Introduction The chosen article is “Enron: Who’s Accountable” by Daniel Kedlac. Initially, Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation was an American company for energy. It is known as one of the most successful company for electricity, natural gas, pulp and paper, as well as communication companies in the world. It is also hailed as the America’s Most Innovative Company. But unfortunately, due to its bankruptcy in the late 2001, it appeared that the reported financial condition was maintained substantially by a systematic accounting fraud and because of that it was referred to as the Enron Scandal (Fusaro and Miller, 2002). The article is about the so-called scandal about the finances of Enron during the late 2001 and the related issues about political aspects. After a sequence of evidences about the inconsistent accounting procedures with regard to the fraud that have been responsible all throughout the 1990s comprising Enron and Arthur Andersen’s accounting firm, Enron held on the threshold of undergoing the biggest bankruptcy history. This happened specifically on the mid of 2001. As the scandal flaunted, the shares of Enron basically descended from over US$90.00 to pennies. It had been taken account a blues chip stock, so therefore this was an unparalleled and tragic scenario in the world of finances. Enron’s thrust existed after it was revealed that much of its revenue and profits were actually the outcome of deals with exceptional purpose entities such as limited partnerships that it controlled (Healy and Palepu, 2003). Thus, a lot of Enron’s debts and losses that it gone through was not reported in its financial statements. The bankruptcy was filed on the 2 nd of December, 2001. And the scandal resulted to the dissolution of Arthur Andersen accounting firm which was at that time said to be one of the top accounting firm worldwide. Upon founding that the firm was guilty of obstruction of justice in 2002 for obliterating the necessary documents to Enron audit and worst they were forced to stop auditing public companies. Although the conviction was thrown out in 2005 by the Supreme Court, the damage to the Andersen name has not permitted it from recurring as a feasible business (Fusaro and Miller, 2002). Days before in 2001, it was known that the management of Enron had been looking for new investment and trying to develop a new market. Their efforts were reported to have been failed. Big investors were actually approached for an attempt to make a profit but they were declined. According to sources, Enron was planning to give details about its business practices and procedures more fully in the next days with a lot of confidence but still they were afraid that they would not be able to find an investor who is willing to help them out because of the scandal that happened to them. After the reception of a wide continuum rejection, the management consequently found a help with the board of Dynegy which is an energy trader like them. Dynegy accepted Enron’s business and offered to help them with some grounds (Oppel, 2001). Thus, they confirmed their deal with Enron in 2001. Undoubtedly, a lot of comments were received by Enron and Dynegy specificall