Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Labrador who wrote (3510)	3/17/2002 6:31:26 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 5185

You know, Lab that article discusses AA as an LP but it doesn't do any thing but ASSUME that Anderson is a properly formed LLP. AND FURTHER MORE MY BELIEF IS GREATLY ASSUAGED BY THE FACT THAT THE AUTHOR MISSPELLS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY. :))))))))) Not only that, but IF aa is a properly formed llp in one state, there is information in the article which might lead a trier of the fact to conclude that Anderson fraudulently attempted to skirt the requirements of the LLP law, by forming a "special purpose entity" ...The liabilities are offset by insurance. Andersen has $ 250 million worth of insurance for each failed audit, through an insurance company it owns,* according to a company source. ...* Part of the [typical] LLP law is that you have some insurance, fine says AA, have we got just the deal for you!!!! :))) I think you had better be a little bit more informed if you are going to try to establish limited liability for AA. If ya catch ma drift. You've heard of "special purpose entities" haven't you? Say, you don't work for AA, do you?? As Kris Kristofferson says, the law is for protection of the people.

To: Labrador who wrote (3510)	3/17/2002 7:47:01 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

Labrador, Thanks for spotting and posting the Carrie Johnson article. It goes some distance to outlining the arguments to be put forward, and little light as to the actual legal lay of the land. The LLP ruse that Artful Andersen is trying to hide behind is likely to be no defense to the massive defection of clients the company is about to face. Andersen, as a going concern, is toast. As to the liability of the partners, I'm certain that the LLP statutes are going to be severely tested by dozens of aggressive tort lawyers, all of whom have a good case against a fraudulent bucket shop like Andersen. It will only by magnificent and artful dodging that Artie Andersen's main guilty parties might escape justice. -Ray