|
<< Public Slams Bush on Economy | Main | Health Care for Unemployed? >> October 03, 2003Ken Lay et al Liable to Former EmployeesA federal district court in Texas ruled on Wednesday that Ken Lay and other Enron executives are liable to former employees for concealing the collapsing financial situation of Enron, and encouraging employees to keep their 401(k) savings in the stock-- a breach of the fiduciary duties owed to those employees under the federal benefits law, ERISA. Lay and other execs had been grasping for a loophole to escape this liability and had seized on the idea that disclosing information to employees would have encouraged "insider trading", so -- to serve the public of course -- they had concealed information from everyone. The court had a simple answer to that defense. The company should have disclosed the collapsing finances to the public as well. (Summary from BNA Daily Labor Report but full court decision here): The court, adopting the view asserted by the U.S. Department of Labor in its friend-of-the-court brief in the case, found that the executives' ERISA duties coexisted with the executives' securities law responsibilities.Bad news for former partners at the accounting firm Arthur Anderson-- the judge found them "partners in interest" with Enron and on the hook for liability as well. So good news for former employees at Enron-- they will hopefully be able to get some of their lost retirment money back and take it out of the hide of the Enron execs like Ken Lay. GOP Trying to Help Enrons of Future Avoid Liability: A proposal to exempt employers from liability for investment advice provided to employees by the same company that administers the employer's 401(k) retirement plan, approved by the House three times in as many years, was introduced for the first time in the Senate the same day as the Texas court decision. The bill (S. 1698), introduced by Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), provides the exemption if potential conflicts of interest are disclosed to employees. So under the Senate bill, if Ken Lay had issued boilerplate language saying he was conflicted, he'd have likely been off-the-hook for lying to employees. Posted by Nathan at October 3, 2003 09:16 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsPost a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|