[okie01]

"Are you prepared to defend a position that says a company may not change plan administrators and, in doing so may not 'lock down' the databases for a *reasonable* (and considerably shorter period than is standard in industry as you cited) length of time in order to assure an orderly and accurate change-over?

Absolutely not. But I am saying that the timing of the Enron 'lock down' was curious. And worthy of further investigation.

You don't?

[_Jim]

And worthy of further investigation.

If the *intent* was to simply change the plan's administrator so as to use the 'freeze provision' to stop blood-letting in stock sales by employees - how would you, how could one conclusively prove that? The 'investigation' could turn out to be no more than a witch hunt and a lesson in how the seemier side of business operates. No less than the way life exists in nature (eat or be eaten - financially in this case though) and the survival of the fitest.

That aspect (cutting the blood-letting), although down and dirty and looking VERY ominous in the eyes of the public - could turn out to be true and entirely legitimate.

It just looks bad is all ...

Do I/could I agree to such tactics? I'm afraid my conscience would prevent me from doing so.