The Arthur Anderson company collapsed as a result of its conviction on a Federal charge of witness-tampering, a conviction that was overturned last month by the U.S. Supreme court.
While I feel nothing but sympathy for the thousands of blameless Arthur Andersen employees whose lives have been brutally disrupted, I can't help but think that the demise of Arthur Anderson despite this so-called "vindication" is anything but something that the company, if not its loyal employees, richly deserved.
I commend the Supreme Court for their quick, clear-eyed and unanimous judgment that Arthur Andersen's actions fell within company policy, and that at the time the documents were destroyed, the company was not the subject of a Federal investigation and the documents were not under subpoena.
However, for Arthur Andersen, I assert this "vindication" as "so-called" because clearly the instructions by the company's legal staff to adhere immediately to the (apparently laxly enforced) policies regarding destruction of documents was clearly in response to the Federal investigation into the actions of Enron, and in anticipation of likely subpoenas of documents held by Arthur Andersen. This was obviously a cynical attempt to destroy, at the very least, evidence of Arthur Andersen's failure to fulfill their fiduciary duty to ensure the accuracy of Enron's financial statements.
For the sake of the people that have had their lives needlessly disrupted, it is indeed unfortunate that this ruling comes a day late, although I wonder what effect an immediate acquittal would have had on the company's fortunes. The facts of the matter would still have resulted in a greatly tarnished reputation. But for the sake of the morally bankrupt leadership at Arthur Andersen that compromised their professional standards and preferred to rely on the narrow legality of their company policy to conceal their own firms incompetence and the actions of their largest client, perhaps there is more justice in justice delayed.
I would hope that those who have suffered as a result of Arthur Andersen's collapse place the blame where it belongs, with the questionable - though legal - actions of Arthur Andersen's management.
