Where is enron today

Q: Why did you think Skilling and Lay decided to fight and not plea bargain? Were they so confident that they could confuse the jurors? McLean: I think on some level, they both believed—and Skilling still believes— they were innocent. The rationalizations and self-delusion are part of every story of business gone wrong. Skilling and Lay were no exception.

Elkind: Skilling was a man who was able, and inclined, to bend conventional notions of reality to his liking, in ways ranging from accounting treatments to notions of right and wrong. And that carried over into the trial. I think Lay rationalized all his behavior as well. Until Enron's collapse, he'd always managed to charm his way to the top, and into everyone's good graces.

He'd worked hard to cultivate his image as an upstanding corporate leader—even while willfully looking away, or doing the wrong thing, time and again. I think Lay felt he stood apart and above any misdeeds that had taken place. And yes, both men suffered from fatal arrogance. Q: One account I read said the prosecutor's opening statement drew from the opening scene of the Alex Gibney's documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room , which you both participated in.

True story? Elkind: True. John Hueston, one of the senior prosecutors, had just watched the film, and embraced its opening device as a provocative hook, displaying a picture of the gleaming Enron headquarters tower, and posing the question as did the film : " What's going on in there?

McLean: I'm not sure I noticed it! I'd never sat through a trial before, and I was struck by the realization that trying a case isn't so different from making a film or writing a book. We're all trying to tell stories. Q: Prosecutors managed to humanize a complex story.

Was storytelling the key to convincing the jury of Skilling's and Lay's guilt? Was having folks who lost savings testify a key? McLean: Keeping it simple was one key. Instead of getting lost in all the intensely complicated financial shenanigans, which would have gotten drowned in arguments as to their legality, prosecutors focused on clear, simple examples of where the law was broken—such as when Skilling told investors on a call that broadband was doing great right after he'd told employees the business was in trouble.

I also think it was important that the prosecutors didn't overreach and paint Skilling and Lay as evil-doers who intended to bankrupt Enron for their own benefit. Rather, they painted Skilling and Lay as executives who began to lie to save their own pocketbooks, but also out of the misguided belief that if they lied, they could save the company.

It was much more human and much more believable. Elkind: I think Bethany described it well. I've covered a number of trials, and it's clear: the more complex the story, the more important it is to keep the narrative manageable, compelling and understandable. Prosecutors worked hard to do that, even dropping chief accounting officer Rick Causey—and charges involving him—from the Lay-Skilling trial altogether to simplify things.

The trial wasn't short, but the prosecutors worked hard to keep from burying the jury in complexity, and to highlight especially memorable events and anecdotes. Another valuable prosecution storytelling move: In a white-collar crime case, they made a point of presenting the jury with victims—longtime pipeline and utility workers who had lost their life's savings because of Enron's collapse, and thus the Lay-Skilling crimes.

This underscored the impact of the fraud. It didn't just bring down a corporate entity; it financially wrecked hardworking, average people. McLean: It came when the prosecution played a tape of Skilling attempting to sell his Enron stock—he was caught in a lie about it. He'd previously testified to the SEC that his sale, which happened, I think, on the 14th of September, , was only made then because of September 11 terrorist attack.

The tape revealed that in fact, he'd tried to sell on September 7th, but the broker told him it would have to be disclosed because he was still an Enron executive. Skilling responded that he'd get paperwork to show he was no longer an Enron executive.

By the time he got the paperwork together, the market had closed on Sept. The trade obviously wasn't executed on the 11th. It wasn't clear why he sold the stock and why he bothered to lie about it. I guess the obvious interpretation was that Skilling knew Enron was going down the tubes, and he wanted to salvage some of his own fortune. But It was this shocking moment, because the jurors had started to like Skilling. Other key figures in the spectacular rise and fall of Enron, such as the former chief financial officers Andrew Fastow, completed sentences years ago.

Skilling, 64, was sentenced in to 24 years in prison for his role in the scandal that cost investors billions of dollars and wiped out the retirement savings and jobs of thousands of Enron employees. Five years ago, Skilling's sentence was reduced to 14 years. He is scheduled to be released Feb. Or, if you are already a subscriber Sign in. Other options. Close drawer menu Financial Times International Edition. Search the FT Search.

World Show more World. US Show more US. Companies Show more Companies. Markets Show more Markets.