Slashdot Mirror


CA's Ex-CEO Indicted on Fraud

An anonymous reader writes "CNN is carrying a story about how Sanjay Kumar, ex-CEO of Computer Associates, was indicted on fraud charges. Prosecutors said the long-running accounting fraud scheme featured what came to be known by Computer Associates employees as a "35-day month" because company books were routinely kept open until revenues exceeded projected goals. "The defendants cooked the books by simply keeping them open beyond the end of a fiscal quarter for however long it took to meet the analysts earning estimates," said Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Comey said by the time the "house of cards" collapsed, about $2.2 Billion in revenue was booked prematurely. Good thing CA settled it's case with the DOJ."

19 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Cops with CEO's by a3217055 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a show in the US called Cops, and it is about police chases. They should make Cops with CEO's getting beat up and tortured by cops. That will be funny. A clip of this episode can be seen in Michael Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine. Anyway interestingly enough I am happy that some CEO's are showing up in the media. Wait till they start being someone's bitch in prision. I love my barbaris society. :) Save the environment, please plant a bush in Texas.

    1. Re:Cops with CEO's by LemonFire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually saw some program on TV where they asked the producers that very question and they said they'd love to do it, but the problem was that it wouldn't be exciting. The CEO type criminals aren't very likely to start running away being chased by the cops, instead they'd just ask to make a call to their lawyer which doesn't make for very exciting TV.

      -- This sig space could be yours --

    2. Re:Cops with CEO's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Chapelle show (on Comedy Central) did something like this. They took Cops and turned it on it's head, with the premise, what if the people busted on Cops were treated like the rich CEO white collar criminals? And it follows a crack dealer busted for peddling drugs... It's friggin hilarious, and probably not far from the truth either.

    3. Re:Cops with CEO's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The producer of the show was asked the same question, he said he would love to have one on ceo's , only problem is they won't be as entertaining as the regular fellons. You really think an ivy league ceo is going to all the suddenly jump into a drug infested rage haha...

  2. Not as greedy as he looks by SpamKu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sanjay Kumar, while he is a Greedy Bastard, could have been worse. If he had not agreed to "cooperate" and be charged personally, the Corporation itself could have faced charges, causing CA even more problems than it is already facing.

    Stupid? Yes.
    Stooopid? Probably not.

    --
    If I had a real .sig, it would go here.
    1. Re:Not as greedy as he looks by SpamKu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, I messed that one up. According to the NY Times (evil registration req'd)
      (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/busines s/23comp uter.html) The "deal" was a seperate one between the actual company CA and Judge Glasser. Kumar is just another greeedy bastard who got caught and will, if convicted, likely only spend time in a Federal White-Collar-Hotel Style prison.

      Further, from the NY Times article: "In 1998, Mr. Kumar received a stock bonus of $330 million, among the biggest one-time payments ever given to an executive, though he later returned about $70 million in stock to settle a shareholder lawsuit. He was paid another $20 million in salary and bonuses from 1997 to 2004.

      Of the top executives at Computer Associates in the late 1990's, only Charles B. Wang, the co-founder and chairman before Mr. Kumar, has not been indicted or entered a guilty plea. Prosecutors have never publicly mentioned Mr. Wang as a focus of their investigation, and a lawyer for Mr. Wang said he had no comment."

      Nasty Greedy Bastards, all of them.

      --
      If I had a real .sig, it would go here.
    2. Re:Not as greedy as he looks by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If he had not agreed to "cooperate" and be charged personally, the Corporation itself could have faced charges, causing CA even more problems than it is already facing.
      The Corporation should be facing charges. It ought to be fucking disbanded. The real problem these days is that the Corporations have rights of Persons, but do not face the same liability as Persons.

      If I, as an individual, cheat you out of millions of dollars, I'll probably spend 20 years in prison. If I, as the CEO of a Corporation, cheat my shareholders or some other Corporation out of millions of dollars, I'll probably have to resign as CEO, take a 5 million dollar golden parachute, and retire to South Beach. If I'm stupid enough to lie to federal agents during the ensuing investigation, I might do 5 months' time in Club Martha. If I'm a major contributor to the President's political party, I won't even be indicted.

      This is the problem, the Corporate Veil is the problem. I have nothing against limited liability; if you incorporate and your company fucks up, there's no reason it should bankrupt you personally for eternity. But when Corporations are given many of the same rights as Persons, they must also be held accountable as Persons would be in similar situations.

      We are in dire need of a Corporate Death Penalty. Enron, WorldCom, and others should not be able to simply file for bankruptcy and erupt as phoenixes from their own ashes to repeat their sins.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    3. Re:Not as greedy as he looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I like the idea of a corporate death penalty. To expand a bit upon the idea, I think the following would be more fair than the current situation.

      1) Taking current bankruptcy proceedings a bit further, once a "CDP" is declared, the corporation must immediately sell all existing assets at market value or as close to market value as possible to complete a fast sale. Supposing "Renron's" corporate HQ building is worth 20 million dollars, a 15 million dollar bid for that building by anyone should be considered reasonable, accepted, and that money should go into a "corporate funeral fund." Same with all of the rest of the company's assets.

      2) The corporation must dissolve and may never operate in business again, no matter who's supposedly in charge. Regardless of who purchases the assets, no one who was an executive at the failed company may be allowed to work for any company who acquires any part of the failed corporation. If Lenny Kay was CEO at Renron, and Renron's assets are bought up by Ding-Dong Corporation, Lenny Kay cannot go to work for Ding-Dong Corporation in any capacity.

      3) Individual, non-corporate investors in the failed company _must_ be compensated first. This means that Joe Average who bought 500 shares of Renron must be given his fair share of the "funeral fund" long before BigBank or AngelVenture get any of their loan money back. Same goes for all of the retirement funds who, on behalf of Joe Averages, invested in Renron. If BigBank or AngelVenture loses out, boo hoo. Maybe next time around, they'll be a bit more responsible with the blank checkbooks loaning a few billion here and a few billion there.

      4) With a corporation given a "CDP," the executives should have to pay back into the process. CEO got a 10 million dollar bonus last year? Fine him 10 million dollars and put it into the "funeral fund." Any inappropriate spoils should be returned to the death fund of the company, to be recompensed to its shareholders, individuals first.

      With some tweaks like these, corporations might become responsible again.

      Your vote matters.

  3. Country Club Prison by mrs+clear+plastic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this guy gets prison time, he will still be better off than those who lost their jobs because of this actions.

    Especialy if any of those who lost their jobs end up homeless.

    He will have a roof over his head and three decent meals per day.

    I do wonder, though, if the so called country club prisons are just that, or is that an exagguration? I knew of someone who had served in the one in Conneticutt and he said it was no country club.

    --
    Cleara
  4. Re:Once again by Apathist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is one important difference: CA is not about to implode... in fact, throughout this whole scandal, its share price has continued to rise.

    Make of that what you will...

  5. Re:A Call For Responsibility by temojen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At the university I went to, ethics was a required course for computing science and engineering, but not for ANY of the business programs.

  6. Re:A Call For Responsibility by baywulf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the "Devil's Dictionary":

    CORPORATION, n.
    An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

  7. Re:A Call For Responsibility by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's because stock holders don't care enough to complain. They all chase the growth stocks, which have to sustain an unrealistic growth rate to remain competitive. That pretty much requires some degree of book cooking. If investors were content with the idea of investing in a company for the long term, based on solid financials, and receiving a good sized dividend, a lot of this fraud would be stopped. And the company board would be crucified if they voted for a 30% pay raise to be given to a poorly performing CEO, since that money would have come straight out of the shareholders' pockets. For true corporate reform, reduce dividend taxes substantially to make dividends popular, then investors will make sure companies are cleaned up, since it directly affects their personal bottom line. Sometimes it really is good that people are motivated by money.

  8. Re:A Call For Responsibility by mc6809e · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's because stock holders don't care enough to complain.

    I don't think their complaints would have any real effect.

    The trouble as I see it is that a few of the largest shareholders control the board. Are they going to listen or even care? I don't think they have to. They'll just go on paying themselves large salaries.

    Maybe things would change if board members could only pay themselves through dividends.

  9. CA training support anecdote by certron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I found a post on someone's livejournal page about the time that they had spent as a technical writer working for a company that was assisting CA's training department.

    http://www.livejournal.com/users/sclerotic_rings /5 80872.html

    "Not only were we all informed that the company was in great shape, but we were told that the co-CEOs were "good friends of George W. Bush's, so he's going to get us lots of government contracts." Two days later, CA went through its first serious layoff in years, and the entire training department was laid off a week after that." (There's more on the site)

    --

    fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
    eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
  10. Re:A Call For Responsibility by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And thats the scam. The stock market isn't supposed o work that way. The original idea is you bought a piece of the company, it would pay regular dividends, and thats how you made your money. Tats an investment- you know the apprximate dividends it will pay out, and you buy accordingly. Its an inbvestment because its a reasoned decision, and you own something tangible (a piece of the buisness).

    What we have now isn't investing, its gambling. You bet on what company you think will beat a made up number by a Wall Street investor (who, incidently, has his own stock and is looking out for his interests, not yours). You can't make reasonable guesses, and you own precisely nothing, becaus the piece of the companay is so overpriced.

    You also turn it from a real investment into a 0-sum game. If you invest for increases in value of stock, someone has to wiin and someone must lose. When you invest for dividends, you get a regular payoff- no loser involved. The worst part- 0-sum games are inherently unstable. You can't keep growing forever with no real value behind it. We had a partial collapse a few years ago, we have a bigger one boiling as soon as the stockholders begin to see simple math.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  11. Re:Once again by Micro$will · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this is the most interesting part:

    Comey noted that for the first time in a major corporate fraud case, prosecutors decided to defer prosecution against the corporation itself.

    Imagine that, now we finally have people being held accountable for their actions instead of letting them hide behind their corporate shields!

  12. this used to be common by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "35 day month" used to actually be a fairly common practice in software around 10 years ago. It's purely due to accounting fictions -- monthly and quarterly sales goals and wall street guidance. Short term gain over long term wealth capacity.

    Many companies squeeze vendors for discounts and delay purchase until end of month. Of course, purchasing processes and systems are bound to mess up, so the P.O. never really gets through until the 1st to 5th of the next month...

    This also was rampant back in the .com days.

    CA still operates in the old model of sales, whereas most enterprise software vendors are much smarter about this sort of stuff.

    disclaimer: just my personal opinions, might be b.s., ymmv

    --
    -Stu
  13. Re:Japan and CEO's by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AC: I guess the sepuku/harakiri culture ended when emperor Hirohito did not kill himself after World War II...

    Wrong. The suicide is not appropriate for the imperial family. I can't think of an Emperor ever killing himself... he is a god, he is infallible. If something went wrong, it must have been the fault of a lesser, imperfect person.

    Plus, consider that the whole reason Japan kept on fighting a hopeless war for 5 months was to keep going until the USA promised the Emperor's safety. (They would've surrendered long earlier if they knew Hirohito wouldn't face war crime charges)

    The ones who should be willing to sepuku are the samurai warrior class that works for the emperor.

    Anyway, the suicide culture continued past WWII. Yukio Mishima ended his life in proper samurai style in 1970. Even today, Japan has about the highest suicide rate in the world. After corpses kept clogging up the high-speed trains, the government declared that surviving family will be billed for any traffic blocked by a suicide.