Hewlett-Packard, CEO Whitman ordered to defend securities class action
A California federal decide ordered Hewlett-Packard Co and Chief government Meg Whitman to protect a securities shareholder category action that claims they knew statements about HP’s acquisition of software firm Autonomy have been misleading.
Senior District chooses Charles Brayer issued his ruling in San Francisco federal court docket on Tuesday. On the coronary heart of the lawsuit claim that HP, its executives, and administrators made misleading statements about the acquisition of the British firm, offered in 2011 for $11.1 billion, and the following write-down of roughly $9 billion of HP’s assets. The ruling also pushed aside claims against 5 different former administrators and executives of the information technology supplier, together with one-time CEO Leo Apothecary.
Requested to protect securities type motion
The securities classification action towards HP and its executives used to be brought final November by investors, including lead plaintiff PGGM Vermogensbeheer B.V., a Dutch pension administrator working within the healthcare and social work sectors. Though ordering HP and Whitman to protect the motion, Brayer took difficulty with the plaintiffs’ arguments in the 20-web page ruling.
Read More Article :
- Textbook publishers revamp ebooks to fight the used books market
- People Autosuggest feature on Bing expanded to include more categories
- Street lights to spy on everything that happens in Vegas?
- MAVEN blasts off to Mars on a $671 million mission
- Get a Braven 570 portable Bluetooth speaker for $29.99
“The grievance fails to determine any coherent purpose as to why Defendants would knowingly purchase a company for a few occasions its actual price or that they knew Autonomy’s accounting was complicated,” said Brayer. The decision also limited the claims that may be brought towards Whitman and HP. Brayer said that the investors’ claims towards the corporate and its CEO are limited to the duration after could 23, 2012, now not earlier than. Lawyers for HP, Whitman, the plaintiffs, and the opposite HP defendants did not respond to requests for comment.