[Download PDF]

INTRODUCTION

As directed by the Board, this Report addresses transactions between Enron and investment partnerships created and managed by Andrew S. Fastow, Enron's former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), and other Enron employees who worked for Fastow.

Many of the transactions we reviewed are extraordinarily complex. The Committee has done its best, given the available time and resources, to conduct a careful and impartial investigation. We have prepared a Report that explains the substance of the transactions and highlights their most important accounting, corporate governance, management oversight, and public disclosure issues. An exhaustive investigation of these related-party transactions would require time and resources beyond those available to the Committee. In light of the Board's expressed desire for a prompt explanation of these transactions, and pressing requests from governmental authorities to both the Committee and the Company, we provide this Report without further delay. We believe that the information and analysis it provides is a substantial first step in reviewing and understanding these transactions, and serves as an important starting point for further governmental or other investigations.

The Committee's mandate was specific and focused, so we need to explain what we did not do. We were not asked, and we have not attempted, to investigate the causes

29

Formation of the Committee. On October 16,2001, Enron announced its earnings for the third quarter of 2001. The announcement included an unexpected aftertax charge against earnings of $544 million "related to losses associated with certain investments, principally Enron's interest in The New Power Company, broadband and technology investments, and early termination during the third quarter of certain structured finance arrangements with a previously disclosed entity." In a conference call with securities analysts that day, Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay said that Enron's shareholders' equity was being reduced by $1.2 billion in connection with "the early termination" of "certain structured finance arrangements with a previously disclosed entity." Both the $544 million charge and the reduction of shareholders' equity related to transactions between Enron and LJM2 Co-Investment, L.P. ("UMT), a partnership created and managed by Fastow. The immediate response from the investment community and the media was intense and negative.

On October 22, Enron announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had requested that Enron voluntarily provide information about the related-party transactions with LJM2 that had been addressed in Enron's earnings announcement. Two

30

The Board of Directors established a Special Committee on October 28, consisting of three directors who were not employees of Enron. The Board authorized the Committee to conduct an investigation of the related-party transactions that were the subject of the SEC inquiry. In the weeks that followed, two new members were added to the Board: Dean William C. Powers, Jr. of the University of Texas School of Law and Raymond S. Troubh. Powers and Troubh, neither of whom had been a member of the Board at the time of the transactions under investigation, were appointed to the Committee (later renamed the Special Investigative Committee) and Powers was named Chairman. Two of the previously-appointed Directors stepped down so that the new Directors would constitute a majority. As constituted after these changes, the Committee's members are Powers, Troubh, and Herbert S. Winokur, Jr.³

³ Powers became Dean of the University of Texas Law School on September 1, 2000. He has been on the faculty since 1977. James Derrick, Enron's General Counsel, served on the Law School Foundation Board of Directors and the Executive Committee of the Law Alumni Association. He resigned from both positions when Powers was appointed to the Enron Board. He had previously been President of the Law Alumni Association. In 1998, Enron pledged a $250,000 gift to the Law School; the final payment was made in January 2001. Enron has also provided $2,250 in matching money for gifts made to the Law School by Enron employees. Vinson & Elkins has been a major financial supporter of the Law School. The portions of the Report describing and evaluating actions of Vinson & Elkins are solely the views of Troubh and Winokur. Winokur has been a member of the Board of Directors of Enron since 1985. He was Chairman of the Finance Committee during the time period relevant to this Report and participated in the decisions of the Board and the Finance Committee that are addressed in the Report. The portions of the Report describing and evaluating actions of the Board and its Committees are solely the views of Powers and Troubh.

31

On November 8, 200 1, Enron filed a Current Report on Form 8-K providing additional information about the previously announced charges, and about its business transactions with LJM2 and another limited partnership in which Fastow had been the general partner (]LJM Cayman, L.P., known as "LJM l"). Enron also announced its intention to restate its prior period financial statements for the years ending December 3 1, 1997 through 2000, and the quarters ending March 31 and June 30, 2001. On November 19, 200 1, Enron filed its quarterly report on Form I O-Q, which provided additional information about the restatement. On December 2, 2001, Enron and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

⁴ Wilmer, Cutler has performed certain legal services distinct from this Report and unrelated to any issues addressed in this Report for Enron or its subsidiaries in the last five years. These consist of the representation of an Enron subsidiary before the United States Supreme Court in Enron Power Marketing, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, _ U.S. _, 121 S. Ct. 2587 (2001), and the representation of Enron in connection with consideration by the European Commission of a merger of two outside entities. Deloitte & Touche has previously performed certain accounting and tax services for Enron, and certain limited tax-related services for Chewco Investments, not relating to the issues discussed in this Report. It also conducted a peer review of Arthur Andersen LLP in late 2001, including an expanded scope review of Andersen's Houston office, although this peer review did not cover Andersen's work for Enron.

32

There were some practical limitations on the information available to the Committee in preparing this Report. Although the Board directed that Enron employees cooperate with us, we had no power to compel third parties to submit to interviews, produce documents, or otherwise provide information. Certain former Enron employees who (we were told) played substantial roles in one or more of the transactions under investigation-including Fastow, Michael J. Kopper, and Ben F. Glisan, Jr.--declined to be interviewed either entirely or with respect to most issues. Fastow provided a limited number of documents and submitted to a brief interview, during which he declined to respond to most questions.⁵

⁵ In addition, largely because of time constraints and resource limitations resulting from the Company's bankruptcy, there are certain Enron-related materials the Committee has not been able to review (or review fully). At present, it is impossible to determine whether those materials contain important information. For example, the Committee has had little or no access to e-mails that are still being retrieved from archive tapes. Our counsel has informed us that, based on experience in other investigations, review of emails of this type may provide information that could be relevant to our analysis and conclusions.

33

There also may be differences between information obtained through voluntary interviews and document requests and information obtained through testimony under oath and by compulsory legal process. In particular, there can be differences between the quality of evidence obtained in informal interviews (such as the ones we conducted) and information obtained in questioning and cross-examination under oath. Moreover, given the circumstances surrounding Enron's demise and the many pending governmental investigations, some of the people we interviewed may have been motivated to describe events in a manner colored by self-interest or hindsight. We made every effort to maintain objectivity. When appropriate, our counsel used cross-examination techniques to test the credibility of witnesses. Within these inherent limitations, we believe that our

34

reasonable foundation on which to base at least preliminary judgment ⁶

⁶ Many of the transactions discussed in this Report are extraordinarily complex. In order to enhance the reader's understanding, we have taken several steps:

First, the Report uses certain conventions. The term "Enron" refers either to Enron Corp. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, unless the context requires greater precision. Dollar amounts or share amounts are approximate unless the precise figure is important. Each person is identified by his or her full name (and title, where relevant) the first time he or she is mentioned, and thereafter by last name only. No disrespect is intended. There were literally hundreds of people who were involved, in one way or another, in the transactions we reviewed. To avoid confusion, we refer to all but a few of the most substantial participants by title, position, or function rather than by name. The Report also omits certain details of transactions where we considered it appropriate in order to make the substance of the transaction more understandable to the non-expert reader.

Second, where we believed it would be helpful, we have included in the text of the report diagrams of the transactions being discussed. The diagrams omit certain details in order to make the structure and transaction more understandable.

Third, we have included in the Appendix both a glossary of certain terms and a timeline showing relevant events. Those are not intended to be exhaustive or allinclusive, but rather as summaries of relevant information.

Fourth, the historical financial data presented in this Report do not reflect the effects, if any, of the announced restatement of prior period financial statements, unless otherwise indicated.

35