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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (94647)	7/5/2006 7:20:06 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Respond to of 122089

Hi Jeff, Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant as if he had never been indicted or convicted. Exactly correct, though in reality, this law has never been "tested", at least not to this degree of scrutiny or "infamy". Civil claims against Lay however, like the securities class action will continue against his estate. However, because the criminal conviction is wiped out, the plaintiffs probably cannot rely on it as proof in their case. Again, exactly correct... And there is a caveat. Texas is a community property state. So, theoretically speaking, civil suit claimants could go after Ken Lay's estate. But now, Mrs. Lay is the sole owner of 50% of all the community property. The other 50%, representing Ken's portion of the community property, would be more difficult for the defense to defend from claims than her 50%. Again, the laws regarding this situation have not been tested to this degree of scrutiny. Speaking only from the legal aspects of the situation (and not picking winners and losers), this case will most certainly create legal precedence, and may result in Congress revising some laws should the ultimate verdicts prove to be unpopular with society's views on what is "fair" and what is "unfair"... EK!!!

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (94647)	7/6/2006 3:13:42 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 122089

Lay's Death Clears His Record Under the "abatement doctrine," the death of former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay wipes both his conviction and indictment from the criminal record, complicating civil suits against his estate. Marie Leone and Tim Reason, CFO.com July 05, 2006 The death of former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay will clear his record of his conviction, and even his indictment, ending Department of Justice efforts to recover Lay's bonuses and other earnings. The legal doctrine, known as the abatement doctrine, will also likely complicate efforts by the Securities and Exchange Commission to take disgorgement action against Lay's estate. Civil suits against Lay will be similarly hampered. "If you're on appeal and you die before that appeal is decided, it's like stepping into the way-back machine," says law professor Peter J. Henning of Wayne State University. "It's as if Lay were never charged." Henning, the editor of the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, says he was aware of the abatement doctrine, but was surprised to discover that it would even void Lay's indictment. The abatement doctrine is well-established among all courts, but also was reaffirmed in 2004 by a court in the circuit where Lay was convicted. In United States v. Estate of Parsons, the court explained that "the appeal does not just disappear, and the case is not merely dismissed. Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant as if he had never been indicted or convicted." The reason for this, the court explained, is that "the state should not label one as guilty until he has exhausted his opportunity to appeal." In Parsons, explains Henning, the court vacated a forfeiture order, suggesting that that the Department of Justice's claim against Lay for $43.5 million will also be dismissed. The abatement doctrine is also likely to complicate many of the civil suits against Lay, since plaintiffs will no longer be able to point to his conviction — or even his indictment. "The implication [of Lay's death] is that civil suits against him cannot claim that they are entitled to summary judgment," says James Sanders, criminal attorney with McDermott Will and Emery. Sanders has had personal experience with the abatement doctrine. As an Assistant US Attorney in Chicago in the early 1980s, he successfully prosecuted a white collar defendant, who was sentenced and then murdered a week later. "His entire conviction was voided," says Sanders.