I had a hearing on Monday afternoon in federal court, so I went a bit early and sat in on the ongoing trial of the first Enron-related criminal case to go to trial — the Nigerian Barge case. Today was a big day during the trial because one of Andy Fastow‘s most trusted lieutenants — Michael Kopper — took the stand as the Government’s main witness.
The first four days of the trial that took place last week were remarkable only because the testimony of the initial Government witnesses confirmed that there is not all that much dispute between the prosecution and the defense about the salient facts of the case. The big difference is in the interpretation of the facts, and that’s why Kopper is an important witness for the Government.
In effect, Kopper is standing in for Fastow, who the Enron Task Force prosecutors do not want to call in this trial of two low-level Enron executives and four Merrill Lynch executives over a relatively small deal. Kopper is testifying under a plea bargain deal in which the Government has agreed not to prosecute Kopper’s gay lover for profiting off of Enron’s off-balance sheet partnerships and to recommend a minimum prison sentence for Kopper if he testifies in accordance with the government’s theory of the case in this trial and others.
Kopper makes a good impression as a witness — young, handsome, courteous, articulate, bright, and soft-spoken. And apparently, he testified this morning in support of the government’s theory of the case — i.e., Enron induced Merrill Lynch to buy the barges at the end of 1999 by orally guaranteeing through Fastow that Enron would arrange a sale of the barges for Merrill by the end of June 2000 at a pre-arranged profit. If such an Enron guaranty existed, then the Government contends that Enron’s booking of the profit from the deal was improper and the Defendants engaged in a fraud on Enron’s investors.
But if the morning went according to the Government’s form, the afternoon was a different story. Kopper was ravaged during cross-examination, first by Lawrence Zweifach, who represents Merrill Defendant James Brown, and then by David Spears, who represents Merrill Defendant William Fuhs.
Kopper readily admitted to Mr. Zweifach that the barge transaction was such a risky deal that he would not approve it originally as an asset purchase for one of Fastow’s now infamous off balance sheet partnerships that Enron used liberally to buy assets from Enron. Inasmuch as the Government’s theory of the case is based largely on the allegation that Merrill’s purchase of the barges was not a risky deal because of Enron’s guaranty, this line of cross-examination of the Government’s primary witness did not go over well with the prosecution lawyers. They objected often and ineffectively throughout the cross-examination as U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein overruled almost every Government objection.
Then, Mr. Spears took over and Kopper admitted the truth of a mid-2000 memo written by an Enron analyst that openly stated that Enron faced a dilemma with regard to the barges and Merrill — either Enron needed to broker a sale of the barges to an investor to preserve Enron’s client relationship with Merrill or Enron should simply buy the barges back and restate its financial statements to account for the deal as a loan rather than a sale. There was no mention whatsoever in the memo of any Enron “guaranty” to Merrill or that restatement of earnings was all that big of a deal for Enron. Again, you could almost hear the air leaking from the Government’s balloon as Kopper’s cross-examination proceeded.
However, no one really knows how all of this plays out with the jury, which is the only reason that this case is being prosecuted in the first place. The Government figures that it can get convictions on such a flimsy case because most jurors will be biased against anything having to do with the cultural pariah Enron.
Based on what I know about this case and what I witnessed today, if the Government gets convictions in as weak a case as this one, then the Government will have little disincentive to bring equally dubious cases against business executives. Accordingly, if you represent business clients, stay tuned to developments in this trial.