|
| |
The Lessons of Enron
From: University of Chicago
| By:
Douglas BairdDaniel FischelRandal PickerJulie RoinDavid Weisbach |
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION |
 Was energy giant Enron guilty of criminal activity or was it simply a business that failed? What changes will the Enron debacle, and the subsequent indictment of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, have on the rules that govern corporate auditing? And what further role, if any, should the government play in protecting employee pensions? On April 2, 2002, a panel of corporate finance, commercial law, and taxation experts from the University of Chicago Law School explored these and other issues raised by the largest corporate bankruptcy in US history. Along the way, they ponder the role of corporate boards, explain the ethics of document destruction, and untangle the Star Wars- and Jurassic Park-inspired names of Enron's controversial partnerships. |
Randy Picker sets the stage for the discussion with a timeline of the Enron collapse and the indictment of Arthur Andersen.
|
Douglas Baird starts at the beginning: What is Enron, and how did its efforts to "make markets" lead to its collapse?
|
David Weisbach and Daniel Fischel ponder changes in corporate information disclosure in the wake of the Enron scandal.
|
Julie Roin criticizes the existence of "special purpose entities" like the ones used by Enron to move losses off its balance sheet.
|
Enron's collapse raised the question, What do boards do? The panelists hear from an audience member who has served on corporate boards and discuss what directors can be expected to know about the way a company is run.
|
Free markets or paternalism? Julie Roin argues that employee pension funds shouldn't include company stock, while some panelists and audience members disagree.
|
Douglas Baird explains why it's a great time to be a bankruptcy lawyer and discusses what makes the Enron bankruptcy special.
|
The panelists turn to the indictment of Arthur Andersen and question the company's early legal strategy.
|
Responding to a question from the audience, the panelists explain why document destruction alone is not proof of criminal activity.
|
|
| |
