[Lurking Libertarian]

Civil actions are not necessarily based on criminal verdicts. You can, for example, sue someone for causing a car accident even if they weren't convicted of (or even charged with) reckless driving. You can sue someone in a civil case even if they were acquitted in the criminal case (as happened to O.J. Simpson), because a civil case requires only proof by a preponderance of theevidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyone who lost money in Enron stock can sue Ken Lay's estate. The only difference this makes (and it is a significant difference) is that the plaintiffs will have to prove in the civil case that Lay committed securities fraud; had his conviction not been vacated by his death, his guilt would have already been proven and would be treated as already established in the civil case.

There is some talk that the plaintiffs' lawyers may not pursue Lay's estate, but that has more to do with the perception that the estate may be insolvent than with a legal inability to pursue the case.

[Bigh4u2]

But wouldn't dismissal of the civil case be partly based on this?

"In Parsons, the court vacated a forfeiture order, which means that the government's forfeiture claim against Lay for $43.5 million will be dismissed."

If the government cannot persue it's claim then I don't see how a civil case would prevail or even be considered by the court.

You are right tho. You can sue anyone you want, but whether you are going to prevail is a whole different matter.