Slashdot Mirror


Red Hat Vs. The Lawyers

ajs writes "On July 13, Red Hat announced that they would be re-stating their revenues for the last 3 years. This sent a shock-wave through their stock price, but early analysis seems to indicate that it's not that big a deal (the end-result is the same for a given contract, but it will be counted toward a different month). But then the really bad news hit. [Opportunistic lawyers] are taking this opportunity to punish Red Hat for reporting the change and the resulting drop in price. Red Hat is doing well, but can they weather major class action law suits without harming the business? How have other technology companies dealt with this sort of suit?"

12 of 475 comments (clear)

  1. Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by prostoalex · · Score: 5, Informative

    From reading the submission blurb it seems that those impeccable white knights on horse just made a mathematical error (must've been using an older kernel) and the resulting slump is pure emotion by the investors.

    Well, it's not. RedHat's Q4 2003 earnings are now $0.02 instead of $0.03 which is either a 33% or 50% reduction, depending on which way you count, and the stock fall represents just portion of that.

    Also, even after fall, Red Hat trades at 133 P/E, which is way overvalued even for this sector (MSFT, for example, is at 40.59).

    People don't like to be lied by management when they invest their money into the company, and people will launch lawsuits when they deem something inappropriate had been done.

    1. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, it's not. RedHat's Q4 2003 earnings are now $0.02 instead of $0.03 which is either a 33% or 50% reduction, depending on which way you count, and the stock fall represents just portion of that.

      No, the Q4 2004 earning (not 2003 earnings!) dropped from $0.0264 to possibly as low as $0.0220, a 17% reduction max. The minimum reduction would be half that. Further, it's not clear to me how relevant their earnings per share are since they are still slightly positive. For the fiscal year of 2004 (including this errant quarter), we're talking an earnings drop of no more than 5%.

      The big question is whether this is the only problem with their books. I suspect that's really why their share price dropped so dramatically.

  2. Re:What?! by hendersj · · Score: 4, Informative

    Huh? Reports are that SCO is being investigated by the SEC...

    See This story on Newsforge for some info about it, reported back in March...

    --
    Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
  3. It's a pretty minor restatement - READ THE ARTICLE by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Informative
    We're over 25 posts, and in the rush to be the first poster, it doesn't seem like anyone has actually READ THE ARTICLE (but this is /.) ... so let me repeat the key point from the Press Release linked above:

    ... the Company determined it would be appropriate to stop recognizing revenue for subscription agreements on a monthly basis - a method it has consistently applied for the last five years Ð and start recognizing revenue on a daily basis over the particular contract term.

    This isn't the typical "ooops, we recognized all the revenue of that 5-year contract this quarter" shin-an-igans that you typically read about - this isn't that huge of change - as referenced in the article, take a look at the restatement table and the net income/loss per share hardly changes.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  4. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Informative

    Then damn news broke on 2004/07/13. It is now 2004/07/14. A one day delay is very good for /.

  5. Re:Buy Low Sell High by mackman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Au contraire. Buy when it's going up and sell when it's going down. Right now it's still going down.

  6. What is the BFD by james_in_denver · · Score: 3, Informative
    Okay, so instead of calculating earnings from subscriptions on a monthly basis, RedHat is now going to calcuate subscriptions revenue on a daily basis. Big "F" deal. Total number of recorded subscriptions will stay the same, total subscription revenue will stay the same. The only difference might arise from how RedHat might have invested that money during an accounting cycle.

    All they effectively did was change a "YY/MM" field to "YY/MM/DD".

  7. Re:What?! by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

    umm... did you read the article? they are being responcable and the changes being made are the way they are counting some types of revenue. all the are doing is counting is daily instead of weekly/monthly ect. The reason newsworthy and was reported to the shareholders is because it gives insight into thier acounting practices and it is thier responcability to justify any changes to the apropriate officials including sharholders.

    To put this in a more simple way, this is like you having a lemonade stand and counting your sales every week or month and then deciding to count them daily. the end result is the samer in the acounting proccess but now you have more of an insight into your daily operations.

    If microsoft or SCO was doing somethign like this, of course there would be some scepticizm on the motives but the end result would be the same. "it is nothing". I would also bet that the only reason the SEC is even interested in this is to cover thier own asses if somethign turns wrong later. Lets wait for somethign actually bad to come out of thier investigations before we start trolling. Well i guess troll is to strong of a word for your comment. Somethign like quick to show you didn't RTFA or understand it is more reasonable. Besides the lawsuite is by lawers claiming to represent shareholders causing the problems in question, not the SEC. It would be interesting to find out how many sharholders actually feel they have been wronged by a proceedural change the has the exact saem end result. It will be even more interesting to find out the reasoning behind any legitamit judge not throwing the case out based on it merrit.

    Unless somethign is being said or done here that isn't in the article or any of the coresponing article at redhats site, i don't see it gaining any traction. But then i'm not a lawer so i wouldn't know how to suite a companie for doing somethign by the books as the law states (ie.. reporting a change in the way they do thier acounting) especially when the change doesn't really change anythign as far as thier statments are concerned.

  8. Relax. This is bogus and happens all the time. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Isn't it just grand how thousands of very intelligent geeks spent countless hours creating and improving Linux and Red Hat, and now a bunch of doughy, pasty-faced vultures at "Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP" will rake in an assload of cash from this?

    Naw.

    There are a number of sleazebag outfits like "Dewey, Sooem, and Howe" who file class action suits every time a stock takes a major dive, and advertise for some (possibly former) stockholder to sign on as lead plantif. (Expect several more before this is over.)

    Usually what happens is they get before a judge and get pitched out on their ear. Occasionally the company screwed up, in which case they MIGHT get some judgement - of which Dewey et. al. split a big chunk and a bunch of stockholders maybe get pennies per share. It's like playing the lottery, for law firms with some small-change time on their hands.

    They almost never get anywhere. But when a whale truly IS wounded the shark's chunk is SO big that every time there's blood in the water the sharks circulate in hopes of a feed.

    Red Hat will no doubt slap these guys down in due course - at which point you will see a small note in the stock's news page. That's part of why corporations keep at least one attorney on staff. Partyl to make sure they stay squeaky-clean - partly to lead the coutner-attack when somebody says they're dirty.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  9. A RedHat 9 to Fedora upgrade is easy... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you have yum. I swear to god... I did a fresh install, pointed yum at the appropriate mirror, and did a dist-upgrade. The only thing it didn't fix was the /etc/redhat-release still being used in the /etc/issue* banners.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  10. Re:What?! by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes some red hat 'fans' left but I monitor 3 of fedora's lists and I can tell you there is no shortage of suse/mandrake and a few Debian converts. After the initial "red hat shot my dog" emotional rants people settled down about the whole thing. Check out distrowatch Fedora has 1100 hits per day, second most popular distro behind Mandrake and It's only 9 months old; that's not exactly what I call 'abandon ship' everyone seems to be saying.

    --

    -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
  11. Re:What?! by GryMor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhm, did you even read the article? They didn't lie about their earnings. Their overall earnings remain constant. Whats changing is when they are counting their income on individual subscriptions. Instead of it being agregated monthly it's going to be amortised over the life of the contract on a daily basis so that it matches up with the losses incurred for the contract. The previouse methodology was in no way weird, non standerd nor sneaky. This way is just better.

    --
    Realities just a bunch of bits.