Skip to main content

Cooperation: Andrew Fastow vs. Sam E. Antar

Andrew Fastow the former Chief Financial Officer of Enron and now a convicted felon has signed a “cooperation” agreement with the class action plaintiff law firms involved in recovering losses on behalf of many victims of the Enron fraud.


According a D & O Diary blog article entitled "Enron, Halliburton, and the Milberg Weiss Criminal Investigation" written by Kevin M. LaCroix:

“In return, Fastow received “the formal support of the Enron investors in a plea for leniency (a factor the Judge explicitly noted).” Fastow was also dismissed as a defendant from the civil suit and “even got the plaintiffs’ lawyers to pay his legal fees for his deposition.” As a result of the plea for leniency, the 10-year sentence to which Fastow agreed when he first entered his guilty plea was reduced to 6 years.”


In the Crazy Eddie fraud investigation I also “cooperated” with the government, civil plaintiff’s attorneys, and victims of my crimes. As a result of such “cooperation” they wrote letters to my sentencing Judge noting my “extensive cooperation” which probably kept me out of prison and left me without any civil judgments.


In the Wall Street Journal Law Blog I commented on an article entitled “Are Sentences for These Men Too Long?” written by Peter Lattman about my own cooperation and sentencing:

I have made no secret of the fact (as disclosed on my web site and public appearances) that my reason for “cooperating” with the government and civil plaintiffs was out of self interested fear of a very long prison sentence.


The government had me “cornered” and other family members more culpable than me had set me up to take the fall. Had I not been caught and learned from the consequences of my criminal actions I would still probably be a criminal today.


However, when I did “cooperate” for whatever reason, I did so without the protection of any plea bargain agreement and met thousands of times with investigators without my attorney present. I cooperated (yes of out self interest) and protected myself later with a plea agreement (unlike most felons today).


After about four years of cooperation (which included thousands of meetings without my attorney present) I first signed a plea agreement for two felonies with the US government. A little later they wanted three felony counts after I had agreed to two felony counts and I obliged them by pleading guilty to three felonies.


My “cooperation” was the cornerstone of the Crazy Eddie criminal and civil investigation which resulted in the victims recovering almost all monies made by the Antar family on the Crazy Eddie stock and having an unprecedented percentage recovery by victims of the fraud.


At sentencing I did not bombard the Judge with letters from everyone who I did a good deed for, family members, etc. There were only about 5 letters that went to the Judge – The US Attorney, the SEC, and the balance from attorneys representing all victims of the crimes. They all took note of the value of my “cooperation.”


At sentencing I told the Judge “For most of my adult life I was involved in a massive fraud. I’m embarrassed to…say that I always knew what I did was wrong” and I was ready to fully accept the consequences of my actions. The US Attorney recommended a downward departure sentence of about 2 years from my sentencing guideline exposure of about 4 to 5 years.


The Judge (a “law and order” Ronald Reagan appointee) sentenced me to 6 months house arrest, 1,200 hours of community service, three years probation, and fines.


While you may disagree with this “law and order” Republican appointed Judge’s decision regarding my admittedly light sentence the fact is that he took into account the truthfulness of my testimony, the fact that I made no excuses, the fact the I used no handler’s (attorneys) in making myself fully accessible to both criminal and civil plaintiff investigators and most of all the fact that I was willing to risk everything (by having no legal protection for 4 years) in helping the government and civil plaintiffs obtain justice (yes, for selfish reasons).


I have always disclosed my feeling that my sentencing was lenient and never said otherwise. I have learned that it is better to face the mercy of your victims and a sentencing Judge rather than face their anger.”


The difference between my self interested cooperation and Mr. Fastow’s is that I took the shot of helping the government, various civil plaintiffs attorneys and victims without the benefit of any legal protection in the hope that I would face their mercy rather than anger.


It seems that Mr. Fastow would have been wiser to cooperate with them the same way I did instead of covering himself first. He may have spent less time in prison.


The civil plaintiff’s attorneys could learn a lesson here too. You would not face the criticism leveled at you had you treated Andrew Fastow like me.

Comments

Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had …

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that Overstock.com CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…