Democrat Fact Sheet – Enron, Haliburton And Harken
Democratic Party Document Summarising White House
Corporate Responsibility Conflicts Of
Interest
Transcript From Document
Posted…
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/bushcorpltrattach72402.pdf
Contents
I. The President
II. The
Vice-President
III. Deputy Attorney
General (Larry Thompson)
IV. Secretary of
the Army (Thomas White)
Harken allegations Concerns have been raised
that you may have engaged in insider trading in violation of
securities law during your tenure as a Director of Harken
Energy Corporation. Under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-1 (insider trading
of securities based upon material nonpublic information),
one who is in possession of information not yet available to
the public and who trades in securities about which this
information is pertinent can be fined up to $1,000,000
and/or imprisoned up to ten years. As Director of Harken
Energy Corporation and the son of President George H.W.
Bush, you were privy to substantial information not
available to the general public prior to your June 22, 1990
sale of 212,000 shares of Harken stock. It has been well
documented that, a mere two months after the sale of the
stock, the price fell from $5.50/share to $1.25/share. You
were one of three members of Harken’s audit committee as
well as of a special “fairness committee” appointed to
consider how its restructuring would affect the value of the
company’s outstanding shares. As such, several memoranda
were addressed to you prior to this stock sale that provided
substantial insider information about the troubled financial
condition of Harken. Among these memoranda were the
following:
• On February 1, 1990, Mikel D. Faulkner,
President of Harken Energy, wrote to the Board of Directors:
"It appears that our 1989 profitability will be in the range
of $1.2 million. Although disappointing, this is consistent
with the last projection which was made and provided to the
Board… Although several accounting issues remain unresolved,
it is anticipated that none of them should cause major
changes either up or down in that projection.” • On April
20, 1990, just two months before your stock sale, Harken
President Mikel Fauklner wrote to the Board of Directors
that “two events have occurred which drastically affect
Harken's current strategic plan with regard to seeking
public funds to reduce our debt and provide equity for
current capital opportunities," and that the development
"greatly intensifies our current liquidity problem.” • On
June 7, 1990, just two weeks before your stock sale, another
memo from Faulkner warned of a "Harken International
shutdown effective June 30, unless third party funding [is]
obtained," and discussed plans to lay off 40 employees. The
memo said the company had lost $28.5 million in trade credit
since Jan. 1, and another $11.8 million was "in jeopardy,"
and said "most companies that have seen [the company's
annual report] are nervous.” Some have alleged that you
were acutely aware of this information. According to a June
15, 1989 letter from Harken President Mikel Faulkner you
frequently advised Harken management on "organizational and
strategic matters." In the letter, Faulkner praised you for
"the positive image you have helped create regarding Harken
Energy Corporation, the intuitive analysis you have provided
on our various acquisitions, operating decisions at the
board level and the personal suggestions and ideas you have
shared with me over the past two years on a CEO to CEO
basis" and said, "I consider the role which you play at
Harken Energy Corporation to be a very meaningful and
significant role and look forward to a continuing
relationship.” Additionally, there are concerns that, as
the son of the President of the United States at a time when
the White House, but not the general public, was well aware
of the aggressive intentions of Saddam Hussein in the lead
up to the Persian Gulf conflict, you may have been privy to
this information. It was also well known that such a
conflict would cause substantial disruptions in the oil
industry. There are concerns that you knew that any stock
sale based upon insider information was a serious offense
because you were so informed in a June 15, 1990 memorandum,
one week before your stock sale, by Harken’s attorneys at
the firm of Haynes and Boone, with the subject line
"Liability for Insider Trading and Short-Swing Profits." The
memo states the following: "If the insiders presently
possess any material non-public information, a sale of any
of their shares could be viewed critically.” Defending
against these allegations, your representatives have
asserted that you always intended to sell the Harken stock,
an assertion which is also contradicted by documentary
evidence. In fact, you signed a letter of intent, a
so-called “lockup letter,” promising not to sell any Harken
stock for at least six months, but then sold it two and a
half months later. b) Alleged Efforts to Conceal
Insider Trading Violations There are concerns that you
may have attempted to conceal your alleged insider trading
acts which, if true, would violate 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)
(securities fraud), the general antifraud provision of the
Securities Exchange Act, which prohibits the use of “any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities.
Violations include filing false or misleading statements
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Penalties for
violating the general antifraud provision are found at 15
U.S.C. section 78ff(a) and permit fines up to $1,000,000 (up
to $2,500,000 if other than a natural person) and/or
imprisonment up to ten years. As has been widely reported,
you failed to file the required Form 4, a required notice
for an insider’s stock trade, until eight months after the
sale. You have given conflicting explanations for this
failure. In 1992, you blamed your Commission, asserting that
the SEC lost the Form 4. However, on July 3 of this year,
you, speaking through your Press Secretary said there was a
“mixup with the attorneys dealing with the Form 4, and it
was filed later.” There are concerns that you knew that
filing this form was an urgent matter but nonetheless did
not file it: • A January 19, 1990 memo from Harken counsel
Larry Cummings to you emphasized the importance of the
filing: "[p]robably the most outstanding feature of changes
in this rule will be the requirement that a disclosure be
made by the company in its proxy or 10K concerning late Form
3 or 4 filings ... Please examine your records and files to
be certain that this information is current concerning your
beneficial ownership of Harken stock and there have been no
other transactions since such date which have not been
disclosed.” • On March 14, 1990 a Public Common Stock
Offering was presented to the Board of Directors, which
stated, "In working and planning toward the public offering
which will be priced based on the market price for the
Company's common stock established on or about Closing, it
is appropriate for the Company to take reasonable steps and
measures to avoid fluctuations in the market price," the
document notes. Among those steps: "Exercise caution
regarding insider and related party transactions.” • An
October 5, 1989 memo from Harken counsel Larry Cummings to
you urged you to rectify the situation: "I could not find
where Form 4 had been filed covering the 25,000 shares you
purchased this year ... If you have no record of filing one,
please sign the enclosed 5 copies of a Form 4 and return
them to me”. c) Allegations Concerning False
Statements Made Under Oath Moreover, there are
concerns that the Form 4 itself contains indicia of a
possible attempt to conceal its late filing which may
constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false
statements)–among other things, this covers in any matter
within the jurisdiction of the federal Executive,
Legislative or Judicial Branches, knowingly and willfully
falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick, scheme,
or device a material fact; making any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
making or using any false writing or document, knowing that
it contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry. Maximum penalties include imprisonment
of not more than 5 years, a fine under Title 18, U.S.C.5 or
both. The fact is that the only form that has come
to light that you failed to inscribe with the appropriate
date, was this belated Form 4. Other forms submitted to the
SEC by you on June 22, 1990; April 13, 1987; April 12, 1987
and October 6, 1989 were all dated. In context, such an
omission appears to be an intentional effort to conceal the
trade. 2. Lack of Investigation of Harken Contrary to
your assertion that “[t]his was fully looked into by the
SEC, and there’s nothing there,” there are concerns that the
SEC investigation of Harken can be characterized as cursory,
charitably speaking. You were never interviewed, nor were
other prominent Harken officers and the Chairman of the SEC
was appointed by your father and the General Counsel, James
A. Doty, was your attorney in your purchase of the Texas
Rangers baseball team. It is, therefore, alleged that a
clear that a fair, impartial and complete investigation has
yet to occur. 3. Need for Full Disclosure On July 8, you
invited the media to “look back on the director's minutes”
and SEC documents concerning your Harken dealings. However,
since then, you have refused to ask Harken or the SEC to
disclose those documents. Halliburton a)
Securities Fraud Allegations There are concerns that,
while CEO of Halliburton Co., Vice President Cheney may have
participated in fraudulent securities transactions under
under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (securities fraud), the general
antifraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act, which
prohibits the use of “any manipulative or deceptive device
or contrivance” in connection with the purchase or sale of
securities. Violations include filing false or misleading
statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Penalties for violating the general antifraud provision are
found at 15 U.S.C. section 78ff(a) and permit fines up to
$1,000,000 (up to $2,500,000 if other than a natural person)
and/or imprisonment up to ten years. As CEO of
Halliburton, the Vice-President oversaw a change in its
accounting practices that enabled the company to postpone
possible losses of hundreds of millions of
dollars. However, Halliburton did not reveal the change to
investors for more than a year after its
institution. There is troubling information in the factual
record that has raised concerns that the Vice- President
knew about these fraudulent accounting practices. The
current CEO of Halliburton, David Lesar, has indicated that
the Vice-President was well aware of those accounting
practices. In addition, a 2000 memo from Terry Hatchett,
the Arthur Anderson partner who managed the Halliburton
account, indicates that he worked closely with the
Vice-President. Finally, while he was an executive at
Halliburton, the Vice-President recorded a videotaped
endorsement of Anderson’s accounting practices. b)
Insider Trading Allegations There are concerns that
the Vice-President may have engaged in insider trading in
violation of securities law while divesting himself of
Halliburton holdings. Under 15 U.S.C. §78u-1 (insider
trading of securities based upon material nonpublic
information), one who is in possession of information not
yet available to the public and who trades in securities
about which this information is pertinent can be fined up to
$1,000,000 and/or imprisoned up to ten years. After being
named as your running mate in 2000, the Vice President
divested himself of Halliburton holdings. If the Vice
President indeed knew about the fraudulent accounting
practices at Halliburton, he would, of course, have known
about the deleterious effect these practices would have on
the value of his Halliburton shares if they were revealed.
This raised concerns that the Vice-President may have traded
based on inside information and, therefore, violated insider
trading laws. c) Dealings with Iraq In addition,
it is now uncontroverted that, while the Vice President was
CEO of Halliburton, the company signed contracts with Iraq
worth $73 million. During the 2000 campaign, the Vice
President claimed that Halliburton had a “firm policy” of
not doing business with Iraq. However, this contention has
been adamantly denied by Halliburton officials. Given this
Administration’s stated intention of invading Iraq in the
near future, it is important to set the record straight so
that Congress can appropriately evaluate and place into
context any request to commit troops to this endeavor.
d) Need for Full Disclosure Unfortunately, Vice
President Cheney and his spokesperson have refused to answer
questions about this matter, imposing a blanket policy that
the Vice President won’t “discuss Halliburton issues.” Enron The head of the your “Swat
Team” on corporate crime is Deputy Attorney General Larry
Thompson. Unfortunately, he – too – is under an ethical and
legal cloud in these matters. He already has rejected
Ranking Member Conyers call, months ago, to recuse himself
from the Department's decisions in the Enron scandal,
because he had received benefits from--and might be
receiving a pension from--a law firm that has substantially
represented Enron. That raises a concerns that he will not
vigorously pursue the case against Enron. To date, not one
criminal action has been brought against any individual in
the Enron matter. Providian The Deputy Attorney General
was also on the board of Providian Financial Corporation and
chaired its compliance and audit committee, at a time
when--to put it very charitably--Providian was not only
unscrupulously enticing and exploiting the poorest class of
debtors, but also inflating earnings by excessive charges
and by engaging in shady lender practices that violated
federal and state consumer protection rules. His spokesman
has claimed that he only learned of these practices only
after regulators made inquiries. If this assertion is true,
and the chair of a compliance committee was unaware of
rampant fraud at his own company, that raises concerns that
he is not alert enough to competently investigate corporate
misdeeds.
a)
Insider Trading Allegations