Dear John Hall
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:59:37 -0800
It was not my understanding that they sold them all. Exactly how much, and
what percentage, and when will be intimately looked at. It is currently my
understanding, for example, that Lay retained a lot of shares that he didn't
sell - because he thought the price would increase in the future. Those he
did sell were in response to a margin call.
The issue of inside selling before a carsh is mostly a factual question.
Were the big wigs selling or dumping? Where they dumping when they advised
other investors to buy? I've heard different things on this. I don't think
either of us know the answer, yet.
The stock transfer freeze appears to be mostly a red herring. The price had
already tumbled 80% or so before the 10 day freeze, and the 10 day freeze
was announced well in advance.
Or are you talking about the restrictions on selling company contributed
stock? I'm afraid I don't think there is much of an issue there. Many of
the employees were over 50 (and could sell all of their stock). Those that
were not could sell all of the stock they purchased with their own funds.
In other words, to the extent such employees were harmed they suffered the
exact same harm as all other investors in the stock.
From: carey [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Dear John Hall
> People sometimes assume conspiracy when incompetence is a better
Fine. I'll honor that logic. Now, explain through incompetence, how the
bigwig shareholders managed to sell off their stocks merely through their
stupidity, and not through some far more likely, knowledge and intent of the
Bonus: Explain incompetence as the reason behind Lay's later decision to
not allow the average employees to sell off their stock, that was soon to be
worthless. I'm sorry, that doesn't strike me as incompetence. THat strikes
me as planned, calculated attacks, that just went wrong. I'm tired of
hearing the incompetence argument for corporations. Its as old and tired as
the insanity argument is for criminal actions.
> However, shredding documents is obstruction of justice (at least) and
> a dark suspicion of criminal intent.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Russell
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:34 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Dear John Hall
> >The high level executives at Enron will be fighting lawsuits and criminal
> >probes, if not looking at actual jail time, for the rest of their lives.
> >That, too, might have some effect.
> Well .. if some of them end up broke and in jail, then yes,
> others in their position will want to avoid that end. But
> if they are merely required to hire lawyers to defend against
> lawsuits, and to give testimony before a grand jury, while
> managing to keep their freedom and wealth, then they win.
> If your net worth is $50M, then spending $2M on lawyers and
> $2.5M on settlements and fines and $500K on spin does not
> seriously impact your balance sheet. Indeed, even if it
> costs you half your assets, it may well have been worth the
> ride. At a certain and controlled level, legal troubles are
> just another form of tax. And if handled right, it turns
> into publicity that keeps your name in the public eye and
> cements your reputation as a serious player.
> I hope there are some pitbull prosecutors pouring over the
> Enron mess. But they have their work cut out for them, even
> if there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing.
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at