Those of us who have been following the Refco case are familiar with the allegations that have brought the big securities trader to its knees in bankruptcy — Refco’s former CEO, Phillip R. Bennett, hid ties to the bad debt to improve Refco’s balance sheet and mislead investors. The theory of the case against Mr. Bennett is that he assumed about $430 million in bad debts of Refco — some of which arose years ago — that let Refco avoid reducing net income and wiping out nearly all of the company’s profits for the past three years. The alleged purpose of hiding the losses was to facilitate Refco’s recent IPO and an earlier deal in which Thomas H. Lee Partners LP acquired a controlling interest in Refco. For his part, Mr. Bennett has denied wrongdoing, and his lawyer has said that his client will fight the charges.
Despite the superficial allure of criminal charges against crafty businessmen, I remain skeptical of criminal cases against anyone until I truly understand them, and the post-Enron era of the government playing to the public’s resentment of wealthy business executives has only reinfored my skepticism. So, I continue to look for a coherent explanation of the details behind the government’s above-described theory of the case against Mr. Bennett, and this NY Times article comes closest to date of actually breaking down the transactions on which the government’s indictment of Mr. Bennett is based. However, even the Times’ explanation is not clear:
What really happened at Refco?
4
