Not for nothing, apparently, is Craig Conway often described as a former protege of Larry Ellison.
Conway is the recently deposed chief executive of PeopleSoft, the Pleasanton business-software company that has been trying for more than a year to stay out of the clutches of Ellison’s company, Oracle. Conway worked for eight years at Oracle, where he was a top sales executive.
On Monday, a member of PeopleSoft’s board of directors testified (eWeek) in a Delaware courtroom that Conway had admitted to having misled investors about the impact the Oracle bid was having on PeopleSoft sales. It was a case, the board member said, of “situational ethics.”
If so, Conway learned from a master. Ellison and his company have had a long history of behavior that has at least nudged the line.
The Oracle founder and boss was proud about hiring dumpster-diving investigators to look into Microsoft’s business practices a few years ago, for example. And just last month, a federal appeals court reinstated a securities-fraud lawsuit against Oracle, citing “false representations” and other behavior. (Oracle said the charges aren’t supported by the actual evidence.)
Steven Goldby, the PeopleSoft director who testified in the Delaware trial about PeopleSoft’s takeover defense, has now indicated he’s ready to consider an offer from Oracle — if the price is right.
If PeopleSoft remains independent, that will be a surprise.
Meanwhile, like him or not, Ellison has been one of the people who sets the pace in the software industry. His stated strategy — consolidate or else — is looking like the way it will be. It will speed up a wave of mergers and acquisitions that are likely to be better for the surviving companies than their customers.
Posted by: pr ( professor rat) on October 7, 2004 02:17 AM
That the same Larry E whose losing market share and having his entire business undermined by open source mySQl database’s?
The same Larry E who signed his own darth warrant with that offer to set up the Totalitarian Information Agency for Reichsland Security post 9-11?
That same Larry E who cant win a boat race to save his life and whose love life is a running joke?
That vain, bloviating ,ex-CIA, thin client comedian and crashing bore; that Larry E?
If Larry E is the answer, pardon my french, but what was the fucking question again?
Posted by: Robert Bolton on October 11, 2004 04:38 PM
Dan,
After reading the editorial below, do you think Sun would deceive its investor?
Did Sun deceive its investors?
I recently wrote Scott McNealy and asked the following questions.
1. Did Sun deceive investors when it published its 2004 fiscal fourth quarter earnings report?
2. Considering the fact that Sun has a former SEC employee on the audit committe of its board, why did this restatement of earnings happen?
3. Is Sun using the practice of earnings restatements as a tool to deceive investors?
Irma Villarreal called me in response to my letter to Scott McNealy. She said she is the person, who prepares Sun’s submissions to the SEC. She would not answer my questions in writing as I requested. She claimed that Sun never announced a $1.05B restatement of its 2003 fiscal fourth quarter results. I later sent her a Forbes article about the restatement. She did not respond. She said Sun had already answered these questions for media – WSJ, Forbes, Businessweek, etc. She said they were satisfied with Sun’s answers. I said I know the media never asked these questions. She said Sun is in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley. She never denied that Sun deceived investors.
I sent Ms. Villarreal my notes from the aforementioned conversation for her review and correction. She has never responded.
Why would Ms. Villarreal be willing to talk to me about the questions that I raised, but would not put her answers in writing? Why did Ms. Villarreal lie about the $1.05B restatement of Suns 2003 fiscal fourth quarter results? Why did she not respond when I sent her a copy of the article about the restatement? I have checked with the media to see if any of them have asked Sun those questions. None of the media has confirmed asking Sun any of those questions. Why did she lie about the media asking and receiving answers to those questions? Why did she not deny that Sun had deceived investors?
This writer believes that Scott McNealy directed Ms. Villarreal to contact me to try to convince me that Sun had not deceived investors, but told her not to respond to any questions in writing. He also told her not to admit to anything, including the obvious such as the $1.05B restatement. After she was caught in these mendacities, McNealy told her not to respond, verbally or in writing, to any question or statements.
If asked those questions under oath, how would Ms. Villarreal respond? How would Scott McNealy respond? If Sun has never deceived it investors, why did Ms. Villarreal handle our telephone conversation and my subsequent inquiries the way she did? Is it probable that Sun deceived its investors?
Posted by: charlie federman on October 6, 2004 11:52 AM
Dan,
I do not think that Ellison is ‘setting the pace’ in the software industry, at least as far as M&A is concerned. For the past 25 years, and for the forseeable future, the industry experiences a regular cycle balancing consolidation of slow growth/older technologies (e.g. customer base driven transactions), with emerging, fast growth arena’s that are driven by innovation, leading edge technologies or business practices (e.g. IT governance/compliance, grid, p2p initiatives). From a customer and investor perspective, consolidation in slow growth areas is necessary and good.
Companies with the profile similar to Peoplesoft should seriously consider declaring victory while maximizing shareholder value and clearing the decks for the next generation. The industry is not well served by the poisoning defensive tactics promulgated by entrenched management.
In this situation, Mr. Conway has made Mr. Ellison look like a shareholder and customer good guy.