Both the bar and the media have been polarized by the recent indictment of Arthur Andersen, with some feeling it was justified and others regarding it as a gross abuse of prosecutorial power. Yet, it is gradually becoming clear that we do not yet understand what actually happened.
According to recent reports in The New York Times, the Justice Department indicated a willingness to discuss a “deferred prosecution” of Arthur Andersen, but Andersen rejected it because it would entail a reputation-damaging admission of guilt. Other reports instead put the blame on the government. The real issue, however, is whether such a disposition now makes sense.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
