THE estate of Ken Lay, the late founder of Enron, is expected to escape a multibillion-dollar class action because the lead plaintiffs in the case are not expected to pursue his estate, The Times has learnt.

The Regents of the University of California, the lead plaintiffs in the shareholder class action filed on behalf of all investors who lost billions when Enron collapsed, will meet later this month to vote on removing Lay from the lawsuit.

But Trey Davis, a spokesman for the University of California, told The Times last night that the Regents are not expected to pursue Lay’s estate.

“I do not expect that we will pursue the litigation against Mr Lay or rather what’s left of his estate,” Mr Davis said. “The final decision is up to the Regents but I do not imagine it would be worth our while to go after what he has left behind.”

Lay was named as a defendant in the class action, which was filed in May 2003, along with Jeffrey Skilling, the former Enron chief executive also convicted of fraud.

Some 11 banks were named in the lawsuit, five of which have so far agreed to pay more than $7.3 billion (£4 billion) to settle claims that they helped Enron to dupe investors into believing the company was in good financial health while on the brink of bankruptcy.

Under US law, all liabilities from civil litigation pass to the estate of the deceased to be dealt with by his benefactors.

The expected decision to drop Lay and his estate from the lawsuit will come as a relief to Linda Lay, his widow, who is believed to be the main beneficiary of his estate. Most of the riches accrued by Lay during a life building Enron were held in company stock, which lost its value upon its demise.

In recent court appearances, the Lays explained how they had next to nothing left, with much of their cash spent on legal bills, which amounted to more than $20 million.

Last week the Justice Department asked Lay to pay more than $43 million of his remaining assets to the US Government because prosecutors said the sum amounted to “proceeds of fraud”.

Lay, who reported personal assets worth some $50 million when the Enron trial began, was considered to be cash-strapped upon his death. His wife and children are understood to have sizeable annuities, however, which will pay them an income from next year. Annuity and insurance policy income is protected from creditors under Texas law.

The Lays and their children also have several homes, including the holiday retreat in Aspen where Lay died, and at least one remaining home in Houston.

In 2001, when the Lays submitted their personal assets in a filing with the Justice Department, they valued their Houston home, which filled an entire floor in a luxury high-rise condominium project in the River Oaks neighbourhood, at $10 million and its furnishings at $2 million. When Lay was found guilty of fraud in May his children had to pledge their homes to pay a $5 million bond. The Lays’ 2001 holdings included $17 million in non-Enron public-company shares and other “ marketable investments”. The Lays also listed real-estate investments worth more than $8.5 million, other than their homes. They also had 13 vehicles, including three Mercedes and five Jeeps.

During the trial, Lay testified that he had to pay off some $100 million in personal debt, but said a large chunk of that funding came from selling some $70 million of his Enron shares.

HIS OWN WORDS

‘The responsibility of our board — a responsibility I expect them to fulfil — is to ensure legal and ethical conduct by the company and everyone in the company’ — 1999

‘There have been all kinds of reckless and unfounded rumours about Enron and the financial condition of Enron. To the extent that our employees begin repeating those rumours . . . it gives them a level of credibility that they do not deserve’ — 2001

‘I want to see Enron survive, and for that to happen we need someone at the helm who can focus 100 per cent of his efforts reorganising the company and preserving value for our creditors and hard-working employees’ — 2002

‘I continue to grieve, as does my family, over the loss of the company, my failure to be able to save it. But failure does not equate to a crime’ — 2004

‘Certainly this is not the outcome we expected. I firmly believe I am innocent of the charges against me, as I have said from day one. If I were a CEO today, I would say it sends a very dangerous message. [It] basically makes an innocent act criminal’ — 2006