It doesn't really change anything. It's not like people will get their jobs back or their retirement savings back. But I do think the trial is important. It will set a precedent of what's acceptable corporate conduct. Is it OK for executives to do anything so long as it's technically legal?

Small cap companies complain constantly that they are neglected. They have a very tough time getting Wall Street research analysts to follow them, to pay attention to them. There are small companies that will say that I have grown my earning at 20 percent over the last five years and no one will pay attention to me.

[While arguing that the Californian government was partly to blame for the chaos (] They did the wrong thing too in the way they set up their market ... Everything that's bad about it is on display here, its total rapaciousness, and after that you just can't believe that companies left to their own devices are going to do the right thing.

There is an advantage to size. It gets you noticed.

The story took on an importance later that it did not deserve originally. Whether I wrote that story or not, Enron would have gone bankrupt, investors would have lost billions of dollars and thousands of people would have lost their jobs. I just picked up on an underlying skepticism. If you had told me then that the company would go under by the end of the year, I would have never believed it. I was as naive as the rest of us.

it was shocking to me every step of the way with Enron to look at the culpability of others in the Enron affair because it's just not a case of a few bad apples down in Houston, Texas misbehaving, it's a case of almost everyone associated with the company, inside and outside, failing to do the right thing, and it's really frightening, and I think one person in the film describes it as synergistic corruption. That's a phrase I love.