Five months in prison and two years probation. At least the prison library will look spectacular!!! And the moral of the story is....DON'T LIE!!! (especially to the government!!!)
Well I think the jail time she got sounds about right given the guidelines for the crime she was convicted of (perjury). Of course if they could convict for greed or stupidity, she'd be in the chair.
No biggie. . she will be out in 3 or something like that She should do her time and go on with her life Her business got crushed but she strong will rebuild Rocket River Ken Lay should get life
What crime do you think Ken Lay is guilty of? and why? Fastow -- very guilty Lay -- I'm not convinced he is. Let's wait for the trial.
I find it very hard to accept that given his role as CEO and Chairman he was not directly involved, or at the very least either complacent or negligent in allowing misleading and possibly fraudulent information to be disseminated. He has also been accused of insider trading. If i recall, he was selling his shares while trumpeting the viability of the company. Given the extent of financial shenanigans, and the extent by which he personally profited while the company crashed i hope the DOJ extends a large degree of responsibility to his shoulders. As top dog, he has to held accountable. He was ultimately responsible for the company's filings and operations, and he personally profited from its misdeeds. He cannot be absolved of this by deflecting responsibility to his underlings.
On topic; Pretty strong sentence overall. Three months in the big house (assuming she doesn't serve the whole sentence) is huge -- i expected house arrest, fines and probation. I'm glad. While it would be fun to burn these people at the stake we really shouldn't underplay that actual time behind bars is no slap on the wrist.
And in other Martha news... NEW YORK - Shares of Martha Stewart (news - web sites) Living Omnimedia Inc. shot higher Friday after the company's founder was sentenced to prison time for lying to federal authorities about a stock sale unrelated to the company. In early afternoon trading, the stock was up $2.56, or 30 percent, at $11.20. The stock, which traded between $9.35 and $9.45 per share in the half-hour prior to sentencing, moved from $9.59 to $10.35 in the four minutes after the news broke, then rose as high as $12.12 before slipping back. Volume in the stock was extremely heavy at more than 12.8 million shares. See? Crime does pay!
Most, if not all, of the financial structures that Fastow created would not have gone through the CEO's office on a detail-by-detail basis. I've worked closely with CEO's and CFO's in the past and can tell you that the CEO often times does not get into the tiny details of complex projects. That is a job left to the accounting firm, law firm, the investment bank and the finance department. It is very plausible that Lay didn't know of the fraudulent activity. It is also very plausible that Fastow didn't share the truthful details of the plan. Would you share the shady details of a plan that enriched you personally to the CEO of the company? No. bnb -- your mistake is a common one. Lay had regular selling programs which took place annually. These type of CEO plans help plan for retirement and diversify their portfolio. A CEO will always be trumpeting his stock, if he's not, how can he portray an optimistic vision for a company? He's not doing his job if he doesn't think the company will succeed. However, in this case, there is another added detail that makes Lay even less guilty on that front. Lay pledged much of his shares of Enron as collateral in financial transactions that he performed. As Enron declined, the value of the collateral declined, thus prompting a margin call. Lay was *forced* to sell shares of Enron to make these margin calls. This invalidates the inconsistency argument of trumpeting the stock while sellling. It was not Lay's choice to sell. I think most people have already made up their mind on Lay, based on some ridiculous journalism that has crucified him. The media has reduced him to a cartoon without really digging in to what he actually did. Most people couldn't even tell you what he actually did -- like RocketRiver -- yet that doesn't stop them from slinging his name around with other corporate crooks. Ken Lay was one of the most generous Houstonians in terms of philanthropy. He was a great citizen who made Houston a better place before Enron melted down. Enron failed in part due to bad decision making, and in part due to fraud. Did Lay make bad decisions w.r.t. Enron's corporate strategy? Yes. Was it illegal? Who knows until the trial has run its course.
Trader: Like you, i hope the trial genuinely looks at his deeds, and assigns responsibility where it belongs -- thereby providing guidance to future CEO's and boards. It would be telling to know whether his stock sales were in the ordinary course of affairs, or whether they were indicative of trading on insider info. If he acted on inside info to the detriment of other stakeholders, i hope they crucify him. This trial may also serve to define a CEO's level of responsibility for a company's conduct. I'm not as comfortable as you in accepting that if he didn't know he should be absolved. As CEO it was (IMO) his responsibility to ensure the company's dealings were above board. If the courts rule that his ignorance was a sufficient defense then it creates a corporate governance environment that discourages a CEO's enquiry of the company's affairs. Afterall, they can't nail you for what you didn't know. The deceit at Enron was pervasive -- not some isolated incident. To oversimplify: the company acted fraudulently, he was the captain, he profited extensively on a personal level...I cannot unlink these. We're not talking some minor gaff here -- this was pretty serious stuff. I say: Give him a fair trial. Here the evidence. Consider the circumstances. Then send him up river for a long, long, time
It is very plausible that Lay didn't know of the fraudulent activity. This does not pass the smell test. More likely than not, Lay knew something shady was going on. BTW, I like how you made Lay both the poster child for corporate irresponsibility and for Houston community leadership.
No Worries, in the pre-Sarbanes Oxley days, CEO's did not have to sign off on company financials. With a company as large and complex as Enron, it would be virtually impossible for any one person to know all the details of every finance project. Couple that with the fact that Fastow purposefully misled people and hid fraudulent activity, and you have a scenario in which Lay would not have known about how LJM and some of the other special purpose entities were designed to be illegal. The inside information argument is a tough one to make. Corporate executives have windows in which they can transact in company securities. If trading occurs during these windows, then for the most part you are ok. Of course, company events dictate when these windows occur. An exec will *always* have some type of insider information, simply because he's closer to the action. If what Lay says is true, then I don't see a problem. If his sales were truly a part of regularly-scheduled sale programs and forced sales to meet margin calls, then you can not make the case for trading on assymetrical information to the detriment of shareholders. I'm not saying he's innocent. What I'm saying is that you have a collection of journalists who know very little about finance who are reporting this story. They are dumbing down parts of the story so that the NBC/ABC/CBS crowd will understand, and in that process, they omit significant financial details. People think Enron and they automatically think scandal b/c of Fastow and Causey and the rest. It is unfair to lump every Enron employee in that mix. Lay's case will be tried on its own merits, as will Skilling's.
This is a plausible argument, but it fails miserably when you think about the details. Enron was making wild money on all of those Fastow side deals. The CEO, President and the board are going to want the details, especially on how to get more of "the good thing". This follows the old adage that you spend the money where you make the money. Something else is that if the top guys at AA knew about the shakey accounting of these deals, their counterparts at Enron including Lay would also had to know in order to direct the AA guys to look the other way. I can't see it being any other way. Satan is shopping for parkas since I agree with the rest that you wrote ...
What she was found guilty of was wrong. 5 months sounds about right. I still like her and her show though.
yeah that was all the shorts covering. people were expecting her to get a tougher sentence. she didnt get it.
