capital is not arthur anderson. if s.a.c. capital goes away, there's 1,000 jobs lost, and it doesn't -- when arthur anderson went away, it cut down on the amount of competition in that space. it was viewed as a policy disaster. i don't think s.a.c. capital going away will be viewed by anybody in the justice department as a disaster or really bad consequence. >> you're right. >> still a blunt tool. >> yeah. >> look, if what you don't like is steve cohen's behavior, then what the justice department should be doing is going after him. they haven't been able to build this case. this is a poor substitute for that. >> but that's the point. they haven't been able to build the -- you know, build that case. and yet they're looking to take away all of the assets. >> it's extraordinary. i think one of the -- the government is obviously, one, very frustrated, because several of the people they've charged and expected to cooperate with them -- >> right. >> -- haven't. mare tome ma, they thought he would roll over like a lot of people have

they did it to arthur anderson and thousands of people lost their jobs.udential securities had problems years ago in connection with all of the limited partnership problems and there was that famous book written on it "the serpent on the rock", they didn't shut down prudential securities, they didn't shut down jpmorgan chase. if you are too big, they won't shut you down. but steve cohen, the world can live without him so they will try to shut him down. >> but wait, maria -- >> i'm bothered by it. >> final word. >> how many shredding incidences have we had since arthur anderson has been indicted for shredding? zero. in this case, i think it is warranted. >> thank you, gentlemen. appreciate your time tonight. we will take a break. corporate earnings continue to flow down wall street. we will round up the action right after this break. stay with us. at a dry cleaner, we replaced people with a machine. what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello? hello?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello? ally ba

>> he said this is not arthur anderson and it is something, and he didn't say sac, but they can wipe want to. and now we know that the government did regret arthur anderson, and they went after x-y-z bank and a huge bank in the country, it would be poorly received, but this one is not that huge, and e.f. hutton. and drexel. >> well, drexel caused significant issues in the high yield market. >> well, if we talk about arthur anderson, we forget that there was a history of companies where the credit lines ended, as you correctly pointed out. but if you are a broker, you need credit lines no doubt about it. look, we need to know more. you don't want to deal with something that is -- >> well, he has $8 billion of his own money, and not to mention the outside money. >> he is a fighter. >> unknown territory to say the least. what does it mean to the ability to keep employees, and again, back to the key relationship with the prime brokers, because we are providing them credit every single day in significant amounts, and wall street will suffer from this if the firm is reconstituted in a smal

and it takes very special circumstances, arthur anderson is shall redding the documents in enron, something at that level to go after the company. the idea of going after the company, not in a deferred prosecution agreement, but to kill it, that is something that you should not be doing if you do not have the goods to go after the people at the top level of the company. >> i have found it hard to believe that the department of justice can be accused of doing the wrong thing when they are going to have their day in court, they are going to go after the company, they have repeated over and over and over again serious misconduct, and that goes to the company. >> top, let me tell you -- >> why defer a prosecution agreement and put in a monitor, some person that you know, is affiliated with the government, or former government person that kills the company slowly, let's have it -- >> let me take what you said, if they successfully prosecute this company and don't just kill it by bringing an indictment against it, if they actually convict the family, i will say they did the wrong thing by not goi

did arthur anderson's shutdown indict you to close down the banks and those who have done in multipleolations? >> well, nobody is too big to indict, and too big the jao jai. i have been saying for years there is enough moral hazard in the industry, and if you tell people they have a get out of jail free card because of the size or the interconnectiveness to the economy, that is a dangerous thing. we don't do that and i try to say as often as i can, that is not the case. that said, you have to be made of the collateral consequences and maybe a case if you have gigantic institution, and whether you make toys or a financial institution, and you have 100 innocent employees and make a product and one bad guy, we have the basis to indict the company, but if that is an institution that will go out of business and you employ 100,000 people, and shareholders will lose billions of dollars and you have to take it into account. >> and even if they are guilty as hell? >> well, you have to take it into account. one individual at a 100,000-person company is one thing, but the analysis of the factors

indicted arthur anderson for its role in the enron scandal.th nell for the firm, which is one of the largest payers of commissions on wall street, generating more than $300 million a year in trading fees. it is likely firms that lend money and trade with sac will stop doing business with the firm. but the company does have substantial resources to keep operating. with $15 billion of assets representing money for cohen and his employees. in other corporate crime news, former goldman sachs trader fabrice tourre will be back on the stand today in his civil fraud trial in new york. he's accused of secretly helping the hedge fund paulson and company set up a mortgage bond deal it could bet against, costing investors $1 billion. on wednesday, tourre testified he wasn't trying to mislead anyone. he was questioned about a 2007 e-mail he sent to a former executive which helped structure the deal. tourre wouldn't say the e-mail was false, just that it was, quote, wasn't accurate. back to you. >> bertha, thank you very much for the update. >>> china's fo

arthur anderson in 2002, indicted for obstruction of justice, wiped out, supreme court overturned that conviction. this is, you know this is the ultimate battle. i'm really surprised that we are at this point, but these were discussions, back in may, between the company trying to persuade the justice department not to bring criminal charges, but almost appearing to be a game of one upsmanship between the southern district of new york and the s.e.c., you know, who can bring the next charge and be almost more macho or show more testosterone. >> steve cohen and sac were cooperating with the government up until a few months ago. at that point, they said, forget it, we're no longer cooperating. was that throwing down the gauntlet, this is what happens? >> it is throwing down the gauntlet. the real question here, to your point, a good one, is there still value in cooperating with the government? you have a company that cooperated, in connection with all of the criminal investigations of the internal staff who were accused and indicted for insider trading and at the end say thank you for your

poor arthur anderson, right? did you remember that? >> i do. >> wasn't a guy. >> wasn't a guy. thousands of employees. >> going to send him to -- but they didn't. all right. >> right now, time for the global markets report. ross westgate is in london. ross, good morning. >> hey, becky. good morning to you. thank you very much indeed for joining us. we got right now advancers being outpaced by decliners on the dow jones 600. we're at the low point of the session in terms of price action. around 6 to 4, 2 to 3 right now. ftse 100 yesterday down one half of 1%. this morning, just lower again, down nearly a quarter of a percent. earnings still very much in focus, we'll get on to that. the cac quarante up a third. the xetra dax down half. the ibex outperforming for the second day in a row. the employment picture looking better than we might have thought yesterday, so up nearly 8%. you mentioned activision blizzard, and vivendi. just show you what is happening with the stocks here in europe. vivendi up 2%, will retain the 12% stake in activision blizzard. don't forget, they're going

. >> and yes, you could say it is worse than him being charged drktly, and drexel and arthur andersonurvive that and keep in mind they borrow a tremendous amount of money from jpmorgan and goldman sachs and that is where the leverage is and if you run with of the banks do you want to extend the credit if the company is indicted? we will have much more on that. >> and jim is with "6 in 60" coming up next. ♪ [ male announcer ] you wait all year for summer. ♪ this summer was definitely worth the wait. ♪ summer's best event from cadillac. let summer try and pass you by. lease this all-new cadillac ats for around $299 per month or purchase for 0% apr for 60 months. come in now for the best offers of the model year. fso you're worried about housef fires? stop smoking. manage your wires. watch out for space heaters. clean the chimney. get one of these. cool the romance. and of course, talk to farmers. hi. ♪ we are farmers bum - pa - dum, bum - bum - bum - bum♪ >>> "6 in 60" with jim. blast from the past. >> yes. and remember that, i am pulling for oleman, but i am not wanting to be in jcpenn

and it is the same thing with arthur anderson and they would be without jobs, but it is not true. talented people, and there are a lot of people who are talented who are not dishonest at sac. >> well, they are, and they have been paid well sh, and it is no job market though right now. and i want to get your look at the government's desire to bankrupt mr. cohen, and going afterf assets that are not connected to any insooider trading. what is that about? does that maintain throughout the period to come, or do they change the forfeiture? >> well, they will adjust it a little bit. what they are most focussed on, and of course, only the u.s. attorney knows for sure, but what they are most focused on is any proceeds made or profits made through the illegal activity, and that is what they want to go after. but at the beginning, they start with a broad net as they have here, and a broad request. i suspect that you will see it taper down as we move forward. >> tom, you have skipped over what seems to be one of the fundamental elements of the trial, and that is the 34-year-old trader who is