Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In late September 2003, Enron Corp. and Enron North America Corp. sued more than 40 banks and financial institution defendants for knowingly participating with insiders of Enron in a “multi-year scheme to manipulate and misstate Enron's financial condition.” Complaint at '1.
A Brief Summary
While the filed complaint (279 pages with 53 separate counts against multiple defendants) raises many complex facts, to summarize, generally: Enron entered into business relationships with “special purpose” partnerships, in which insiders were managers and investors. These partnerships were generally set up as special purpose entities (SPEs) designed to give Enron the appearance of a healthier financial condition, by removing from Enron's balance sheet assets that lost or were at risk of losing value. SPEs are commonly used financial structures, and serve legitimate goals of enhancing liquidity and reducing credit risk. However, in the Enron litigation, the debtors allege that the SPEs were created to misstate Enron's true financial health. The debtors also allege that while the bank defendants appeared to make “at risk” investments in the SPEs, as required by applicable accounting regulations, insiders gave “secret assurances” to the defendants that these investments would be repaid. In fact, is alleged that the bank defendants often “insisted” these investments be repaid, thereby violating accounting rules for SPEs. The complaint alleges that, with knowledge by the defendants, insiders of Enron treated the proceeds received under the SPE transactions as operating cash flow, rather than as financing activities. Given such improper accounting and false and misleading financial disclosures surrounding these off balance sheet partnerships, the SPEs were tainted, credit rating agencies were duped, and the rest, as they say, is history.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?