Enron Scandal Case

1. Kenneth Lay’s values and vision were not met by the business practices of Enron. Enron claimed to be an ethical company, but that turned out not to be the case. They lied to their stakeholders by telling them that the company was in great financial shape when in reality they were not. The reason for the lie was to make sure that investors kept investing in the company. The lies hurt many of their stakeholders because it eventually led to their downfall which meant loss jobs within the organization, and lost jobs in the communities that supported Enron. In addition, many Enron employees lost thousands of dollars in their retirement plans. It is possible that Kenneth Lay really believed in his vision statement, and was left in the dark about what was going on with the company. I do not believe that to be the case. He was obviously a very intelligent man, and he would have had to have had his head in the …show more content…
In my opinion, the court would have ruled differently. If Flagiello had been a burglar, then she would not have been a paying customer. That was a big reason that stare decisis was not followed in this particular case. I do believe the judge would have had other similar cases to compare to before the actual decision would be made. I am not sure of the actual law, but I cannot imagine that any criminal would have legal rights to sue an organization that it was committing a crime against.
2. I believe that judges will have to make that determination for each and every case. Most cases have different circumstances that apply to that particular case. If there is precedent that follows that particular case to the letter, then stare decisis should be followed. If the circumstances of a case are not to the letter, then the judge will have to make the proper determination. Judges who make bad decisions in these matters may have to be overturned in appeal courts.
Case 3.1 Estate of Weingeroff vs Pilatus