《The Economist》《经济学人》中文版

[2007.03.22]Enron litigation Laying down

Enron litigation
安然诉讼

Laying down
触礁搁浅
Mar 22nd 2007 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition


Bad news for banks that settled early with Enron's shareholders
对于那些早期与安然股东和解的银行来说，这是坏消息

DEFENDANTS in American securities suits do not always know how strong a hand they hold. They may fight and lose their case, when they should have settled. Or they may fold too early, when they could have stayed in the game and won.
在美国的证券诉讼中，被告并不总是知道和自己较劲的对手有多强。当他们应该和解的时候，他们可能会选择战斗并输掉诉讼。在他们能够继续留在游戏之中并且获胜的时候，他们也可能会过早收手。

Folding a strong hand is what Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Canada's CIBC appear to have done. In 2005, under pressure over their alleged roles in the fraud that felled Enron four years earlier, they each agreed to settle with the bust energy trader's shareholders for $2 billion or more. Though the sums were huge, they calculated that fighting on would only prolong the agony. That after all was the fate of lenders who refused to settle promptly in a case involving WorldCom, another dotcom-era implosion.
收起强力的手，似乎本周花旗、摩根大通和加拿大的CIBC所做的正是如此。在2005年，面对着被人指控在四年前毁灭安然的欺诈案中扮演了角色的压力，它 们各自同意与破产的能源交易公司的股东以20亿美元或更高的价格达成和解。虽然总量巨大，但是他们计算，继续斗争只会延长痛苦。毕竟这是涉及 WorldCom的案子中贷款方的命运，那也是网络时代的另一场内部崩塌。

But in light of a court ruling this week, the banks look to have made an unwise bet. Reversing an earlier decision by a district judge, a federal appeals court ruled that a class action pitting Enron shareholders against three banks that had refused to settle could not go ahead. “Pleased” in public, the lenders—Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch and Barclays—were privately cock-a-hoop. They may now avoid paying even a cent to the shareholders. It was also good news for holdouts in a separate Enron-related case, including the Royal Bank of Scotland and Toronto Dominion, which also stand to benefit. The plaintiffs, corralled by Bill Lerach, a lawyer, were aghast. They had been seeking $40 billion in total from those with any kind of link to the firm's accounting shenanigans.
不过本周的一场法院判决却显示，这些银行看起来是赌错了。一家联邦上诉法院推翻了早些时候地区法官的裁决，判定安然股东对拒绝和解的三家银行的共同起诉就 此结束。三家贷款方——瑞士信贷、美林、巴克莱——在公共场合上表示满意，私下里是得意洋洋。他们可能一分钱也不需要付给那些股东。另一件与安然相关的讼 案牵扯到苏格兰皇家银行和多伦多自治领银行，对于此案中的拒不让步者来说，这也是好消息，因为他们将因此而受益。由律师Bill Lerach集结的众多起诉人则为此大为惊骇。他们本来所追求的是，从与公司会计欺诈有任何关联的人手中获得总计400亿美元的赔偿。

Under a principle known as “scheme liability”, Mr Lerach had argued that Enron's financial advisers should be on the hook because they had helped devise its schemes to park debt off its balance sheet and inflate its revenues. But the three-judge panel ruled that even if the banks had “aided and abetted” fraud “by engaging in transactions to make it more plausible”, they owed no duty to Enron's shareholders. In essence, they decided that only those who mis-state accounts, not those who assist them, can be sued en masse.
Lerach先生曾认为，在“计划责任（scheme liability）”的原则下，安然的金融顾问应该无法逃脱责任，因为他们帮助设计了将债务置于资产负债表之外、夸大其收入的计划。但是由三名法官组成 的小组裁决，即使银行曾通过“参与使其更加模糊的交易”来“协助并鼓励”了欺诈，它们对安然的股东也不负有责任。实质上来说，他们决定只有那些虚报帐目的 人而不是协助于此的人可以被共同起诉。

That may seem unfair, but it is likely to stand. Though Mr Lerach and his lead plaintiff, the University of California, plan an appeal to the Supreme Court, few legal experts think the justices will take up the case. This is probably the end of the road for most shareholders, if not all. Though they can still sue individually, even the biggest awards would not match the costs of a prosecution.
似乎这不公平，但是可能将依然有效。虽然Lerach先生和主起诉人（加州大学）计划向最高法院上诉，但是很少有法律专家认为法官会接受此讼案。这可能是全部或是大多数股东的最终命运了。虽然他们依然可以个人起诉，但是最大的收获也无法与起诉的成本相抵。

Some see the ruling this week as yet more evidence of the tide turning against securities class actions. It follows a similar decision in December against plaintiffs looking to sue banks over their underwriting of public offerings. Judges are increasingly acknowledging that class-action certification, designed to be a mere step in the litigation process, all too often puts defendants under unbearable pressure to settle, even when they have a reasonable chance of winning on merit. But, as Adam Savett of Institutional Shareholder Services points out, securities law is still a largely unsettled area, reflected in the very different decisions emerging from the various appeals-court circuits. Banks that call their opponents' bets in the legal poker game will not always be as lucky as the three that prevailed this week.
有人将本周的判决看作是目前浪头推向证券共同起诉的另一证据。在此之前12月的一项类似裁决驳回了起诉人因银行包销公开募股而对其提起的诉讼。法官们越来 越承认，本来仅为诉讼过程中一个步骤的“共同起诉证明”，往往把被起诉人置于无法忍受的境地，迫使他们选择和解，尽管从实力上来说他们胜算很大。不过正如 “法人股东服务公司（Institutional Shareholder Services）”的Adam Savett指出的那样，证券法在很大程度上还是一个未确定的领域，这也体现在各种巡回上诉中出现了的差异巨大的裁决。在法律扑克游戏中，跟注的银行并不 会永远都像本周胜利的三家那样幸运。(yuyafox)

http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3891