Skilling’s New York adventure comes under scrutiny

Posted on by
Reply

The bizarre tale of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling‘s hospitalization in New York a couple of weeks ago took another twist as the Enron Task Force filed pleadings in the pending criminal case against Skilling today contending that Skilling’s conduct violated terms of his pre-trial release arrangement.
As expected, Skilling was stone drunk when he was hospitalized (he had a blood alcohol level of .19, which is very drunk). In its pleading filed today, the Task Force does not specify any proposed modification to the terms of Skillings’ pre-trial release, probably because they are still scratching their heads over the incident themselves.
On a serious note, Skilling is facing a criminal trial in an extremely unfavorable venue that, if he loses, probably will result in what amounts to a life sentence in federal prison. Such pressure must be generating incredible stress on Skilling, in addition to the stress he is enduring from his decimated business career. People will do unusual things under rxtraordinary stress. My sense is that Judge Lake will understand that will move the case past this incident without much comment.

Did Cink improve his lie?

Posted on by
Reply

Tour professional golfer Stewart Cink won the MCI Heritage Golf Tournament last Sunday at Hilton Head over Ted Purdy by making a birdie on the fifth playoff hole. However, on his approach shot to the green on that hole, it appeared that Cink improved the lie of his ball in a waste bunker by creating an indentation behind the ball so that his sand wedge would be less likely to bounce off the surface before striking the ball. Cink proceeded to hit the shot stiff to within six feet of the pin and sunk the birdie putt for the win.
Rule 13.2 of the Rules of Golf provides in relevant part as follows:

13-2. Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play
A player must not improve or allow to be improved:
? the position or lie of his ball,
by any of the following actions:
? creating or eliminating irregularities of surface, [or]
? removing or pressing down sand, loose soil, replaced divots or other cut turf placed in position . . .

Television showed Cink removing loose impediments behind his ball (which he is allowed to do) and then, on a close up, a clear indentation behind the ball where Cink was removing the loose impediments. Accordingly, several television viewers called in to Tournament officials and reported the apparent rules violation, which would have resulted in a penalty to Cink that would awarded the victory to Purdy. Upon reviewing the matter immediately after Cink’s birdie putt, Tournament officials ruled that no violation had occurred and confirmed Cink’s victory.
Here is the explanation of the Tournament officials’ ruling on the matter, which I find less than convincing. Hat tip to Mr. Poon (the low handicap blogger) for the link.

Is American health care more productive?

Posted on by
6

Tyler Cowan over at Marginal Revolution and Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information have interesting posts on the productivity of American health care, health care cost, and related statistics. Mr. Cowan concludes that Americans pay more for health care than other countries, but get better health care in return. We die sooner than people in other countries because we eat too much and exercise too little, among other facts. Similarly, Ms. Galt points out that many of the outcomes measured in the health care debate are both difficult to measure between countries, primarily because many have non-health-care contributing factors. Both posts are insightful and well worth reading.
As each of these posts reflect, generalized nationalized health care is no panacea for the problems that we face in America’s health care finance system.

Clarett seeks stay from SCOTUS

Posted on by
Reply

The Maurice Clarett v. NFL case went to the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday as Clarett’s attorneys filed a motion requesting that SCOTUS stay the Second Circuit’s Monday ruling that barred Clarett from being eligible for this weekend’s NFL Draft.
Although I believe that Clarett’s position in this case is the correct one, my sense is that this motion to SCOTUS does not have much of a chance. The Second Circuit’s order barring Clarett from the draft was premised on the notion that the NFL had agreed to conduct a supplemental draft before the 2004 NFL season for Clarett and other underclassmen if the NFL lost on the merits of its appeal to the Second Circuit. Accordingly, the Second Circuit reasoned that there was little damage to Clarett by barring him from this weekend’s draft while the Second Circuit considered the NFL’s appeal on the merits. I suspect that Justice Ginsburg, who drew Clarett’s motion to SCOTUS, will likely have a similar view, although the inherent weakness of the NFL’s underlying case might persuade her that the NFL has no reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, in which case she could justify staying the Second Circuit’s order barring Clarett from the draft.

Cards down ‘Stros

Posted on by
2

The Cards beat the Astros 5-3 on Tuesday evening. Reggie Sanders and Albert Pujols homered for the Cards, and Sanders made a nifty catch in right field that robbed Bags of a homer. Wade Miller pitched O.K. for the ‘Stros, giving up five runs on five hits (one walk) in six innings, but his relief help let in two of those runs the inning that he came out. Tim Redding faces Cards’ ace Matt Morris in game two of the series on Wednesday night at 6:05 p.m. at Minute Maid Park.

Judge sets Lea Fastow trial to begin June 2

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. District Judge David Hittner kept the pedal to the metal in the Lea Fastow trial today by scheduling the case to begin on June 2. Everyone still expects that the government and counsel for Ms. Fastow will cut a deal that will be acceptable to Judge Hittner, but time is definitely growing short to hammer out such a plea bargain and have Judge Hittner approve it.
The Enron Task Force is also scheduled to go to trial on June 7 in U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlien’s court in the case known as the “Nigerian Barge case” against six former Enron and Merrill Lynch executives.

More Shelby Steele on gay marriage

Posted on by
Reply

This earlier post reviewed a Shelby Steele op-ed on gay marriage as a civil rights issue. Now, Mr. Steele has posted this additional New Republic Online piece that responds to Andrew Sullivan’s criticism of his original piece. This is good and measured writing on a needlessly divisive issue. Review it with pleasure.

More on Shell reserve estimate fiasco

Posted on by
Reply

The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal ($) both report extensively on the report to the Royal Dutch/Shell board regarding Shell management’s mishandling of reserve estimates. Here are the prior posts over the past couple of months on this developing scandal. As this matter deteriorates into such things as intercompany emails and dinner conversations, it is only matter of time before the drama is the subject of either a Congressional hearing or, better yet, an afternoon soap opera.

SEC files unusual brief in WorldCom “fraud on the market” class action

Posted on by
Reply

This NY Times article reports on an unusual brief that the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed in Citigroup‘s appeal of the class certification order in the WorldCom class action securities fraud case.
This particular appeal involves the “fraud on the market” theory, which is explained in this prior post. In their unusual brief, SEC lawyers argue that analysts such as Citigroup’s Jack B. Grubman do affect the price of a company’s stock and bonds and may be held accountable for misrepresentations they may make. On the other hand, Citigroup is contending that its analysts’ enthusiasm for WorldCom securities is irrelevant, that institutional investors ignore analysts’ reports, and that analysts’ opinions – including those of Mr. Grubman – are simply part of a conglomeration of information and do not have a distinct effect on securities prices. Accordingly, Citigroup lawyers are contending that each individual investor should have to prove that he was harmed by the analysts’ opinions in individual cases, which, if adopted by the appellate court, would effectively scuttle the class action. Oral argument in the appellate court is scheduled for May 10, so stay tuned.

Wilmer and Hale & Dorr merge

Posted on by
Reply

Washington-based law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering and Boston-based Hale & Dorr have announced their merger, which will create one of nation’s largest law firms. Both of these firms were mid-sized major firms that compete with larger multinational firms, so the merger makes some sense in that the combined firm will be on a similar footing to those larger firms.
In that connection, Professor Ribstein over at Ideablog has interesting post that on the merger that points out that it could be a good thing for some big firms to grow even bigger:

[L]egal ethical rules constrain law firms from getting as big as they need to get. In particular, restrictions on non-competition agreements prevent firms from binding lawyers to the firm. These restrictions also constrain firms from compensating lawyers in ways that get them to focus on the long-term interests of the firm.
In other words, without ethical rules, big law firms would get even bigger, and more independent from clients. The result might be that lawyers would be more, rather than less, loyal to the long-term interests of clients and society. Ethics can be viewed as yet another product of free markets.