Category Archives: Law

(Re)Born Free

Glad that I am pretty much done with dissing Enron — out of respect for the late Mr. Lay.

Monday, I suggested that it is troubling that the average investor could not understand Enron’s accounting. Later, I will talk at whether it is possible to have accountings for new economy businesses that the average individual investor can understand. (Enron pretended that it was all new economy. It really was just another energy trader.) But, a little background seems helpful.

After the amazing business scandals, even by Enron standards, of the late 1920s and early 1930s, Congress had to do something about the public securities markets. Public faith was nigh zero. The question on the table was what to do. One answer would have been to have a government agency that really regulated public capital. For example, a government agency could look over the shoulder of corporate managements and second-guess the stock and bond markets. Congress instead decided to put their faith in, among others, the accounting industry. Really! Laff, laff! More below the fold….

Continue reading

Posted in Accounting | 1 Comment

Lieberman + Bad Accounting = BFF

With all of the media attention given this week to Joe Lieberman’s waivering loyalty to the Democratic Party, I decided to go on a slight tangent and discuss how, more than anybody else in America, Joe Lieberman is responsible for some of the worst corporate abuses during the recent tech bubble and for the current growing options backdating scandal. The Connecticut media has noted this, but not the national media, and it is real important. In short, in 1993, Lieberman saved amazingly bad accounting for when a company pays an executive with stock options instead of cash. This caused options to flourish. Options make an executive more concerned with short-term fluctuations in her company’s stock price than in running the company well. Disaster resulted. Details below the fold. Back on track tomorrow.

Continue reading

Posted in Accounting | 4 Comments

ENRON, WE HARDLY KNEW YE!

Thanks to Michael for giving me the chance to guest blog. It was fun 2 years ago. Hope you out there find my stuff somewhat interesting.

I am a tax guy. Unfortunately, from my blogging point of view, in the US, the only interesting discussion going on about taxes these days is about the estate and gift tax, and I have little to add to that debate. (Yes, we should not be Mexico…)

But, in the other area in which I know something, law and accounting, lots is happening. The ongoing option backdating scandals make it clear that much still is wrong with the accountability of corporate managements. So, for now, accounting seems more worth writing about.

Which gets me to Enron. Many have noted the importance of the recent convictions of Lay and Skilling: The convictions restored some faith in justice. More importantly, for my purposes, they saved public capitalism. If Lay and Skilling had been able to get away with what they did, it would have seriously undermined the public’s faith in the capital markets.

But another aspect of the convictions has not received public scrutiny and merits discussion: how the convictions were achieved.

Continue reading

Posted in Accounting | 6 Comments

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle Overruled

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle, 572 F.2d 872 (1st Cir. 1978), long one of the perennials of administrative law teaching, is no more. It seems that late last month the First Circuit overruled Seacoast in Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC v. Johnson, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 8205, 2006 WL 820405 (1st Cir., March 30).

Seacost is famous for holding that the words “public hearing” in a statute triggered formal adjudication under sec. 554 of the APA. The idea was that if the issues were sufficiently important, Congress should be understood to have assumed that the agency should use the cumbersome full-dress procedures of an on-the-record adjudication. This was not as strange as it may sound to modern ears, as it followed the influential Attorney General’s Manual on the APA.

Other circuits, however, took a different tack, especially after the landmark case of Chevron v. United States. Those courts held that unless Congress explicitly instructed the agency to hold a “formal” hearing (most commonly by saying that the hearing should be “on the record”) the agency could in most cases choose to proceed by the less onerous, although still quite formalized, “informal” rulemaking process.

That makes the Ninth Circuit the sole remaining outlier, based on Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1977). That rule is probably doomed too.

Posted in Administrative Law | 1 Comment

Notes on EU Center Arbitration Seminar

I attended a seminar downtown today on “European Union Law and U.S. Business: Front Line Issues of International Dispute Resolution” sponsored by the UM EU Center (with help from the UM law school), and Greenberg, Traurig.

It was an unusually high-quality event, but as arbitration law is something of a specialist taste, you’ll have to click “there’s more” to read my notes from it. (Unless of course you get the full feed, or followed a link to this post, in which case you get to enjoy the whole thing right now.) I’m interested in this stuff because back when I was in private practice, I worked in the London office of US law firm doing international arbitration, and have very occasionally since then acted as an arbitrator.

Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration Law, Talks & Conferences | Comments Off on Notes on EU Center Arbitration Seminar

Arbitration Conference Today

I’m attending a great seminar downtown today on “European Union Law and U.S. Business: Front Line Issues of International Dispute Resolution” sponsored by the UM EU Center (with help from the UM law school), and Greenberg, Traurig. If I am organized about taking notes, I may post them later…

Posted in Arbitration Law, Talks & Conferences | Comments Off on Arbitration Conference Today