SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PartyTime who wrote (1894)1/30/2002 7:00:34 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 5185
 
Fortune called Enron one of the most creative
companies for five or six years in a row.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1894)1/30/2002 7:11:49 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5185
 
PartyTime, in the reference that you pointed out
to me there is a reference to "The Yellow Times."
Do you know anything about the organization?

Enron's corruption ends at steps of the White House"

on Saturday, January 12 @ 08:01:32 EST

By Christopher Reilly
YellowTimes.ORG Journalist

(YellowTimes.ORG) – After the Houston-based energy company Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month, the company’s trail of corruption leads directly to the Bush administration’s backyard. The connections between members of the Bush administration and the corporate-giant are too large to ignore, making it hard to imagine that Bush administration members, including the president himself, had no involvement in illegal activity that has resulted in thousands of people losing their jobs, many of those losing their entire life savings.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the collapse of Enron, with Mr. Bush trying to hide from the accusing finger by openly declaring an investigation into the company is needed. But after looking at Mr. Bush and other members of his administration’s previous dealings with Enron, one cannot help but question how the president and his administration could not be involved.

It began with Enron chief executive Kenneth Lay’s ties to the Bush family. After the Gulf War, one of Kuwait’s power plants needed to be replaced. Enron put a bid on the contract by proposing to supply power for eleven cents per kilowatt hour, according to the London-based newspaper The Guardian. A rival company, Deutsche Babcock, based in Germany, would have supplied the power for almost half that price at six cents per hour. But the former Bush administration awarded Enron the massive contract.


After that administration lost the 1992 election to former president William Clinton, Enron then hired former Bush administration cabinet members James Baker and Robert Mosbacher as consultants.

The current President Bush had just as much involvement with Mr. Lay than his father. Mr. Lay was the head of then-Governor George W. Bush’s business council. According to Pratap Chatterjee of Corporate Watch, they seemed to agree on policy, as then-Governor Bush gave special concessions to Enron, such as allowing the Enron methanol plant in Texas to pollute without a permit. Pratap Chatterjee stated that in 1997 alone, the methanol plant released 3,500 tons of nitrogen oxide when only seven percent of the ingredient would have been considered legal. The accusation continues, saying that Mr. Bush gave the company immunity from prosecution for violating certain pollution laws.

When Mr. Bush decided to run for president, Mr. Lay must have been overjoyed, knowing that the governor’s victory would secure even more political influence for Enron. His financial books showed it; Mr. Lay raised more than $100,000 for the race. The rest of Enron and its executives donated a separate $114,000 themselves.

Despite the ties between Enron and Mr. Bush, the president still felt confident enough to say that he “never discussed with Mr. Lay the financial problems of the company.”

It is also questionable whether Mr. Bush knew that more than 500 employees of Enron were “paid bonuses totaling $55 million just days before the energy company filed for bankruptcy,” as London-based newspaper The Times reported on December 7, 2002.

According to the article, these bonuses averaged $110,000 per selected employee, compared to the $4,500 severance packages offered to the 5,100 employees of Enron in Houston and London who were laid off. Many of these employees had to helplessly watch their entire retirement savings go down the drain as the Enron stock plummeted to near zero, all because the company 401(k) did not allow employees to sell their stock before they reached 60 years of age.

One employee, 59 year-old Tom Padgett, watched his assets drop from $615,000 to $11,000. He was only six months away from retirement.


But according to the U.S. President, he knew none of these corrupt practices were going on. Other members of his administration have claimed the same story.

For example, Vice-President Dick Cheney, who became close with Mr. Lay while chief executive of the Houston-based energy company Halliburton. As the Financial Times wrote, “Mr. Lay and Mr. Cheney had worked closely on one of the city’s [Houston] most prominent new landmarks, a baseball stadium for the home-team Astros, which was built by a Halliburton subsidiary and bears the name of Mr. Lay’s company: Enron Field.”

Mr. Cheney also seems to be trying to block efforts of investigating the company by not releasing records of meetings between his energy taskforce and Enron as they were creating the Bush administration’s energy legislation.

Perhaps this has something to do with the vice-president’s “disappearing act” since the events of September 11.

Once again, the connections do not stop here.

Both White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick were employed as consultants by Enron before working for the Bush administration.


Voices in Congress, such as conservative Democrat John Breaux, have demanded the Bush administration to disclose all secrets regarding Enron. But many of these members of Congress may also be tainted by the corruption flowing out of Enron.

Democratic Senator Breaux himself received about $11,000 in donations from Enron in the last 10 years, as the Center for Responsive Politics states. Another critic of the Bush administration’s dealings with Enron is Congressman John Dingell, a Democrat in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He too has received thousands of dollars from Enron.

The company recently gave $100,000 to an arm of the Republican Party, who have now returned the money, and another $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who have donated the money to charity.

It is obvious, however, that the bulk of Enron's money went directly to the Bush administration, a fact that has raised eyebrows amongst skeptics.

One anonymous source close to the investigation stated, "It should be obvious that the switch in funds from Republicans to Democrats reflects the reality of Enron's situation. At the moment when senior Bush administration officials found out of Enron's imminent collapse, it was in their best interests to distance themselves from any potential scandal."

The source continued, "Through this lens, it can be easily seen that the shift in funds is no more than a smart tactical ploy to spread Enron's corruption to the Democratic party, who would surely investigate the Bush administration's dealings with the company after its collapse."

All of these dealings should be looked in to, but the bulk of the bulk of the investigation should fall within the Bush administration and their strong ties with Mr. Lay.

As Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told the Financial Times, “Supporters of the Bush administration have to ask themselves what would have been their reaction if the Clintons came out this way. They would have gone ballistic.”

Christopher Reilly encourages your comments: creilly@YellowTimes.ORG

YellowTimes.ORG urges its material to be reproduced, broadcasted, or rewritten as long as a link to YellowTimes.ORG is included.

www.YellowTimes.ORGMake a quick comment on this article.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1894)1/30/2002 7:13:37 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5185
 
What Did Ken Lay Know on Aug. 20?
JANUARY 24, 2002

NEWS ANALYSIS


In an interview with BW Online that day, Enron's then-CEO said: "There
are no accounting issues...no previously unknown problem issues." Probers
think he may have had reason to think otherwise

On Aug. 20, 2001, Kenneth L. Lay was absolutely
upbeat about Enron's prospects. Although Jeffrey
K. Skilling had abruptly resigned as Enron's
president and CEO less than a week before, Lay
insisted that the company's slate was clean. "There
are absolutely no problems that had anything to do
with Jeff's departure," Lay, who had just reassumed
the CEO job, told BusinessWeek Dallas
Correspondent Stephanie Anderson Forest that
day. "There are no accounting issues, no trading
issues, no reserve issues, no previously unknown
problem issues.... There is no other shoe to fall."

Two months later, Enron's finances began to
unravel. By December, the company was in
bankruptcy, and on Jan. 23, Lay resigned under
pressure from Enron's creditors. But what federal
investigators want to know is: Did Lay know more
than he was admitting on Aug. 20 -- and were his
statements to BusinessWeek Online an act of
securities fraud?

THE FAMOUS MEMO. Investigators in Congress and
at the Securities & Exchange Commission have uncovered a chronology they
believe suggests Lay should have known of Enron's massive accounting
problems before that interview. Enron Vice-President Sherron S. Watkins'
now-famous memo to Lay -- asking, "Has Enron become a risky place to
work?" and pointing out that "Enron has been very aggressive in its
accounting" -- was written and dropped off for Lay to review on Aug. 15,
according to congressional investigators and Watkins' lawyer. By Aug. 20,
Lay had scheduled a meeting with Watkins to discuss her concerns, according
to her lawyer, Philip Hilder of Houston. Documents obtained by congressional
investigators back up that date.

If Lay knew of the problems and had good reason to view them as substantial,
any public statements denying those problems could be deemed false and
misleading corporate disclosures. That would be a potential civil or even
criminal violation of federal securities laws. "If it appears in BusinessWeek or
on its Web site, he's as vulnerable for that as if he put it out in a company
news release," says a former top SEC lawyer. The interview with Lay was
posted on the Web site on Aug. 24, 2001.

Lay's statements are now a matter of interest to the SEC, which has
acknowledged it is investigating the company. BusinessWeek has provided the
agency with the published transcript of the interview from its Web site. Enron
is also under investigation by the Justice Dept., the Internal Revenue Service,
the Labor Dept., two Cabinet-level task forces, and 10 congressional
committees.

Lay's attorney, Earl J. Silbert of the Washington firm Piper Marbury Rudnick
& Wolfe, declined to speak on the record about Lay's knowledge of Watkins'
allegations at the time of the interview.

A MATTER OF TIMING. The evidence starts with Watkins' memo, in which she
told Lay: "I am incredibly nervous that we will implode in a wave of accounting
scandals." Although Watkins' letter was unsigned, she soon identified herself
and met with Lay for one hour on Aug. 22.

The question for investigators is: Had Lay read Watkins' memo detailing
questionable transactions and aggressive accounting in Enron's
now-controversial trading partnerships by the time he got on the phone with
BusinessWeek's Forest -- between noon and 1 p.m. on Aug. 20 -- and issued
his "no other shoe" statements?

Watkins says her meeting with Lay was scheduled by Aug. 20, according to
Hilder, her lawyer. Further, on the 20th, Watkins told a friend at Enron's
auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, about the coming meeting. According to an
Aug. 21 memo by James A. Hecker, a Houston-based Andersen partner,
Watkins called Hecker on Aug. 20 to discuss her concerns about Enron's
accounting. In a memo he wrote about the conversation, Hecker said:
"Sherron told me she was concerned enough about these issues that she was
going to discuss them with Ken Lay, Enron's Chairman, on Wednesday,
August 22, 2001."

ANONYMOUS DROP BOX. What's unclear is how much Lay knew of Watkins'
concerns when he spoke to BusinessWeek Online. Hilder, the lawyer, says
Watkins had delivered only the first page of what became a seven-page memo
at that point. That page contains Watkins' most explosive allegations, while the
ensuing six pages are detailed backup. Further, she delivered the memo to a
"drop box" Lay had provided for employees to express their concerns
anonymously in the wake of CEO Skilling's resignation. Hilder could not say
whether Watkins called her memo to Lay's or his staff's attention when she
scheduled her meeting with him.

A bigger question may be whether Lay had sufficient reason to believe
Watkins' charges were credible. He's likely to argue that the charges were
unsubstantiated and that his knowledge of the company supported his
statement that Enron "is probably in the strongest and best shape that it has
ever been in."

But Lay's later actions indicate he did take Watkins' concerns seriously: He
sent her memo to Enron's general counsel, who asked Enron's Houston law
firm, Vinson & Elkins, to review the partnership transactions. That review was
carefully circumscribed: V&E's report said Enron and the law firm "decided
that our initial approach would not involve the second guessing of [Andersen's]
accounting advice...there would be no detailed analysis of each and every
transaction."

"IN HIS HEAD"? And V&E itself had previously issued legal clearance for
many of the Enron partnerships. Under those conditions, V&E concluded on
Oct. 15 that Watkins' allegations "do not, in our judgment, warrant a further
widespread investigation by independent counsel and auditors."

That sequence of events may strengthen the investigators' case. The
BusinessWeek Online interview was conducted after Watkins had delivered
her memo but before V&E's report. If Lay had read the memo, "The
knowledge was in his head, but he didn't have the benefit of someone having
assured him [the Watkins charges] didn't matter," says a source familiar with
the federal investigations.

And Lay's categorical statement to BusinessWeek Online -- "no accounting
issues, no trading issues, no reserve issues, no previously unknown problem
issues" -- may have dug the legal hole a little deeper. That statement hits on
most of the areas that have since tripped Enron into massive earnings
restatements and bankruptcy.

By speaking so strongly, Lay himself appeared to be aware of those risks. "If
there's anything material and we're not reporting it, we'd be breaking the law,"
he told BusinessWeek's Forest. "We don't break the law." Now, SEC and
Justice Dept. investigators will be probing these statements.

By Mike McNamee, with Wendy Zellner and Stephanie Anderson Forest in
Dallas, and Laura Cohn in Washington
Edited by Douglas Harbrecht

Click to buy an eprint or reprint of a BusinessWeek or
businessweek.com BusinessWeek Online story.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1894)1/30/2002 7:14:53 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 5185
 
I don't know if the article that asks, What
did Ken Lay know on Aug. 20 help you or others?

I posted it on the off chance that it might help.