Let me explain my last post, in which my attempt at wry humor was perhaps too obscure.
The Street Dot Com has an article today suggesting what all this may amount to is fraud. biz.yahoo.com If so, I'm not sure the SEC is the only thing the company has to worry about. It seems "fraud" can be seen either as a non-criminal or a criminal matter, depending on who is doing the observing.
From the news article excerpted below one can conclude that there may be a wealth of witnesses, inside and outside the company, who if required to testify likely can point their fingers at whatever executives and board members had actual knowledge about what was going on. If an aggressive state or federal prosecutor cares to try to make criminal charges out of it all -- not an implausible thing, I would guess, unless the SEC's regulatory power somehow preempts all state and federal criminal laws -- the whole Enron house could collapse like loose cards as the ones 'in the know' stampede to be first in line for a grant of immunity while the others are led away in cuffs.
This is excerpted from Yahoo News --
"Fastow will take a leave of absence from the company while Jeff McMahon, who has served as chairman and chief executive of Enron's Industrial Markets group, takes over his role. [J.P. Morgan analyst Anatol] Feygin said [Jeff] McMahon worked as Enron's treasurer for two years under [CEO Andrew] Fastow before a disagreement over Fastow's involvement in the partnerships caused McMahon to leave his job as treasurer.
"Internally, Jeff was always a proponent of Andy not being involved in (the partnerships),'' Feygin said.
biz.yahoo.com
Note: It would be interesting to know how an outsider like Mr. Feygin could know what 'Jeff was always' when it came to the reasons for his earlier resignation. If Mr. Feygin's knowledge was contemporary with the event instead of recently acquired by second-hand, it seems to me it is a strong hint that many others may have known about the disagreement over the partnerships at the same time, and therefore had actual knowledge that someone (McMahon) thought it unethical at the very least.
The good news is, according to the view provided by this news item, that McMahon looks like a highly ethical figure who did not blink at sticking by his principles even if it cost him his job. The bad news is that for the same reason Mr. McMahom looks like an awfully attractive recipient for a prosecutor's first Grand Jury witness subpena seeking testimony about who knew what and when.
All of this is my speculation, of course. Still have no position long or short in this company. Merely enjoy the story. |
