Documentary Film - Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)
‘Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room’ is a 2005 documentary film detailing the biggest urbane affront and subsidence in American fact. Enron is the recital of omnivorous desirous made relishly by the perpetrators’ ready power to find-out greatly problematical arrangements to delineate the posse as a fortunate posse and win the confidence and whimper of a gullible open delay devastating outcomes. The outcomes include: suicides by urbane rulers, jail sentences, the nonacceptance of past than 20,000 employees and the missing of vitality savings by thousands past timeliness the posse’s top ruler tramp loose delay past than $1 billion. The posse gave itself an probability of improvementpower by inflating its returns and veiling its missinges through rotten bookkeeping practices, delay the assent of its greatly paid robust of representationants, Arthur Anderson.
Within two years of its founding in 1985 by Kenneth Lay, the posse becomes embroiled in a affront behind two of its traders initiate betting on the oil communicate resulting in agreeing returns. But betting and the openation of agreeing returns, which very few investigationed, would be the halltoken of the posse correct up to its subsidence.
Enron’s aspiration was to refind-out the essential-quality perseverance as a communicate attribute where gas and electricity could be traded relish shares and bonds. Put singly, Enron gambled in the essential-quality communicate and manipulated it and other goods and equal considered ‘trading weather’ at some purpose.
Its ruler officers were confused in the posse’s unethical and repeatedly wrong activities. These include:
· its instituter Kenneth Lay who gambled loose all of the posse’s effects and reserves and encouraged the posse’s chairman to gambled past in trading and so assertioned that the posse was the ‘best essential-quality posse in the world’ when he should accept unreserved that the posse was obligationor and had been base for years;
· its chairman Louise Bourget who diverted the posse’s returns into his identical bank representation, destroyed the posse’s chronicles and gambled the posse’s specie;
· its new CEO, Jeffrey Skilling who used an representationing tactic, token-to-market, to chronicles the posse’s incomplete coming returns as its popular pay as early as a abridge was verified disregarding of the express improvement that the abridge would generate;
· Lou Pai, the elusive CEO of Enron Essential-quality Services who had an obsession of gambling and visiting pull-off clubs using shareholder specie and who left suddenly delay a $250 favorite pay-out when his province was $1 billion in obligation.
· Andrew Fastow the Chief Financial Officer who breached his once to Enron and its shareholders and made past than $45 favorite through the invention of a sum of face companies deverified to cloke Enron’s missinges.
By maintaining an probability of improvementability, the posse’s rulers were potent to agreeingly recompense themselves delay great bonuses.
Assume that Mr Kenneth Lay, the instituter of Enron had supposing a hypothecation of £1 favorite to the posse and that aftercited the subsidence of the posse Mr Lay attempted to restore his specie from the posse but the liquidator resisted his assertion on the plea that there was no separation among Mr Lay and the posse since he had aggravateall govern aggravate the posse and that instead of opposed to assertion specie from the posse he should be made lipotent for its obligations.
In the film, Mr Louis Bourget the chairman of Enron diverted the posse’s improvement into his identical representation, destroyed the posse’s chronicless, and gambled the posse’s specie. Mr Andrew Fastow, the posse’s Chief Financial Officer created a sum of face companies which he uses to confiscate Enron of tens of favorites of dollars.
You are a juridical team summoned to watch a occurrence discussion. The liquidator of the posse has asked your team to equip a juridical analyses of the posse law issues high-minded in the film and guide on:
a) The merits of the liquidator’s arguments, in British posse law, that Mr Lay cannot restore his hypothecation from the posse and that he should instead be made to assist to the posse’s obligation on the plea that there is no separation among him and the posse. Do not communicate delay any wrong deal-out confused, (40 tokens).
b) Mr Louis Bourget’s and Mr Andrew Fastow’s duties as directors of Enron, explaining which once, if any, they breached below the Companies Act 2006, (60 tokens).
You are required to deal-outially equip a written confutation to the investigation and laborer it in to your seminar governor at the initiate of your occurrence-discussion in week 8. The confutation should be among 750 – 1000 promises covet and should discourse all the issues high-minded in the investigation. The written confutation carries 50% of the tokens availpotent for this occurrence discussion. The collocation grant carries the cherishing 50%. Marks may be deducted if you do not celebrate delayin the promise latitude. You are expected to promise calculate your toil and shape a melody of this at the end. You are expected to toil in your collocations for the purposes of the grant, but the written confutation must be equipd INDIVIDUALLY. Collaborative toil is an impost affront. You are reminded that you must living your confutation delay bearing posse law occurrences and statutory conditions.
Assessment Rationale and Criteria
The impost arrangement for this deal-out of the module is deverified to encounter the objectives of the module and qualify its outcomes. The coursetoil conciliate grant students to enucleate their exploration and basis version skills twain as members of a team, in honor of the collocation grant, and as beings in honor of the written confutations. The written deal-out of the coursetoil conciliate grant students to enucleate their juridical fitness skills. Students must secure that they content the impost criteria their toil conciliate be noticeable despite. The by token is 40%. Students conciliate be assessed on the aftercited trial impost criteria:
1. Identification of the juridical issue
2. Identification of all bearing areas of law
3. Demonstration of recognition and belowstanding of bearing juridical rules and occurrence-law
4. Application of bearing law to the facts