Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analysis of Satyam Case
Analysis of Satyam Case
case.
Contributors: Group A.
Ardhendu Chatterjee
Dipomitra Ghosh
Jyotirmoy Chatterjee
INTRODUCTION:-
• Satyam computers was founded by Ramalinga Raju.
1987
• He started the Satyam Computers with 20 employees.
• Converted into Public Ltd Co. and listed in BSE and NSE.
1991 • First Indian company to be listed in 3 international exchanges
NYSE, DOWJONES, EURONEXT.
• Became the first Asian Company to feature in the training magazine list
2007
of top 125 companies for learning.
• They were allotted large quantities of Satyam Shares to ensure that they had
incentives to take actions that would help boost the stock price.
• Balance of power tilted towards the founder who runs the show and the
Board involved only in the strategic level.
• Strict compartmentalization and Hierchial workforce makes it difficult for the whistle blower
to approach the authority at ease.
• Conflict of interest with the top management when reporting fraudulent practices might lead
to a chronical of unprecedented events.
• According to ICAEW (2004), The ideal Director will use a report from the Whistleblower to
examine the company’s internal controls. In addition the Director will document evidence
from the report and follow up the report confidentially. The Director will also provide
feedback to the reporter at the right time. All these procedures are ideally known to all
company managers and employees.
Analysis on the independence of the board and the ability of the board to exercise
independent judgement on the corporate affairs of satyam and why the non executive
directors missed the fraud perpetrated in the company over a number of years.
The company commissioner consists of 5 independent commissioners and 1 commissioner. So, the board of
commissioners should be quite independent when viewed from the composition. However, one of the
independent commissioners has been a commissioner since 1991, another independent commissioner has
received considerable compensation for the educational institutions he owns, and they have received high
compensation from Satyam. Non-independent Commissioner Satyam, Krishna Palepu, also received substantial
income from Satyam because of his role as a company consultant. So, it can be concluded that in fact the
composition of the commissioners as a whole is less independent.
The board of commissioners was not too listened to by Raju. This is evident from when Raju forced a merger
with a company owned by his son. So, it is very likely that this will trigger the reluctance of the board of
commissioners to give the bestperformance.So, if it is concluded, the lack of independence of the board of
commissioners, and the lack of hearing of the board of commissioners makes them not see fraud that has
occurred for years
Lessons Learned from Satyam Scam
• Investigate All Inaccuracies: The fraud scheme at Satyam started very small, eventually growing into $276 million
white-elephant in the room. Indeed, a lot of fraud schemes initially start out small, with the perpetrator thinking
that small changes here and there would not make a big difference, and is less likely to be detected. This sends a
message to a lot of companies: if your accounts are not balancing, or if something seems inaccurate (even just a
tiny bit), it is worth investigating. Dividing responsibilities across a team of people makes it easier to detect
irregularities or misappropriated funds.
• Ruined Reputations: Fraud does not just look bad on a company; it looks bad on the whole industry and a country.
“India’s biggest corporate scandal in memory threatens future foreign investment flows into Asia’s third largest
economy and casts a cloud over growth in its once-booming outsourcing sector. The news sent Indian equity
markets into a tail-spin, with Bombay’s main benchmark index tumbling 7.3% and the Indian rupee fell”. Now,
because of the Satyam scandal, Indian rivals will come under greater scrutiny by the regulators, investors and
customers.
• Corporate Governance Needs to Be Stronger: The Satyam case is just another example supporting the need for
stronger CG. All public-companies must be careful when selecting executives and top-level managers. These are the
people who set the tone for the company: if there is corruption at the top, it is bound to trickle-down. Also,
separate the role of CEO and Chairman of the Board. Splitting up the roles, thus, helps avoid situations like the one
at Satyam.