The SFO is on the case? We can all rest easy then.
HP has said that it has made decisions about how to proceed with a case brought by its shareholders over the $8.8bn writedown for the acquisition of Autonomy – but it wants six more weeks to mull them over. The company was given until last Friday to think about recommendations by a committee of independent directors over the …
You mean ...
The SFO is tied up in this nonsense so it's not looking at anything that matters?
Even the Press is running pretty scared of investigating serious fraud since Leveson.
I never could understand (from Autonomy's website) what their products were let alone why they might sell large volumes / have a large turnover. So I sort of appreciate why HP might allege that Autonomy's management have committed fraud.
If HP were similarly confused then why on earth would they have bought the company?
HP: "we bought this bridge off a nice man we met in the pub..."
"...and now we find it's actually part of London. Waaaa! Nasty man!"
Really? Just who is the victim here?
If there really were problems with Autonomy, then basic due diligence would've revealed them. Or maybe, imagine this: HP didn't understand what it was buying, so overpaid and screwed it up. Just like they did with Digital, Compaq, .... and so on.
"Shareholders have also been given the go-ahead to pursue a different lawsuit that accused HP and its chief Meg Whitman of not coming clean back in 2012 as soon as they found out that HP may have overpaid on the Autonomy deal. "
The price paid is the price paid. HP didn't do their due diligence in the deal.
As for the books. HP had their accountants go over the books, so clearly HP is at fault as well unless the books were clearly cooked. I highly doubt the books were cooked like they were Enron style. Given that HP was interested in buying, they would have had much better access to the books. HP overpaid because they failed just like they failed at their audit of the books.