Ben Stein again playing Enron with Central Bank

The multi-untalented (lawyer, economist, actor, writer!) Ben Stein sounds off on aiding and abetting. Again.

It's more of the same idiocy, again lashed to a deliberate obfuscation. In both the column last April and today, Ben wants us to believe that this is all about the Fifth Circuit's decision in the Enron case. But the case the Court is considering so far on this issue, and the case the government was considering weighing in on, is not the Enron case, it is the Stoneridge case. But of course Ben gets to avoid anything like analysis of the issues if he can just summon the ghost of Enron and its cheated shareholders.

For the record, here's what Ben has to say by way of analysis: "There is no justice in this refusal to aid the Enron shareholders. There is no political gain from slapping the little guy in the face."  That's it folks.

So here's some of what Ben didn't what to talk about, from my previous post:

Should Congress, or the courts, impose what is essentially a federal fiduciary duty on top of extensive state law in this area? If so, how far should the liability extend? What kinds of incentives will banks have if they are forced to join the legions of “gatekeepers” and no longer permitted to be just lenders or financiers? Who will be the winners – the shareholders (whom Ben calls “poor whipped dogs”) or trial lawyers?

Let me add that, despite the best efforts of Ben and his colleagues, we still live in a market economy.  If banks have to be warranters of truth, this will add to their cost of business, subtract from their rate of return. If investors really value the warranty, they'll pay more for bank-backed investments. If not, this is just an extra cost for the banks that will determine which deals they do.  Chances are the riskier firms will have to look elsewhere for financing.

There's still a separate issue as to whether the Court should take cert in the Enron case.  Here Ben's actually onto something in his own misguided way.  The Fifth Circuit's Enron opinion arguably goes further in killing scheme liability than would a decision for defendants limited to the Stoneridge facts. Thus, I have hypothesized that the Court

will add the Enron case to the appeal to increase that clarity. By doing this the Court can make sure that secondary civil liability under 10b-5 is really dead, and stays dead, rather than wandering in scheme liability form like some terrifying zombie.

In other words, if this case really were the Enron case, so much the worse for Ben's position. You see, Ben, why actually understanding the issues can pay off?

Meanwhile I have to ask again, why does the NYT continue to employ this guy.  Hint: it's a rhetorical question.