Skilling Convictions Upheld, Resentencing Ordered

Prosecutors won their convictions of the top two men at Enron by arguing that employees were bound to serve honestly and not put their interests ahead of the company's. If they failed to do so, they deprived the company of "honest services" and committed a crime.

Prosecutors argued Skilling's actions were dishonest and contrary to the needs of the company's shareholders and its financial stability.

But when Skilling attorney Daniel Petrocelli argued his appeal before the 5th Circuit in April, he characterized his client as a loyal employee who at times might have bent the rules, but only for the company's benefit.

Petrocelli argued that while Skilling might not have done his job appropriately, he did not commit a crime.

The 5th Circuit has overturned several Enron-related convictions that were based on the honest services theory, ruling that executives did only what Enron wanted them to do and did not profit at its expense.

Some legal experts had thought that the honest services argument was Skilling's best chance at overturning some or possibly all of his convictions.