Congressional Response to Enron

Rachael Northrup, Katie Korus, Sthefanie Desouza, Monica Kempski

MGMT203-02
 Table of Contents

1.) Introduction
In 1985 two companies called Houston Natural and Inter-North combined to make the company
Enron. In 1986, Enron became a trading giant of natural gas and electricity. There are three major
individuals that played significant role in the collapse of the company. Kenneth Lay, the Chief
Executive officer, Jeffrey Skilling the Chief Financial Officer, and Arthur Anderson, a limited
liability partner. The downfall of Enron directly led to the beginning of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

2.) Facts of Case - Monica Kempski

- Enron’s growth and success
- Accounting fraud
- Special purpose entity
- Fake partnerships
- Arthur Anderson
- Prominent players
- Michael Popper
- Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling
- Hearings
- Convictions
- Sentences

- Arthur Anderson v. the United States

3.) Legislation – Sthefanie Desouza

- Criminal charges
- Changes in law/accounting law

4.) Impact of the Case – Katie Korus

- How this affects accounting business process
- In the USA
- Worldwide

5.) Sarbanes-Oxley Act – Rachael Northrup

- Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act
- Enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals

6.) Conclusion
-Even though Enron was a powerful company, the law did not permit them to commit fraudulent
acts. In results of the companies actions, the way businesses do accounting has changed both in
the US and worldwide. Everything is more closely monitored through The Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
 Enron wasn’t always the big global corporation we all know today. In 1985 two

companies called Houston Natural and Inter-North combined to make the company called Enron.

When the two companies merged they joined the longest pipeline ever to exist, it went on for

thousands of miles. In 1986, Enron became a trading giant of natural gas and electricity. The

downfall of Enron was due to a series of events, precipitated by the greed of its management.

There are three major individuals that played a significant role in the collapse of the company.

Kenneth Lay the Chief Executive Officer, Kenneth Skilling the Chief Financial Officer, and

Arthur Anderson a limited liability partner were the main figures in the scandals that surrounded

the company. The finances of the company when it was established and when it collapsed also

warrant discussion (Company Overview 41).

The Enron Corporation was created in 1985 when InterNorth bought Houston Natural

Gas. At 38,000 miles long, it became the most extensive natural gas pipeline network in the

United States. With this asset, the company served to trade natural gas and electricity. Enron

continued to develop at an exponential rate from its trade, in which it bought natural gas and

electricity from power companies. In turn, they sold it to customers nationally and internationally

("Junior Scholastic" 4).

Then, profits changed for companies involved with electricity and natural gas. In the late

1980s, government policy moved to deregulation of the resources markets. This strategy actually

created a rickety market in the economy. In the beginning, prices would fall causing supply to

drop. Prices would rise again; yet, this increase was not enough to make a profit. However,

Enron took advantage of this policy. The company adopted a new business strategy by moving

away from long term contracts. Instead, Enron issued spot market contracts, which are basically

thirty day supply contracts. With these new contracts, Enron became a “market maker” by
buying and selling ordinary quantities of gas. Finally after much familiarity with the short term

contracts, the company was able to mature enough to return to long term contracts. With these

long term contracts, Enron charged a premium over spot contract costs. This ultimately resulted

in immense revenues, but amplified risks and made complicated deals with companies (Giroux).

With their success, Enron kept expanding all over the world. In 2000, Enron was deemed

the seventh largest United States corporation (“Enron Corporation” 1). In August of this year, the

company’s stock price exceeded ninety dollars, achieving a market value of roughly seventy

billion dollars. This amounted to 700% in returns for the decade (Giroux). By 2001, the company

was so vast that it obtained more than forty-nine billion dollars in total assets (US Department of

State).

In reality, these numbers were not legitimate and were much less. Despite these high

rankings and progress, the company also obtained a mass amount of debt. In response, Enron

tried to conceal the debt from the public in order to make the company still look good to

consumers. They achieved this by engaging in many fraudulent processes and acts that are

against business ethics.

Enron undertook an accounting process called “Special Purpose Entities” to alter their

financial statements in their favor. This allowed the company to move assets and their liabilities

to another disconnected partnership to keep the company’s financial risks from their quarterly

statements and books (Giroux). These partnerships were fake and were present solely on paper.

Some partnerships were so outrageous that they even had humorous names such as “Chewco,”

short for Chewbacca from Star Wars. Because of these false partnerships, their debt was not

shown to consumers. Enron exaggerated their profits by 600 million dollars; therefore, they were

seen as successful and attracted the consumer and investor’s eye ("Junior Scholastic" 4).
 Unfortunately for Enron, credit corporations relegated the company’s debt to “junk

status,” obliging it to pay off the debt with non-existent money in November of 2001 (Smith, and

Emshwiller 1). Naturally, the company had to admit their debt and report their losses of a total of

638 million dollars ("FOXNews.com"). As a result, Enron filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy the

following month. With this action, twenty thousand Enron employees became unemployed and

lost their pensions ("Enron Corporation" 1).

At this news, everyone in the public that was some way involved with Enron commanded

investigation as to why the corporation was not exposed before. In January of 2002, the United

States Justice Department and the Security and Exchange Commission reacted by launching a

series of investigations to obtain evidence for trial (AICPA).

Several answers were obtained with the examination of Enron’s accounting firm, Arthur

Andersen. Investigation evidence yielded that the firm was responsible for auditing the finances,

as well as giving advice on how to keep the company’s monetary losses hidden ("Junior

Scholastic" 4). They did not report Enron to the SEC or restate their earnings as they ethically

should. Apparently, Arthur Andersen had worked with the company since 1987, so they have

been going along with Enron’s excuse of their problems being “immaterial” (Giroux). Most

importantly, Arthur Andersen was accused of destroying important documents to impede

investigators in 2002. Hence, Arthur Anderson applied their best efforts to cover up Enron’s

debt.

The government also investigated people involved with Enron through monetary

regulation, sale of energy units, trading, and broadband units (“MSNBC.com”). In trails

involving the Enron scandal, more than thirty people were charged with crimes because of

personal greed ("Enron Corporation" 1). However, only the most prominent players received the
worst convictions. The people’s motives were enormous compensation packages. Ultimately,

managers engaged in anything, even if it was illegal to make the company look good allowing

them to receive their bonuses. Thus, they manipulated they initiated and allowed the false

accounting practices (Giroux). Michael Kopper was the first to come forward and was convicted

of money laundering, creating false partnerships, and allowing false accounting practices while

he absorbed money from the company. To lessen his sentence, he agreed to identify others

responsible for corruption (“FOXNews.com”).

Kopper identified manipulations in 1997 with Andrew Fastow, the finance executive of

Enron. He created the first false partnership, and then was named finance chief

("FOXNews.com"). Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were also identified as major conspirators

in manipulating finances for personal gain. By exploitation of finances, former CEO and

Chairman Kenneth Lay earned a base salary of 1.3 million, obtained a seven million dollar

bonus, and had 782,000 stock options (Giroux). From 1999 to 2001 alone, Lay gained 220

million in compensation due to Enron’s share purchases. Former CEO Skilling also benefited

greatly from Enron’s fraud. He received 150 million dollars. Also, he collected a sixty-six

million dollar bonus from stock options ("MSNBC").

Skilling’s hearing was not strong. He claimed that “a classic run on the bank” was the

cause of Enron’s demise. He asserted that he had no personal responsibility whatsoever.

However, the judge became suspicious of this testimony because other key witnesses said

otherwise. In addition, his defense certainly did not help him. He stated that the transactions he

approved were very difficult to understand because he was not an accountant. However, he had a

Harvard Business School MBA and was well qualified to realize the nature of the transactions. It
was also pointed out during his hearing that a chief executive’s responsibility is to make sure that

he could comprehend the transactions he passed (BBC News).

Lay and Skilling were part of the same trial. During the trial, both executives claimed that

they did nothing fraudulent, and said employees secretly pocketed the lost money. However, they

were unable to sway the jury and convicted of conspiracy. Lay was found guilty for

manufacturing false statements to banks, as well as bank fraud. He also was convicted of

deceiving lenders to use seventy-five million in personal loans to take stock on the margin. Each

count had a maximum of thirty years (Associated Press). Skilling faced twenty-eight charges

involving conspiracy, fraud, and fooling investors of Enron’s financial state (“MSNBC”).

Overall, over twenty people were convicted and pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy

("Enron Corporation" 1). All conspirators mentioned above were found guilty in their trails and

received prison sentences for their wrongdoings. Fastow received seventy-eight charges, causing

him to serve ten years in prison ("FOXNews.com"). Skilling was sentenced to twenty-four years

and four months (Smith and Emshwiller). Lay’s charges amounted to a minimum of forty-five

years from corporate trials and 120 for personal ("MSNBC"). However, Lay died in 2006 of

heart failure ("Enron Corporation" 1).

Following the unveiling of its scandals, Arthur Andersen was brought on trial in Arthur

Andersen v. United States in 2005("FOXNews.com"). They were charged with disobeying the

law that makes someone criminally responsible that intentionally applies force on someone to

“destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair an object’s integrity or availability

for use in an official proceeding.” The jury found the company guilty; however, it went to the

Supreme Court where they overturned it because the jury was improperly instructed. The jury

was lead to believe that the defendant could be rendered guilty even if they honestly thought that
their actions were lawful. However, on the basis of fraud, one has to be aware of their

wrongdoing before they can be charged as guilty (Perkins Coie).

The Enron scandal and its outcomes compelled firms to change the way they do business,

so they could no longer succumb to corruption from personal greed resulting in unfair accounting

practices. Prosecutor Sean Berkowitz said it best when he stated, “The jury sent an unmistakable

message: You can’t lie to shareholders. No matter how rich and powerful, you must play by the

rules” ("MSNBC").

The Enron scandal is a supermarket of corporate crime, fraud, and abuse…The first stage

for making Enron the great engine for long-overdue structural reform is to document the

wrongdoing” (Nadar 18). The impact of the Enron scandal on businesses and individuals

involved are far from over. Individuals are still afraid that another scandal like Enron could occur

in the future. This scares workers and they need more protection when working in these kinds of

companies now that this scandal has occurred. A reform bill to help companies and its workers

has taken place since the scandal and has been impacting the way individuals in Congress vote

for certain issues. One individual who was reluctant to sign the bill but eventually did was

President George W. Bush. Accounting business processes both in the USA and worldwide,

might never be the same after the Enron scandal, but precautions have been taking place to try

and prevent another scandal like it in the future.

The individuals who were affected the most by the Enron scandal were the workers it

brought down with it. One source states, “The most obvious Enron victims are its employees,

who had much of their retirement money vested in Enron’s now-worthless stock” (New Republic

7). The workers suffered the most because they were told to stay invested in their stocks, when

their managers were selling their own investments in the company. The workers were never
informed that there was inside knowledge corrupting them. “Not only are executives in a far

better position to know when to sell company stock than the workers, but the workers are

sometimes prevented from selling their largest stakes in employer securities through lockdowns

of their 401(k) plans, such as in the Enron context” (Stabile 815). Therefore the workers never

had a chance to get out of their stocks, when others had information telling them to sell their

investments. This is wrong and completely unfair, which emphasizes that Congress needs to

protect our workers even more than they are already doing for the future. These changes include,

“changes in accounting principles designed to introduce more rationality into the awarding of

option compensation, and outright limits on the acquisition of employer securities by 401(k) plan

participants” (Stabile 831).

One way that Congress has helped our workers is by passing a new reform bill. After a

few long years of getting signatures together, the bill was finally passed. However, before it was

passed President George W. Bush wasn’t going to sign his name on the bill until he was sure of a

few things. “During 2001, the president specified that a reform bill would have to strengthen

parties and preserve individual rights to expression in order to obtain his signature” (McSweeney

509). Bush wasn’t going to risk further political embarrassment after having close connections

with the Enron case for a while, so he signed the bill. By George Bush signing the bill, he was

safe from not being impeached. Therefore Bush agreed to reform, but was not active in

supporting it.

Republicans liked the new reform bill and most of the individuals who had signed the bill

were in fact republican. The Democrats were really confusing about how they voted for this bill.

Many democrats voted for the reform bill at first, but then realized that it wouldn’t help them

with raising hard money. They were below Republicans when there was a need for raising hard
money. Later they realized signing the bill didn’t hurt them at all, so McSweeney states,

“Democratic support of reform appears to be a contradiction of electoral self-interest, which

presents a challenge to conventional understandings of congressional behaviour” (511).

Therefore there was a lot of self-interest involved when signing the reform bill and Democrats

were trying to hold to their previous commitments.

A world wide impact from the Enron scandal was when it had a negative effect on the

country Bolivia. “The Bolivian government sold 50 percent of the equity in the state oil company

to various multinational corporations (MNCs), including Enron and Shell” (Hindery 3). This

means that after the scandal, Bolivia lost 50% of their equity in oil to these companies. This was

social and environmental impact to the country. Just like America, Bolivia set up reforms to try

and boost their economy, as well as deepen their democracy. They are trying to heal their

environmental factors through political acts. With individuals having political concern for their

country, they believe that it will lead to them wanting to help their country environmentally as

well. There is hope for Bolivia in the future to retain the oil costs that were lost in the scandal

through political and environmental reassurance to their people, as well as the American people.

Therefore the future for Bolivia is looking promising, not only for the country, but for its people

as well.

It is up to governments worldwide to protect our people and our workers. The reforms

have helped to lessen the impacts that have happened from the scandal, but our acts are far from

being over with when it comes to helping our countries. Our governments are in charge of

keeping wrongdoings from occurring and this will cause our countries to stay strong. We have to

stay strong and the impact on our accounting business processes will hopefully not affect them at

all. Hopefully one day our companies will go back to being strong, the way they were before the
Enron scandal and our workers back to not being afraid of who they are working for. Once again

our workers are the ones who suffered the most from the scandal and it is our government’s job

to make sure that never happens again. No one should have to live in fear and no one should

have happen to them what happened to those workers. We are living in a powerful world, which

some forget and this makes our world scary at times, but things are looking up for our future.

In order to keep growing at this rate, Enron began to borrow money to invest in new

projects. However, because this debt would make their earnings look less impressive, Enron

began to create partnerships that would allow it to keep debt off of its books. One partnership

created by Enron, Chewco Investments allowed Enron to keep $600 million in debt off of the

books it showed to the government and to people who own Enron stock. When this debt did not

show up in Enron's reports, it made Enron seem much more successful than it actually was. In

December 2000, Enron claimed to have tripled its profits in two years.

A lot of these deals went sour in the early months of 2001 and that’s when the stock

prices and debt rating imploded. Enron employed unscrupulous and deceptive accountants to

cover up the growing losses the company was incurring. Enron began selling assets to

independent partnerships. What that did was show positive income when in fact they were part

of a risky buy back and certain stipulations that were written in contracts. In 2000-2001 Enron

scammed California when they were having an electricity crisis by engaging in sham trading,

where top executives from the company were buying and selling services to one another to show

a power congestion that did not in fact exist. They made California pay charges so Enron could

take care of the fabricated issue. When the truth behind this scandal was uncovered more than

30 people were arrested for the malpractice of Enron and 20 or more were arrested including the
Chairman, President, and Chief Financial Officer for fraud, conspiracy, and other related crimes

(Thomas 41).

In August 2001, Enron vice president Sharron Watkins sent an anonymous letter to the

CEO of Enron, Kenneth Lay, describing accounting methods that she felt could lead Enron to

accounting scandals. On October 22nd, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

announced that Enron was under investigation. On November 8th, Enron said that it has

overstated earnings for the past four years by $586 million and that it owed over $6 billion in

debt by next year.

With these announcements, Enron's stock price took a dive. This drop triggered certain

agreements with investors that made it necessary for Enron to repay their money immediately.

When Enron could not come up with the cash to repay its creditors, it declared for chapter 11

bankruptcy.

The Enron Scandal deeply influenced the development of new regulations to improve the

reliability of financial reporting, and increased public awareness about the importance of having

accounting standards that show the financial reality of companies and the objectivity and

independence of auditing firms. One consequence of these events was the passage of Sarbanes–

Oxley Act in 2002, as a result of the first admissions of fraudulent behavior made by Enron. The

act significantly raises criminal penalties for securities fraud, for destroying, altering or

fabricating records in federal investigations or any scheme or attempt to defraud shareholders.

The act expanded criminal penalties for destroying, altering, or fabricating records in federal

investigations or for any attempt to defraud shareholders. ("SARBANES-OXLEY").

Here is a company that started out with the idea that they can do anything they wanted

and not be held accountable for their actions. When Enron first started out in the mid eighties
they were practicing good business under Kenneth Lay. When Skilling came along he

implemented business plans that would increase revenue. Lay had no qualms about this, despite

the fact that the law had to be broken to incur these increases in income. The two conducted

business in this fashion until they retired in 2001. Lay retired first then Skilling, after a few

business contracts went sour and stock prices dropped. Even after the two retired they still fell

under the scrutiny of the judicial system, except Lay died of natural causes before the courts

indicted him. The company tried to regain their global standing but no one wanted to do

business with them, their name was tarnished and everybody affiliated with them also received a

bad reputation. In 2002 Enron and its new directors were making billion dollar purchases of

other heating and electrical companies trying to rebuild the structure of the company. But this

proved to be too little too late and the company promptly shut down (Thomas 41).

The early years of Enron was an exceptional story of massive financial gains until the

layers were peeled back and the truth about the company’s underhanded dealings was revealed.

The public saw a company that began as two independent entities, later to amalgamate

themselves into a corporate giant that realized great success. That initial success would be

squandered, as irresponsible and unethical management would precipitate illegal and unsavory

business deals, leading to the company’s decline. Here is an example of short-term yields taking

precedence over long-term success, and shows how even a company as large and powerful as

Enron can quickly crash if managed improperly, and greediness overtakes the managers

(Company Overview 41).

These events led directly to the creation of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Sarbanes–

Oxley Act of 2002, also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor

Protection Act' and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' and
commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States Federal Law enacted on

July 30, 2002. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes and U.S. Representative

Michael G. Oxley. The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and

accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, WorldCom and other companies. These

scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies

collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. ("SARBANES-OXLEY").

After the Sarbanes Oxley act came into force, accounting system and financial statements

disclosed by the companies made tremendous progress. This improvement has been possible due

to thorough requirements stated in the Sarbanes Oxley act. Due to this upgrade it helps to protect

investor confidence in the companies and the US legislature as well. Moreover, it also helps in

establishing a public company accounting oversight board, auditor independence, and corporate

responsibility and enhanced financial disclosures. ( Murray).

The act created new standards for corporate accountability as well as new penalties for

acts of wrongdoings. (SOX-online). The act also does audits to check up within the company to

see if all financial data is accurate.

A variety of complex factors created the conditions and culture in which a series of large

corporate frauds occurred during the year of 2002. The highly-publicized frauds at Enron

exposed significant problems with conflicts of interest and incentive compensation practices.

Enron was in over their heads as soon they started deceiving their customers. A principal agent

problem arises when management peruses their own goals, when doing so, lowers the profits for

the company. The principal agent problem for Enron was the director’s willingness to jeopardize

their company’s future by greed and self worth. They would keep doing business to benefit

themselves while the actions they were doing it in was pretty close to be untraceable, until
everything turned into an investigation. Then the truth was there to be seen by everyone

(Company Overview 41).

Even though Enron was a powerful company, the law did not permit them to commit

fraudulent acts. In results of the companies actions, the way businesses do accounting has

changed both in the US and worldwide. Everything is more closely monitored through The

Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
WORKS CITED

"A Guide To The Sarbanes-Oxley Act." SARBANES-OXLEY (2006): n. pag. Web. 14 Dec

2009. <http://www.soxlaw.com/index.htm>.

AICPA . "Archive - Schedule for Congressional Hearings on Enron Situation." AICPA: Center

for Auidt Quality. 22 jul 2002. AICPA, Web. 16 Feb 2010.

<http://thecaq.aicpa.org/Resources/Sarbanes+Oxley/Archive+-

+Schedule+for+Congressional+Hearings+on+Enron+Situation.htm>.

Associated Press, . "A Look at Those Involved in Enron Scandal." Los Angeles Times May.25

(2006): n. pag. Web. 24 Mar 2010. <http://www.latimes.com/sns-ap-enron-trial-

glance,0,2612373,full.story>.

BBC News . "Bitter row dominates Enron hearing." BBC News world. 02 feb 2006. BBC News ,

Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1841824.stm>.

Berenstain, Ronald, Joseph Bringman, and David Taylor. "U.S. Supreme Court Reverses

Criminal Conviction of." Perkins Coie: Legal Counsel to Great Companies. 01 jul 2007.

Perkins Coie, Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://www.perkinscoie.com/news/pubs_detail.aspx?

publication=919>.

"Enron Corporation." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. 6th ed. 2009. Web.

"Enron founder Ken Lay dies of heart disease." MSNBC.com. MSNBC, 05 jul 2006. Web. 24

Mar 2010. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13715925/>.

Farrell, Greg. "Sarbanes-Oxley has been a pretty clean sweep." USA TODAY 30 JUL 2007:

Money 06b. Print.

"Fast Facts: Enron Case." FOXNews.com. Fox News, 28 dec 2005. Web. 24 Mar 2010.

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180015,00.html>.
Giroux, G. (2008). What Went wrong? accounting fraud and lessons from the recent scandals...

Social Research, 75(4), Retrieved from <http://libdb.sjfc.edu:2500/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36934864&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.

"Lay, Skilling guilty on nearly all counts." MSNBC.com. MSNBC, 25 may 2006. Web. 24 Mar

2010. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12968481/>.

McSweeney, Dean. "Reform in a Cold Climate: Change in US Campaign Finance Law."

Government and Opposition. 40.4 (2005): 509, 511. Print.

Murray, James. "The Sarbanes-oxley Act and Enron." (2007): n. pag. Web. 6 Apr 2010.

http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/the-sarbanesoxley-act-and-enron-

223588.html

Nadar, Ralph. "After Enron." Progressive. 66.3 (2002): 18. Print.

Oppel, Richard, and Stephen Labaton. "ENRON'S COLLAPSE: THE OVERVIEW; Enron

Hearings Open, Focusing on Destroyed Papers." New York Times 25 JAN 2002, New

York ed.: A1. Print.

Smith, Rebecca, and John Emshwiller. "Enron Faces Collapse as Dynegy Bolts And Stock Price,

Credit Standing Dive." Wall Street Journal 29 Nov 2001: 1. Web. 24 Mar 2010.

<http://bodurtha.georgetown.edu/enron/Enron%20Faces%20Collapse%20as%20Dynegy

%20Bolts%20And%20Stock%20Price,%20Credit%20Standing%20Dive.htm>.

SOX-online. "Sarbanes-Oxley Essential Information." (2006): n. pag. Web. 6 Apr 2010.

<http://www.sox-online.com/basics.html>.

Stabile, Susan J. "Enron, Global Crossing, and Beyond: Implications For Workers." St. John's

Law Review. 76.4 (2002): 815, 831. Print.

"The Enron Scandal." Junior Scholastic 104.13 (2002): 4. Web. 24 Mar 2010.

<http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=4&sid=e4b8a482-ef2f-4a5f-a78b-

183dbba945d3%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d

%3d#db=prh&AN=6262141>.

"The Real Enron Scandal." New Republic. 226.3 (2002): 7. Print.

Thomas, C. William, “The Rise and Fall of Enron”, When a company looks too good to be true,

it usually is. Journal of Accountancy 193.4 (April 2002) pg. 41 General Onefile Web 16

October, 2009 In text citation (Thomas 41)

US Department of State . "CRS Report for Congress: Enron-A Select Chronology of

Congressional,." US Department of State. 09 apr 2002. US Department of State: Foreign

Press Center, Web. 16 Feb 2010.

<http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9659.pdf>.