Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HP Skates Away From SEC Charges

Posted by Zonk on from the that-is-some-good-lawyering-right-there dept.

theodp writes "The SEC has dropping charges against HP, in return for some small concessions. The company was originally charged with improperly depriving investors of important information, violating the public reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act, and failing to disclose the full impact of an out-of-control press leak investigation. In return for the dropped charges, the computer maker simply agreed to cease and desist from doing similar acts in the future, without admitting or denying having done so in the past. 'HP acted in what it believed to be a proper manner,' said the company in a press release."

1 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Re:better headline by sjwaste · · Score: 4, Informative
    Moron. This settlement had nothing to do with pretexting. Read the SEC release before posting. Mods who bumped this to a 5, do a little bit of reading yourselves.

    HP was charged with a '34 Act violation because they didn't report WHY a director (Perkins) resigned, only that he did. They were required to report WHY he resigned because he resigned over a disagreement with corporate policy, which must be disclosed per the '34 Act. He could've resigned because he disagreed with their pricing of toner, and it would've had to have been reported because:

    Federal securities laws require a public company to disclose - by making a public filing with the Commission - the circumstances of the disagreement if a director resigns because of a disagreement with the company on any matter relating to its operations, policies or practices.

    Yes, this happened in relation to the pretexting scandal, but that's not why the SEC sought enforcement. Therefore, HP's claims that it thought it was acting "lawfully" are not in regard to pretexting, but in regard to the disclosure of a director's resignation and what amounts to the quote above. They thought it didn't fit that definition, stupidly and blatantly incorrect, might I add, but it had nothing to do with them believing pretexting was a lawful action. That wasn't the question to be decided here.