The article "Lawmakers Lay into Lehman CEO" makes it seem like the company's CEO, Richard Fuld, Jr., tried to tell investors the idea that the company was doing okay even though he knew that it was in trouble. Fuld said that he did not lie to investors. However, the "hefty borrowing, high pay, and excessive risk-taking" that lawmakers talked about shows that he probably did lie (Craig). Fuld told them that "there was no intent to mislead anyone," but this disagreed with the facts that were given in the case. This included his "upbeat public comments" on the company's financial situation. The article talked about investors that carried signs outside of Fuld's trial that said "Crook" and "Jail not Bail" (Craig). These signs show that the investors think Fuld cheated them out of their money.
In my opinion, the article was good for explaining both sides of the situation. It included what Fuld said that explains why he does not think he did anything wrong. It also included what the lawmakers asked him, which gave the hints about things that he might have done wrong. Also, it included what the investors thought and did. Therefore, the article gave everybody's side to the story. Thus, I believe the article was a fair one and had much balance to it.
Lehman Brothers expected to be helped right before the company collapsed. However, people were in danger of losing their savings and it was not right for the company to take those big risks with the people's money. I do not believe it is okay to remain optimistic when people can loose their savings. This is tricking the people. When people take their money to a company like Lehman Brothers, it is so the company can help them increase their money by investing it wisely. Lehman Brothers did not do this. They gave the people advice that was not wise and it caused people to lose their savings. This is wrong. A company with ethics tells its customers t
...