Sen. Gramm's wife gets Enron subpoena

UPI ^ | Published 1/12/2002 8:20 AM | By Mark Benjamin and Nicholas M. Horrock

[CDHart]

"...there is no scandal at least at this point."

As an accountant, I think the alleged behavior of Arthur Andersen's people was pretty scandalous. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. The Repubs & Demos all look out for each other.

Carolyn

[Red Jones]

again I disagree. Ten years ago George Bush and the federal guv sued 20,000 people without any evidence. Those people had to spend lots of money to defend themselves. The taxpayers also had to spend a lot for the lawsuits. It was done under a Republican admin.

So people can be sued unjustly, you said they couldn't be. We should not sweep these injustices perpetrated by our government on our people under the rug. George HW Bush' reputation should always be tainted by his actual track record as president.

[Red Jones]

Arthur Andersen is bad news.

[prometheus]

You should change your name to Robespierre and reserve your place upon the National Razor.

[VRWC_minion]

Cause they haven't bellied up causing employees to lose ther lifes' savings or stockholders their investments

Creditors can virtually control the company when it cannot pays its debts. Why do you think the employee's can't get their money back ? Its because it has to go to Citigroup first. If anyone has something to loose in this its the creditors and they would be the first to go running to the gov't for help, which apparently Rubin, the head of Citigroup did.

That being the case, Lieberman, whose largest contributor is Citigroup, ought to be asking hard questions about Citigroup but he is not. I wonder why ?

[Gordian Blade]

I'm sorry that innocent people have lost a big chunk of retirement money, but they themselves chose to put all their eggs in one basket. Enron (some combination of high-level people in charge there) bet the farm that energy prices would continue to climb so that they could cover their huge debt. In fact, Enron was trying to corner a major part of the market. If they had succeeded, a lot of people would be paying higher energy prices. The employees with their 401K's 100% in Enron stock would have retired as millionaires and not shed one collective tear for other people paying higher energy costs. They gambled and lost. Therefore, my sympathy for them is limited.

[Bad~Rodeo]

Your statement is a MOOT Point. The bottom line is MANAGEMENT F'D the worker AGAIN.

[jf55510]

again I disagree. Ten years ago George Bush and the federal guv sued 20,000 people without any evidence. Those people had to spend lots of money to defend themselves. The taxpayers also had to spend a lot for the lawsuits. It was done under a Republican admin.

So that is the past this is now. We do not need to repeat the injustices of the S&L days.

So people can be sued unjustly, you said they couldn't be. We should not sweep these injustices perpetrated by our government on our people under the rug. George HW Bush' reputation should always be tainted by his actual track record as president.

Sorry that should say shouldn't be sued unjustly. Which is what you want to do to Wendy Gramm and others and that is not right. Just curious were you affected by the lawsuits ten years ago?

[BlueCat]

You are incorrect. The federal government sued 20,000 people because they sat on the Boards of S&L's that went bankrupt. The were overwhelmingly completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

You are wrong. The S&L directors had duty to ensure that the officers of the organizations followed all applicable laws relating to their industry. And you are right, many did nothing, because they were too stupid to know better. They had no idea that they should not be sitting on a board when they did not understand the business.

And if they were not guilty of fraud, they were guilty of 'going along for the ride.' The real reason they were sued was because there was a TON of fraud in that industry. I have never seen such disregard for law. Let's see, where do I begin? Huge loans to 'pals'. Floating overdrawn checks (for directors) and not recording the liabilities. Insider deals. The list goes on. I know because I saw if first hand...I audited S&Ls - and not for the federal government.

It was sad, because some of the directors were good people, but got caught because they thought that sitting on a board meant nothing. But if they had it rough, that was nothing compared to what the employees and the depositors suffered.

It sounds like you sat on one of those boards.

[VRWC_minion]

Her malfeasance still cost a lot of people a lot

Choosing one of the largest accouting firms in the world is malfeasance ? Interesting premise. I wonder if the investment industry and the SEC would agree with your premise.

I don't.

[Howlin]

Can you give us the Cliff Notes on what happened; did George HW Bush 'sue" those people?

[Dianna]

I'll be the first to say that I have no idea what a member of the auditing board would do or know.

If Wendy Gramm did something wrong, or neglected her responsibility of oversight, then she should be prosecuted.

Whatever HW Bush did, I do not hold with tearing an innocent person to shreds. But at the very least it seems the Gramm's will be the political sacrifice.

[Bad~Rodeo]

Look, Clinton wants a Face Lift so to speak,His name is Mud,Hillary is...uhhhhmmm,... trust me....S~

[BlueCat]

I'll try.

Many S&Ls made many highly speculative real estate (and other risky) loans that were predicated on the value of the underlying properties increasing in value. The recession occurred, and the increase didn't happen. Many many debtors defaulted, causing the S&Ls to do the same.

The federal government had to do something about it, and began looking at the way S&Ls were doing business. Many of them had directors that knew nothing and didn't want to. Though many of them were not crooks, they were negligent, and paid dearly for it.

Hope that helps.

[Red Jones]

The federal government sued 20,000 people merely because they sat on the board of organizations that went bankrupt, just like Wendy Gramm. Bush was president, it was his justice department that did it. It was very unjust. I could give you the cliffnotes of the entire S&L disaster from 1985 to 1992. But you wouldn't believe me if I did, so I won't. George HW Bush' administration screwed america simply because his liberal masters told him to is the short version of the cliff notes.

Why do the Republicans have one set of standards for a prominent Texas Republican's wife like Wendy Gramm and another for those 20,000 more ordinary Americans?

[Cicero]

Presumably she was subpoenaed because she is an Enron board member. I presume that all of the board members were subpoenaed as a routine matter. Therefore, this headline is biased and misleading. It's possible that her being Senator Gramm's wife involves some shennanigans or conflict of interest, but that is for an investigation and a trial to show. The correct headline would have been "Enron board members get subpoenas." If her husband were a Democrat senator, I'm sure that's how it would have read. Her Democratic husband would have been mentioned only in passing somewhere on a back page.

Was there funny business? Who knows? But there's no question that the press are playing this dishonestly. It has all the signs of being orchestrated from central source, presumably the DNC.

[VRWC_minion]

The federal government sued 20,000 people because they saton the Boards of S&L's that went bankrupt

The responsibility of the directors includes making loans. Loans that are guaranteed by federal money are also to be made in accordance with federal guidellines. Whenever their is gross negligence involved in making the loans the responsible party is the director. The lawyers for the creditors have every right to bring suit against the directors.

Before this is over, I am certain every director including Gramms wife will be a party to a lawsuit for negligence. I don't think Mrs. Gramm will be sued for an error in auditor selection but I do think that all the directors will be sued for gross negligence.

Those with deep pockets or their insurance companies (which they all will have) are likely to settle.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Fine, Red, Lets spare no Republican, Democrat or anyone else, lets enforce the laws of this land equally, but first let's return the the crimes of the previous administration and bring everyone who wriggled through a crevices, to justice and spare no one regardless of party or position in the party. If we are going to begin enforcing the laws and administering justice, let's do so retroactively.

[VRWC_minion]

First you haven't provided proof that 20,000 people were sued

His number may be pulled out of the air but his point is valid. Directors will get sued. Especially directors in banks because they often personally approve loans. There is so much money on the table in this case that he will get his wish. The directors will have insurance for their acts and wealth. The lawyers for the creditors (just like the federal gov't RTC) are charged with recovering as much as possible from all sources. They will have to sue the directors.

I doubt though that auditor selection will get them anywhere.

The primary reason for this subpeona probably has more to do with getting the fact AA was the "auditor of record" on the record than anything else.