In May 2002, Andersen was prosecuted for obstruction of justice based on two main reasons. First, David Duncan, Andersen's former partner in charge of the Enron audit, destroyed related documents to keep them out of the investigation. Second, Nancy Temple, Andersen's in-house attorney, suggested that management pay attention to its document retention policy. The jury convicted Andersen and found that David Duncan had been persuaded by corruption to impede the integrity of the judicial proceedings. In 2005, the Supreme Court overturned Andersen's conviction based on faulty jury instructions. However, this verdict is too late for Andersen who already exists in name only. The World English Dictionary defines corrupt as lacking integrity; open to or involving corruption or other dishonest practices; become or cause to become dishonest or disloyal. In this case, corruption is not appropriately applied to Andersen's actions. In the internal email of October 16, 2001, Nancy Temple suggested that Andersen pay attention to a potential investigation and attempt some protective actions. I read the original text of the email and found that there is no word to show that Nancy corruptly persuaded management to destroy the documents. He simply recommended that the management worry about the document retention policy. It is the lawyer's responsibility to provide clients with advice on upcoming litigation. Therefore, persuading a lawyer to withhold documents under a valid document retention policy cannot be characterized as a dishonest practice. So corruption is not appropriately applied to Andersen's actions. I believe Andersen broke the law. Management, including David Duncan, obviously knew that Andersen would launch an investigation because of the FAI audit...... half of the document ...... In 2002, Enron was saddled with huge debts and filed bankruptcy protection. Andersen also had no money to pay angry investors. The plaintiffs, investors and employees of Enron, failed to obtain sufficient compensation from Enron and Andersen. So they named these wealthy banks in the lawsuit to try to recover their huge loss. The plaintiffs believe that these banks helped Enron hide large debts and encouraged people to invest in Enron. Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse said they did not know Enron's actual financial situation. They defended that there is no substantial evidence to verify that investment banks had a significant role in the Enron scandal. However, in pursuit of their own profits, these banks may have conducted improper acts to mislead investors. Obviously they would like to settle the matter out of court and avoid a lawsuit that would seriously damage their reputation.