Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Enron Versus Wall Street

By Michael S. Fox and Adam H. Friedman
December 01, 2003

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?