You can read more on the above here.

Now let's take a look at Richard Fuld's testimony before Congress on the issue:

(From the WSJ): "In his first public statements since Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection Sept. 15, Mr. Fuld testified that he didn't deceive investors and others about the securities firm's financial health. This was despite repeated internal warnings, cited by lawmakers, that Lehman was on shaky ground.

In sometimes halting language, Mr. Fuld said that while he takes responsibility for decisions the firm made, he believes that Lehman was brought down by outside forces including lax oversight and "short sellers," traders who were betting Lehman's stock price would fall…

...Meanwhile, lawmakers estimated that Mr. Fuld pocketed roughly $480 million in pay since 2000. He suggested that his pay was closer to $350 million in that time and noted that Lehman's compensation system ties executive pay to performance. He said his 2007 pay, most of which came in Lehman stock, was nearly wiped out because of Lehman's bankruptcy filing…

For much of the almost-three-hour session, lawmakers asked Mr. Fuld about the juxtaposition of upbeat public comments he and other Lehman executives made about the firm and the dire internal view of the Lehman's growing problems.

Lawmakers cited a Wall Street Journal page-one article Monday that examined the lengths Lehman went to conceal its deteriorating financial condition in its last week. The article raised a number of questions, including whether Lehman executives knew, but didn't disclose, that the firm needed to raise capital ahead of a critical Lehman conference call with investors on Sept. 10, five days before it filed for bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Fuld told lawmakers "there was no intent to mislead anyone." He said he believed on Sept. 10 that Lehman was adequately capitalized and that future capital raises would depend on how much money the firm could drum up through the sale of assets and a planned restructuring.

Lawmakers also pointed to an internal Lehman document from June that questioned how the firm had allowed itself to become so exposed to the real-estate market and didn't show enough discipline in allocating its capital. "That is not what you told the public," said Rep. Brian Higgins, a New York Democrat.

Mr. Fuld said he didn't recall seeing the June talking points."

You can read more of the above here.

Let's quickly dissect some of the nonsense contained within Richard Fuld's (who henceforth shall be referred to as Elmer Fudd on this blog) testimony before Congress:

Oversight: how can one claim responsibility whilst at the same time blaming regulators (lax oversight) for allowing him to screw up, effectively making the claim that he's only a mere child and while he "takes responsibility" he can't truly be responsible since it's really the job of those providing oversight to keep him out of trouble? The statement doesn't even make sense and is extremely hypocritical, when I'm sure Elmer would've been one of the first ones crying to his lobbyist if the government had tightened regulations on the financial industry during the housing boom.

Misleading Statements: this is one of those cases when it would've been better for Elmer not to say anything at all, as all he's done here is to reveal himself to be a criminal at worst and a liar at best. Internal documents, discussions and even his own actions as CEO reveal that there was a marked difference between what was being said/done internally and was being said in public. For instance: how in he world can he defend the fact that he claimed that the company didn't need outside capital when an internal analysis had revealed the opposite AND the company was facing a collateral call from J.P.