Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

In re Enron Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
235 F.Supp. 549 (2002)


Purchasers of Enron Corporation’s public securities (plaintiffs) brought a class action against Citigroup, Vinson & Elkins, Arthur Anderson, and other entities (defendants), alleging that they made false statements or failed to disclose adverse facts while selling the Enron securities, or participated in a scheme that defrauded or deceived the securities purchasers. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in an enormous Ponzi scheme involving the creation of Enron-controlled entities and the sale of unwanted Enron assets to these entities in non-arms-length transactions to obscure debt and create sham profits on Enron’s books, in an effort to induce new investments and maintain the scheme. The complaint alleges that Enron’s accountants, outside law firms, and banks, who worked closely with Enron, greatly benefitted from this scheme, causing them to support Enron’s misstatements about its financial condition, and thereby deceiving investors and the public. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Citigroup participated in a repeated pattern of disguised loans to Enron totaling $2.4 billion at double the normal interest rates, which provided Citigroup with $70 million a year for its role in the Ponzi scheme; that the law firm Vinson & Elkins wrote and approved Enron’s SEC filings and public statements, and helped create the Enron-controlled entities, in exchange for lucrative fees; and that the accounting and auditing firm Arthur Anderson engaged in a pattern of fraudulent audits of Enron, and gave Enron a clean audit opinion despite having intimate knowledge of the details of Enron’s alleged fraudulent activity. The defendants have moved to dismiss the claims against them.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Harmon, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.