RE: CIBC GUILTY - ENRON LAWSUITThe only items I was able to find are attached below but it's dated... very dated and it's a classic case of some lawyer going for deep pockets... can you say ambulance chaser.
Very confusing as to what and whom paid and if there was even any wrong doing???
Nine Banks Added to Enron Lawsuit
Monday, April 08, 2002
HOUSTON — Nine investment banks financed lucrative schemes that helped Enron Corp. maintain its pre-collapse image as a profit powerhouse, according to attorneys who plan to add the banks to a shareholder lawsuit.
William Lerach, the lead attorney in the case, said the banks' knowledge of the questionable partnerships and financial vehicles gave them an inside view of Enron's financial condition as they sold securities to investors. The attorneys plan Monday to add the banks as defendants in the class-action lawsuit.
``Every bank bears significant complicity for their involvement,'' Lerach said.
The banks named in the suit are J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Citigroup Inc.; Credit Suisse First Boston USA Inc.; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC); Bank of America Corp.; Merrill Lynch & Co.; Barclays Bank PLC; Deutsche Bank AG and Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.
The structures, backed by Enron stock and in part developed and funded by the banks, allegedly hid debt and inflated profits. Their ability to go unnoticed depended on a high stock price, since drops in shares triggered debt payments that would require Enron to issue more shares and reduce shareholder equity.
Enron shares started slipping from a high of $90 in August 2000, later invoking those triggers. It fell to less than a dollar by the time Enron descended into bankruptcy Dec. 2.
The $25 billion lawsuit originally was filed in December on behalf of large investors, the lead plaintiff being the University of California, which lost millions of dollars when Enron collapsed.
Original defendants included current and former Enron officials who sold more than $1 billion in stock from October 1998 through November last year and Arthur Andersen LLP, Enron's former auditor.
Lerach said subsequent investigation pointed to liability on the part of banks that were Enron's lenders and underwriters before alleged accounting abuses exposed last year fueled the company's implosion.
Citigroup spokesman Dan Noonan and Credit Suisse spokesman Pen Pendleton declined comment Sunday night. Other banks didn't return calls for comment.
New defendants also include two law firms that advised Enron on the partnerships and financial deals, Vinson & Elkins in Houston and Kirkland and Ellis in Chicago, and Andersen Worldwide.
Vinson & Elkins declined comment on the lawsuit. But the firm said in a statement that it remains confident that when the facts are known, ``it will be clear that Vinson & Elkins properly performed its professional responsibilities.''
Settlement talks with Andersen are continuing, but the firm's ability to pay has been questioned. Andersen has lost at least 132 public clients this year, most after the firm was indicted last month for shredding documents and deleting computer files related to Enron audits.
``Given what looks like the precarious position and financial condition of Andersen, it's not at all surprising they would look at other deep pockets as a strategic matter,'' said Henry T.C. Hu, a corporate law professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
Allegations in the lawsuit include:
—In December 1999, Merrill Lynch helped create LJM2, one of the partnerships credited with helping fuel Enron's downfall. Enron needed an entity to buy company assets to pump up year-end profits, so Merrill Lynch, CIBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Lehman Brothers invested about $14 million while J.P. Morgan offered a $65 million loan.
Run by Andrew Fastow, Enron's former chief financial officer, LJM2 used the money to buy four Enron assets that the company hadn't otherwise been able to sell. LJM2 sold those assets back to Enron in 2000.
—Enron invited partnerships or entities connected to J.P. Morgan, CIBC, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch to invest $150 million in LJM2 with a promise of a return of 30 percent or more with Fastow doing deals on one side of the table and Enron on the other.
—In December 2000, J.P. Morgan-controlled Mahonia Ltd. in the Channel Islands near England bought gas and oil contracts from Enron and later sold them back to the company, which counted the deals as revenue.
—From late 1999 through early 2001, Citigroup used a Cayman Islands subsidiary called Delta to swap future returns on investments with Enron. The lawsuit said the $2.4 billion deals were loans because Enron received money up front and was obliged to repay it over five years, yet Enron posted the loans on its books as ``assets from price risk management.''
—Credit Suisse in 2000 gave Enron $150 million using trades in derivatives. Enron could repay the money over two years, and payments would vary with the price of oil. Enron posted the money as ``assets from price risk management,'' while Credit Suisse counted it as a loan.
—In December 2000 CIBC formed a partnership with Enron, ``Project Braveheart,'' in which CIBC invested $115 million in return for a 93 percent return on Enron's profits from a video-on-demand deal with Blockbuster Inc. Enron posted $110 million in profits from the deal. But the lawsuit said Enron guaranteed CIBC's investment, and the video-on-demand deal was scuttled in March 2001.
Enron Decision May Be Good News for Some Canadian Banks
September 8, 2006, 7:38 am Link to This
Topics Investment Banking, LegalIndustries Energy/Utilities, Financial Services
Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank are pushing to put $800 million of Enron woes behind them in the wake of a Texas judge’s decision to toss out an Enron lawsuit against Barclays Bank, a decision that’s causing $2.4 billion worth of second-guessing at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
RBC and TD are among six banks battling a group of former Enron shareholders who are suing the failed utility’s lenders for $40 billion, and the pair have set aside up to $800 million against possible losses.
In the wake of that federal court decision to dismiss the suit against Barclays, RBC and TD have renewed their applications to have their own Enron lawsuits dismissed.
But for CIBC, who already agreed to fork over $2.4 billion in 2005 contribution to Enron shareholders, the Barclay’s decision casts a pall over the settlement.
“Some of the CIBC directors are questioning the decision to settle in the wake of Barclays’ win,” one bank executive told The Globe and Mail. However, an executive at a rival bank said: “The C.I.B.C. deal was done in the wake of similar settlements at Citibank and J.P. Morgan. You have to judge the decision in the context of the circumstances.”
Go to Article from The Globe and Mail »
4:54 PM on Tue Jan 22 2008
By Chris Walters
Today the U.S. Supreme Court effectively killed off any chance of a $40 billion class-action lawsuit against the investment firms that did business with Enron. The suit charged that the Wall Street firms were complicit in Enron's massive corporate fraud fiasco. The Supreme Court, however, just ruled on a similar case last week and found that "third parties - vendors, contractors and consultants such as banks, accountants or attorneys - can't be sued over corporate fraud unless investors relied on them when making their investing decisions."
"Enron Holder Suit Against Wall Street Rejected By High Court" [CNN Money]
Court Rejects Suit Against Enron Banks
By: Nicole Belle on Wednesday, March 21st, 2007 at 3:03 PM - PDT NYTimes:
A federal appeals panel ruled yesterday that a class-action lawsuit against investment banks over their role as advisers to Enron cannot go ahead, dealing a blow to shareholders who lost billions of dollars after the company collapsed in 2001.
While shareholders can still pursue individual claims against the banks, the decision stymies any mass effort by shareholders to recoup $40 billion in losses from the Wall Street banks that had earned millions of dollars in banking fees from Enron.
"This is a devastating ruling for shareholders," said Thomas R. Ajamie, a Houston securities lawyer. "It's hard to believe that shareholders won't recovery money from an admitted fraud, but this U.S. Court of Appeals circuit has been more hostile to investors than other circuits have been."
In its opinion, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, said: "Presuming plaintiffs' allegations to be true, Enron committed fraud by misstating its accounts, but the banks only aided and abetted that fraud by engaging in transactions to make it more plausible; they owed no duty to Enron's shareholders."
So they aided and abetted fraud, but owe no duty to the victims of that fraud? You have to twist your mind into a pretzel to wrap around that logic.
So gribbs...... if your still out there need your link or article. Thanks