back
6 comments
I think it probably looks sensible to lawyers, boards and shareholders but as the article says: The decision to move forward puts HPE on a reputational tightrope. While a UK civil claim automatically ensures that the case passes to the estate of a defendant in the event of a death, the prospect of pursuing the money is likely to be deeply unpopular after the tragedy.

It's a lot of money to forgo on the basis "the great unwashed who don't own shares directly won't like it" -Their superannuation and investment funds very probably would want this money recovered, if there was a good chance of winning the case.

> puts HPE on a reputational tightrope

Since when was HPE popular / on a good reputation anyway?

Ugh. To me, probably around the time HPIB entered the hospital/diagnostic space as a universal attachment bus for things like ultrasound: HP make stellar diagnostic systems, some of which seem to use X10 (precursor to X11) as the GUI, even now.

But the last HP system I interacted with had a TPM which drove me crazy (it was a DNS system using the TPM to manage DNSSEC keys).

The point is, this is about shareholders and boards. The people who judge a company by how much money it makes them not by how good the equipment is.

HP-UX was a dog of an OS. But they made good systems during that time, and made their shareholders very happy.

Does anyone have any idea why he was not convicted? With the little bit I read, it seemed like a pretty good fraud case, especially since the CFO was convicted.

This time it would have been much better if he had been convicted.

> Does anyone have any idea why he was not convicted?

As with most of these cases it's hard to exactly prove that he knew and willingly did it instead of being ignorant and mistaken.

The CFO did get convicted and the CEO washed his hands off.