A federal appeals court has ordered two executives convicted in a $1.9 billion corporate fraud case to be resentenced.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said Wednesday the government hadn't proved Donald Ayers and Roger Faulkenberry were guilty of money laundering. Their convictions of conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud remain in place.

Faulkenberry is serving 10 years in prison, and Ayers is serving 15 years. They were convicted in 2008 with four other top executives from National Century Financial Enterprises, a Columbus health care financing company. Federal prosecutors likened the case to the Enron scandal.

The court said the government didn't prove that advances Faulkenberry and Ayers made to medical companies were designed to conceal the money's source.

A federal appeals court has ordered two executives convicted in a $1.9 billion corporate fraud case to be resentenced.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said Wednesday the government hadn't proved Donald Ayers and Roger Faulkenberry were guilty of money laundering. Their convictions of conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud remain in place.

Faulkenberry is serving 10 years in prison, and Ayers is serving 15 years. They were convicted in 2008 with four other top executives from National Century Financial Enterprises, a Columbus health care financing company. Federal prosecutors likened the case to the Enron scandal.

The court said the government didn't prove that advances Faulkenberry and Ayers made to medical companies were designed to conceal the money's source.

The Supreme Court has sided with former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling in limiting the use of a federal fraud law that has been a favorite of white-collar crime prosecutors.

The court said Thursday that the "honest services" law could not be used in convicting Skilling for his role in the collapse of Enron. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion that the ruling does not necessarily require Skilling's conviction to be overturned.

During arguments in December and March, several justices seemed inclined to limit prosecutors' use of this law, which critics have said is vague and has been used to make a crime out of mistakes and minor transgressions in the business and political world.

The court, at the same time, rejected Skilling's claim that he did not get a fair trial in Houston because of harshly critical publicity that surrounded the case in Enron's hometown.

The court in this ruling also sided with former newspaper magnate Conrad Black, setting aside a federal appeals court decision that had upheld Black's honest services fraud conviction. But as in Skilling's case, the justices left the ultimate resolution of the case to the appeals court.

The justices also threw out an appeals court ruling against former Alaska legislator Bruce Weyhrauch, who is facing charges under the honest services law.

Thursday's ruling could affect the ongoing prosecution of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the convictions of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

A federal judge has ordered a one-month delay in the Enron-related May retrial of a former Merrill Lynch executive.

U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. agreed to delay Robert S. Furst's retrial to June 1 to accommodate plea negotiations. Prosecutors and defense attorneys told Werlein during a hearing Friday that they are close to a deal that would resolve the case.

Furst and two other executives were convicted in 2004 of helping push through Enron's sham sale to Merrill Lynch of three power barges moored off the Nigerian coast in 1999. The deal was struck to make the Enron energy division's earnings appear larger.

But an appeals court threw out their fraud and conspiracy convictions in 2006 after finding fault with the prosecution's legal theory.

Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling is asking the Supreme Court to throw out his convictions in connection with the collapse of the energy giant that cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

Lawyers for Skilling and the government are appearing before the high court Monday as he appeals his 2006 convictions on 19 counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors.

Skilling argues he did not have a fair trial in Houston, Enron's hometown, amid anger over Enron's implosion in 2001. He also is contesting his conviction under the federal fraud law making it a crime to deprive shareholders or the public of "the intangible right to honest services."

Critics say the law is vague and unfair.

Attorneys for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy said Wednesday they see a positive sign in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling.

Like Skilling, some of the charges against Siegelman and Scrushy involved charges that make it a crime to deprive the public of "the intangible right to honest services."

Critics have complained that the 28-word "honest services" law is vague and sometimes used by prosecutors when they are unable to prove another crime was committed.

Siegelman attorney Sam Heldman said the Supreme Court's decision to hear three different cases involving "honest services" charges is a sign that the law is "broad and confusing."

"It shows that some members of the court are concerned prosecutors are overreaching in this whole area of the law," Heldman said.

U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney declined to comment.

Siegelman and Scrushy are waiting to hear if the U.S. Supreme Court will review appeals of their convictions in a government corruption case. They were convicted of bribery, "honest services" mail fraud and other charges in 2006. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year threw out two charges against Siegelman, but rejected most of his appeal and denied Scrushy's.

The two have also asked U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller in Montgomery to grant them a new trial, citing misconduct by prosecutors, inappropriate communications between jurors and other issues.

Siegelman was accused of appointing Scrushy to an influential hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman's campaign for a statewide lottery. The appeals to the Supreme Court focus heavily on whether prosecutors proved that Siegelman and Scrushy had a "quid pro quo" agreement where they would each receive something of value.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a former Enron Corp. executive in a ruling that makes it unlikely he can be tried a second time on charges related to financial fraud at the one-time energy giant.

The court, in a 6-3 vote, threw out an appeals court ruling that would have allowed a retrial of F. Scott Yeager, a former executive at Enron's failed broadband venture, on charges for which a jury could not reach a verdict at his first trial.

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, did not completely shut the door to another trial.

Yeager sold Enron stock for more than $54 million before the company began a downward spiral that ended in bankruptcy in 2001.

In his first trial in 2005, Yeager faced 125 counts and was acquitted of five, including four counts of wire fraud and one of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud. The jury couldn't reach a verdict on the remaining counts, which alleged insider trading and money laundering.

Yeager was later reindicted on 13 counts of insider trading and money laundering.

The issue for the court is whether a variation on the Constitution's guarantee against double jeopardy applies in this situation: The jury votes not guilty on some charges, but fails to reach a verdict on others that are based upon the same essential facts as the charges that resulted in acquittal.

Prosecutors frequently retry defendants when juries can't reach a verdict. They cannot pursue a defendant when juries return not guilty verdicts. This case was about what happens when there is a combination of those elements.