Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Skilling

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
554 F.3d 529 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employee commits honest-services fraud by breaching their fiduciary duty to their employer through fraudulent conduct, even if the conduct was intended to benefit the corporation. An employee may not be liable if their specific fraudulent actions were explicitly sanctioned and directed by a supervising corporate decision-maker, but a senior executive cannot sanction their own fraudulent conduct.


Facts:

  • Jeffrey Skilling was a high-ranking executive at Enron Corporation, rising from President and COO to CEO.
  • Skilling and other top executives, including CFO Andrew Fastow, conspired to manipulate Enron's reported earnings to meet Wall Street expectations and keep the company's stock price artificially high.
  • The scheme involved hiding hundreds of millions of dollars in losses from struggling divisions, such as Enron Energy Services (EES) and Enron Broadband Services (EBS), by improperly transferring those losses to Enron's profitable Wholesale division.
  • Skilling made numerous false and misleading public statements to investors and analysts, portraying struggling divisions as financially healthy and successful when he knew they were failing.
  • Skilling also manipulated Enron's reserve accounts, improperly releasing funds from them to artificially inflate quarterly earnings to meet or beat consensus estimates.
  • Skilling and Fastow used special purpose entities, such as LJM, to execute sham transactions that appeared to be legitimate sales but were secretly backed by oral side-deals where Skilling guaranteed LJM would not lose money, thereby hiding debt and improperly recognizing revenue.
  • Shortly after abruptly resigning from Enron in August 2001, Skilling sold a large block of his Enron stock in September 2001, allegedly based on his inside knowledge of the company's dire financial condition.
  • Approximately four months after Skilling's resignation, Enron collapsed into bankruptcy.

Procedural Posture:

  • A grand jury in the Southern District of Texas returned a superseding indictment charging Jeffrey Skilling, Ken Lay, and Richard Causey with various counts of conspiracy, fraud, and insider trading.
  • Co-defendant Richard Causey pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud prior to trial.
  • Skilling and Lay proceeded to a joint jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (trial court).
  • The jury convicted Skilling on nineteen counts, including one count of conspiracy, twelve counts of securities fraud, five counts of making false statements to auditors, and one count of insider trading.
  • The district court sentenced Skilling to 292 months' imprisonment, three years' supervised release, and $45 million in restitution.
  • Skilling (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a high-level corporate executive commit honest-services wire fraud by engaging in fraudulent conduct intended to benefit the corporation through an inflated stock price, where that conduct was not explicitly directed by a supervising corporate decision-maker?


Opinions:

Majority - Prado, J.

Yes, a high-level corporate executive commits honest-services wire fraud by engaging in such conduct. An employee deprives their employer of honest services by breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty and honesty, and a fraudulent scheme intended to benefit the corporation is not a defense unless the employee was explicitly directed by a supervising decision-maker to undertake the specific fraudulent means. The court reasoned by analyzing its precedents in United States v. Gray and United States v. Brown. Gray established that an employee's intent to help the employer is not a defense to honest-services fraud. Brown created a narrow exception where lower-level employees who engaged in fraud were not liable because they acted at the explicit direction of a corporate decision-maker (CFO Andrew Fastow) who had sanctioned the specific fraudulent conduct. Skilling misconstrued Brown to mean that any action taken in the corporate interest is not fraud. The court clarified that the Brown exception does not apply to a senior executive like Skilling, who was a primary architect of the fraud. Skilling did not allege that a supervising decision-maker, such as the Board of Directors, specifically directed his fraudulent acts. A senior executive cannot sanction their own fraud and then claim protection under the Brown exception.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the honest-services fraud doctrine in the corporate context, particularly for high-level executives. It narrowly interprets the exception established in United States v. Brown, confining it to lower-level employees who act at the explicit direction of a superior. The ruling establishes that a senior executive cannot use the 'corporate benefit' as a shield for fraudulent conduct, reinforcing that the fiduciary duty of honesty is owed to the corporation itself, not just its stock price. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to prosecute corporate leaders who orchestrate fraud, even if they do not directly embezzle funds, by preventing them from claiming they were merely acting in the company's best interests.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Skilling (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"