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 defamation and subsidence in American narrative. Enron is the fcogent of ravenous avaricious made affectly by the perpetrators’ ready ability to design very-much disputcogent rules to represent the association as a happy association and win the credit and admiration of a gullible open delay devastating outcomes. The outcomes include: suicides by urbane adherents, jail sentences, the repudiation of balance than 20,000 employees and the dropping of conduct savings by thousands balance time the association’s top adherent trudge afar delay balance than $1 billion. The association gave itself an show of emolumentability by inflating its proceeds and veiling its droppinges through infected bookkeeping practices, delay the acceptance of its very-much compensated immovcogent of statementants, Arthur Anderson.
Within two years of its founding in 1985 by Kenneth Lay, the association becomes embroiled in a defamation aftercited two of its traders lay betting on the oil communicate resulting in consonant proceeds. But betting and the openation of consonant proceeds, which very few inquiryed, would be the halltoken of the association lawful up to its subsidence.
Enron’s aspiration was to redesign the distillation toil as a communicate settle where gas and electricity could be traded affect shares and bonds. Put singly, Enron gambled in the distillation communicate and manipulated it and other pi and uniform considered ‘trading weather’ at some sharp-end.
Its adherent officers were concerned in the association’s unethical and repeatedly vicious activities. These include:
· its instituter Kenneth Lay who gambled afar all of the association’s effects and reserves and encouraged the association’s chairman to gambled balance in trading and also assertioned that the association was the ‘best distillation association in the world’ when he should preserve public that the association was debitor and had been useless for years;
· its chairman Louise Bourget who diverted the association’s proceeds into his indivisible bank statement, destroyed the association’s proceedings and gambled the association’s coin;
· its new CEO, Jeffrey Skilling who used an statementing tactic, token-to-market, to proceedings the association’s purposed coming proceeds as its present proceeds as shortly as a form was signed unmindful of the expanded emolument that the form would generate;
· Lou Pai, the uncertain CEO of Enron Distillation Services who had an obsession of gambling and visiting disencumber clubs using shareholder coin and who left suddenly delay a $250 pet pay-out when his office was $1 billion in debit.
· Andrew Fastow the Chief Financial Officer who breached his commission to Enron and its shareholders and made balance than $45 pet through the fabrication of a compute of face companies purposed to screen Enron’s droppinges.
By maintaining an show of emolumentability, the association’s adherents were cogent to consonantly remunerate themselves delay bulky bonuses.
Assume that Mr Kenneth Lay, the instituter of Enron had granted a advance of £1 pet to the association and that aftercited the subsidence of the association Mr Lay attempted to retrieve his coin from the association but the liquidator resisted his assertion on the basis that there was no estrangement betwixt Mr Lay and the association gone he had balanceall moderate balance the association and that instead of intricate to assertion coin from the association he should be made licogent for its debits.
In the film, Mr Louis Bourget the chairman of Enron diverted the association’s emolument into his indivisible statement, destroyed the association’s proceedingss, and gambled the association’s coin. Mr Andrew Fastow, the association’s Chief Financial Officer created a compute of face companies which he uses to alienate Enron of tens of pets of dollars.
You are a constitutional team summoned to wait-on a plight parley. The liquidator of the association has asked your team to lay a constitutional analyses of the association law issues eminent in the film and warn on:
a) The merits of the liquidator’s arguments, in British association law, that Mr Lay cannot retrieve his advance from the association and that he should instead be made to tend to the association’s debit on the basis that there is no estrangement betwixt him and the association. Do not trade delay any vicious component concerned, (40 tokens).
b) Mr Louis Bourget’s and Mr Andrew Fastow’s duties as directors of Enron, explaining which commission, if any, they breached below the Companies Act 2006, (60 tokens).
You are required to distribute-amongially lay a written rejoinder to the inquiry and influence it in to your seminar preceptor at the begin of your plight-parley in week 8. The rejoinder should be betwixt 750 – 1000 tone covet and should harangue all the issues eminent in the inquiry. The written rejoinder carries 50% of the tokens availcogent for this plight parley. The class offer carries the cherishing 50%. Marks may be deducted if you do not preserve delayin the promise lip. You are expected to promise reckon your employment and bring-about a voice of this at the end. You are expected to employment in your classs for the purposes of the offer, but the written rejoinder must be layd INDIVIDUALLY. Collaborative employment is an toll crime. You are reminded that you must stay your rejoinder delay apt association law plights and statutory conditions.
Assessment Rationale and Criteria
The toll rule for this distribute-among-among of the module is purposed to coalesce the objectives of the module and fit its outcomes. The courseemployment conciliate apportion students to expand their exploration and basis version skills twain as members of a team, in reference of the class offer, and as beings in reference of the written rejoinders. The written distribute-among-among of the courseemployment conciliate apportion students to expand their constitutional congeniality skills. Students must determine that they remunerate the toll criteria their employment conciliate be notable resisting. The ignoring token is 40%. Students conciliate be assessed on the aftercited demonstration toll criteria:
1. Identification of the constitutional issue
2. Identification of all apt areas of law
3. Demonstration of notice and belowstanding of apt constitutional rules and plight-law
4. Application of apt law to the facts