Agreed, it seems odd, especially considering that Enron execs created complex schemes to line their own pockets with shareholders' money all the while selling stock, while WCOM execs simply tried to make the company look stronger than it was (possibly in an effort to buy time for a real turnaround, if you want to be charitable in interpreting motives), but didn't sell stock or grab money from the til while the company was secretly failing. OTOH, what WCOM execs did was much simpler to prove and the voters want someone publicly hung, so they become the easy target.
You have to wonder, though. If their motives were really as evil and malicious as our justice department wants us to think, wouldn't you expect that Sullivan would have made some effort to cover his tracks?
I'm not forgiving what he/they did, mind you. Their bone-headed moves cost me a lot of money and I believe that just reporting the real weakness & losses as they occurred, though it would have resulted in a sooner decline in the stock price, would not have resulted in BK.
I see much more "criminal intent" in what the Enron guys did than WCOM.
Regards,
Bob |
