. Olis’ sentencing that clearly indicated that he was troubled by the length of the sentence that the then mandatory sentencing guidelines required him to impose. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein is a man of fairness and depth who will not hesitate — if he concludes that the circustances of the Nigerian Barge case so warrants — to make the findings necessary to impose lesser sentences on the Nigerian Barge defendants than those recommended under the sentencing guidelines.

B of A settles in WorldCom class action

In two weeks, the trial cranks up of claims by investors and creditors who lost billions in the WorldCom accounting scandal against WorldCom’s former underwriters, outside directors, and Arthur Andersen. Consequently, over the next several weeks, there will probably be a series of “courthouse steps” settlements announced as the defendants in that litigation hedge their risk of a huge judgment for damages if they elect to go to trial. Yesterday, the first of such settlements was announced as Bank of America Corp. agreed to pay $460.5 million to settle the claims against it in the litigation.
The plaintiffs in the class action essentially allege that Bank of America and the other underwriters failed to conduct adequate due diligence in regard to about $17 billion of WorldCom bonds that were issued in the early part of this decade. Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay $2.65 billion to settle its portion of the lawsuit in May 2004. The Bank of America and Citigroup settlements increases the price of poker for the 14 other underwriters in the lawsuit, who now face the prospect of having to pay a larger share of damages if they risk taking the case to trial.
The Bank of America settlement increases the settlement pot in the WorldCom class action $3.04 billion. In comparison, the similar class action litigation involved in the Enron case has generated a settlement pot of only about $500 million to date. The Enron case remains mired in the discovery phase with a trial date currently scheduled for some time in mid-2006.
In its public statement announcing the deal, BofA denied violating any laws and added that it settled solely to hedge the risk of litigation. For their part, the plaintiffs’ representative in the lawsuit stated that Bank of America settled under the same formula used in the Citigroup settlement, which other underwriters protest because of their more limited role in WorldCom offerings. Under that settlement formula, J.P. Morgan — another underwriter defendant in the litigation — would have to pay about $1.3 billion in a settlement. Last year, J.P. Morgan set aside $2.3 billion of a $4.7 billion litigation reserve to cover the potential costs of litigation stemming from its role in arranging financing for Enron and for WorldCom.
Bank of America has been aggressive than most big underwriters in settling big class action claims over the past year. During that time, BofA has agreed to pay about more than $1 billion in settlements of various investment banking and trading claims. For example, in July 2004, BofA agreed to pay $70 million to settle claims against it in the Enron class action for its relatively limited role as an underwriter of various Enron deals. Similarly, earlier this year, the bank paid just south of $700 million in restitution, penalties, and reduction of fees consideration to settle various civil claims that it favored certain investors in engaging in “market timing”-trading and late trading of mutual funds.

Enron saga turns Grisham

This Weekend Advisor column in the Wall Street Journal ($) advises us that the market for books on the Enron scandal has not been all that great. The best book on the subject to date — Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind’s Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron (Portfolio 2003) — has sold only 75,000 hardback copies, which is not a great showing considering the $1.4 million advance paid to the authors. Heck, that number indicates that only a small portion of the lawyers involved in the Enron case have bought the book.
At any rate, publishers — who never want to give up on an opportunity to hammer the Capitalist Roaders — have concluded that the lackluster sales in regard to Enron books is because of reader fatigue. That is, the Enron story has been around for so long that casual readers have become bored by it all and have moved on to other matters. That’s probably correct, although many of the previous media accounts of Enron have followed such a familiar script and lacked any real insight that even avid business scandal readers have become bored by it all.
Thus, Random House’s Broadway Books is going to try a new tactic in regard to the newest book on the Enron saga. On March 14, Broadway is releasing the long-awaited (at least by folks involved in the case) book on the Enron scandal by NY Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who has covered the Enron scandal from Day One. In so doing, the publisher hopes to break through the fog of Enron books by marketing Conspiracy of Fools to the John Grisham-novel crowd as a “true-crime thriller” rather than a business book. The name “Enron” appears no where on the book jacket and, although the book is nonfiction, the publishers hired well-known mystery novel editor Stacy Creamer to edit the book.
So, while publishers and other mainstream media types attempt to tell the Enron story in fashionable manner, the truly compelling human stories continue to be largely ignored — the sad case of Jamie Olis, the federal government blithely depriving thousands of innocent people their jobs by pursuing a dubious prosecution that put Arthur Andersen out of business, the “Justice” Department sledgehammering businesspeople into pleading guilty to questionable criminal charges out of fear of receiving of what amounts to a life sentence if they risk asserting their Constitutional right to a trial, or how the traditional form of corporate governance contributed to Enron’s collapse. Analysis of these more interesting, but admittedly harder, issues has been largely left to the world of blogs.
Nevertheless, Broadway is certainly bullish on the new book’s prospects. It has ordered 127,500 copies of the book and engineered a pre-release publicity campaign, which includes a desk drop of 1,000 copies to prominent CFOs and CEOs. Broadway’s release of 10,000 early copies of the book is the largest prerelease print of any Random House book since The Da Vinci Code.
By the way, Mr. Eichenwald’s last true-crime book — The Informant — is currently being made into a movie in which Matt Damon will play the mole who uncovers a price-fixing scheme at Archer-Daniels-Midland.
H’mm, Matt Damon as Andy Fastow? What do you think?