Meanwhile the executives had sold their shares when they knew about the impending crash. This is known as insider trading and is highly illegal and morally wrong.
According to the utilitarian, one's actions are to be judged solely by virtue of their consequences. In classical Utilitarianism the right actions are the ones that produce the best balance of pleasure and happiness over pain and unhappiness. Everyone's happiness matters equally. As Bentham, one of the authors of Utilitarianism said "Each to count for one and none to count for more than one." Sherron Watkins" conscious did not allow her to turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing which would eventually and inevitably lead to a great deal of pain and unhappiness for a huge number of people to the benefit of a few individuals. While Watkins" actions did have the consequence of causing unhappiness for many it was actually in their long-term interest that the scandal be exposed before they invested still more of their savings in the company only for it to crash in years to come.
All employees of a company are employed to work in the interests of the shareholders and the company's future. The executives have a special duty to safeguard the investments of shareholders and the livelihoods of loyal workers. It is clear from Enron's own "Code of Ethics" that there was one rule for the executives and one rule for everyone else and that there was a serious lack of morality in the upper echelons of the company. I would be of the opinion that the collapse of the company's share price and the resulting bankruptcy of Enron was not a consequence of the action that Sherron Watkins took. This was going to happen in the future in any case. Her action of "blowing the whistle" did have the consequence of acting as a trigger to expose the accounting fraud. When the fraud was revealed creditors demanded their money and the company was forced into bankruptcy.