The verdicts have come down.
UCLA Corporate law professor Stephen Bainbridge has a good post covering various aspects:
3 interesting excerpts:
*It's not the crime, it's the cover up. The real crimes at Enron mainly consisted of turncoat government witness Andrew Fastow's shady deals, but Skilling and, especially, Lay are going down for improperly misrepresenting Enron's fortunes.
*Another victory ( http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2006/04/will_skilling_a.html ) for prediction markets: As I wrote back in April: "The latest contract at Tradesports ( http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/menu.jsp ) for Lay to be convicted on at least 4 counts was 65.5 and for Skilling to be convicted on a whopping 16 or more counts was 66. In other words, roughly 1-2 odds in favor of conviction."
*Blogger/law prof Larry Ribstein asks an interesting question about the acquittal of Skilling on most of the insider trading counts ( http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2006/05/lay_and_skillin.html ): "Does this mean that the jury thought he didn't know enough about what was happening to bar him from trading, but that he did know enough to go to jail for fraud?"