slothrop Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Despite his death, I am sure that it provides little comfort to the people whose savings and in some cases, lives, were ruined. 718623[/snapback] What has happened to "personal responsibility?" They took the job. THey should have read their contract or asked the right questions at the interview. Clearly, it is the workers' fault.
IDBillzFan Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 What has happened to "personal responsibility?" They took the job. THey should have read their contract or asked the right questions at the interview. Clearly, it is the workers' fault. 718676[/snapback] Reminds me of the news correspondent doing "Point - Counterpoint" in the movie Airplane. "Look. These people bought their tickets. They knew what they were in for. I say...LET them die."
KD in CA Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 What has happened to "personal responsibility?" They took the job. THey should have read their contract or asked the right questions at the interview. Clearly, it is the workers' fault. 718676[/snapback] Well....they certainly shouldn't have put their entire life savings into a single stock!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Reminds me of the news correspondent doing "Point - Counterpoint" in the movie Airplane. "Look. These people bought their tickets. They knew what they were in for. I say...LET them die." 718681[/snapback] Hey...for some things, reasonable risk is implied. You go on safari in Africa, you willingly accept a reasonable risk of getting eaten by a lion or stomped by a Cape Buffalo. You fly on a plane, there's a reasonable risk of gravity decisively asserting itself. However...when you sign on to work for a company, having the corporate officers use your 401k savings to prop up the price of the stock so they can cash out should not fall under any sane definition of reasonable risk I've ever heard.
aussiew Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 I'm confused (again). If he was awaiting sentencing, how was he able to be out of state on vacation?
cromagnum Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 I'm confused (again). If he was awaiting sentencing, how was he able to be out of state on vacation? 718701[/snapback] He had a good public defender?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 I'm confused (again). If he was awaiting sentencing, how was he able to be out of state on vacation? 718701[/snapback] Bail. He could afford it. Other people's money and all...
ACor58 Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Well....they certainly shouldn't have put their entire life savings into a single stock! 718683[/snapback] I don't think that they had much of a choice when it came to their pension plans.
Chef Jim Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 I don't think that they had much of a choice when it came to their pension plans. 718780[/snapback] How about their 401k plans?
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 I don't think that they had much of a choice when it came to their pension plans. 718780[/snapback] Finance 101: Any company who has a 401K plan that offers company stock as an option is not a good company to work for.
aussiew Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Bail. He could afford it. Other people's money and all... Yep - but I thought you still couldn't cross state lines if you're on bail.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Yep - but I thought you still couldn't cross state lines if you're on bail. 718800[/snapback] Federal charges, though. I don't know in that case. Plus...other people's money. Who's to say he didn't call in a few favors?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Federal charges, though. I don't know in that case. Plus...other people's money. Who's to say he didn't call in a few favors? More like a few favors were called in, to Lay's detriment.
erynthered Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Federal charges, though. I don't know in that case. Plus...other people's money. Who's to say he didn't call in a few favors? 718824[/snapback] what about the kids?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 what about the kids? 718905[/snapback] They're better off. Lay's obviously a quitter.
Gary M Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 ""Apparently, his heart simply gave out," said Lay's pastor, Dr. Steve Wende" Now I know it's a fake story, he didn't have a heart.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Ken Lay Fact of the Day: a) He pleaded "not guilty" b) He was found guilty in a court of law c) He died before all of his appeals were exhausted d) Because of (a), (b) and ( c); it is not possible for the government (or any individual) to go after Ken Lay's assets (currently estimated at $45 million) in an attempt to collect them
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Ken Lay Fact of the Day: a) He pleaded "not guilty" b) He was found guilty in a court of law c) He died before all of his appeals were exhausted d) Because of (a), (b) and ( c); it is not possible for the government (or any individual) to go after Ken Lay's assets (currently estimated at $45 million) in an attempt to collect them 719030[/snapback] Unless someone files a civil suit...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Unless someone files a civil suit... 719067[/snapback] A Civil Suit for what? Any of his alleged crimes (money laundering) are federal jurisdiction. Civil suits are not applicable to these types of crimes.
Johnny Coli Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) A Civil Suit for what? Any of his alleged crimes (money laundering) are federal jurisdiction. Civil suits are not applicable to these types of crimes. 719076[/snapback] Several articles have addressed this. Here are two suggesting that civil suits may continue. Time.com: With the death of former Enron CEO Ken Lay, his case legally died as well. But the civil claims against him will live on Lay's death won't stop the civil suits filed against him, however. In a civil case, a person can die and the case can go on; for example, if someone is killed in a nursing home, the family can sue. But Androphy says there will now be some restrictions limiting punitive damages. It's unclear if Lay's estate will be responsible for his criminal fines. Last week, prosecutors asked for $43.5 million. Forbes.com: Lay Cheats Justice That said, there's nothing stopping civil suits from progressing against the Lay estate. In particular, the Securities and Exchange Commission has such an action pending. To the extent that the government still wants Lay's money, it will go after it there. EDIT: Here's one more. All Headline News Though his death could prevent government criminal cases, he is still subject to civil lawsuits by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Added to that are suits by former investors and Enron employees, which could take away from the Lay assets. Edited July 6, 2006 by Johnny Coli
Recommended Posts