15 Moments That Changed CA, Charles and Sanjay Forever
Current CA Inc. management has worked overtime to clean up the accounting mess left behind by former CEO Sanjay Kumar. Now, CA alleges former Chairman and Co-founder Charles Wang also was involved in the fraud. (He denies the allegation.) How did CA and Wang reach this showdown? Here are 15 defining moments that changed CA forever and ultimately turned the company against its co-founder.
Of course, there are dozens of big moments in CA’s history. But we were looking for the ones that united–and ultimately ripped apart–CA, Kumar and Wang. We checked Shareholder Forum (http://www.shareholderforum.com/CA) to review dozens of old documents. Here are the 15 that made our list.
15. Rewind to 1987: Computer Associates acquires Uccel Corp., where Kumar was director of software development. CA co-founder and CEO Charles Wang and Kumar soon develop a close working relationship.
14. August 2000: After more than a decade of success together, Wang announces he’ll hand his CEO title to Kumar. Privately, Wang begins to regret the move. Fifteen months later, the relationship turned vitriolic, and Wang tried unsuccessfully to fire Kumar and take back his old job, BusinessWeek reported in 2004.
13. April 16, 2001: CA announced quarterly results, declaring “New Business Model Rules; Q4 Rocks.” Kumar, CEO at the time, said, “The IT marketplace is embracing CA’s innovation and industry leadership.” Less than two weeks later, The New York Times would take Kumar and CA to task.
12. April 29, 2001: The New York Times reported that CA was using accounting tricks — including “35 day months” — to overstate revenues and profits. One source joked that CA stood for “Creative Accounting.” When the Times asked CA to comment for the article, CA declined. Never a good sign. This was the definitive story that triggered investigations into CA’s accounting practices. It wasn’t clear at the time, but this was the beginning of the end for CA’s original management team.
11. February 20, 2002: Newsday, a Long Island newspaper, reported the FBI was investigating possible accounting fraud at CA. The company said it wasn’t aware of any investigation. Only a day before, Morgan Stanley resumed coverage of CA, upgrading the stock from neutral to outperform, and explaining the market had “overlookedâ€? and “poorly analyzedâ€? CA. Apparently, Morgan Stanley was drinking the CA Kool Aid.
10. April 12, 2002: CA critic Sam Wyly attempted to rally investors against CA, and hoped to oust Chairman Wang, CEO Kumar and CFO Ira Zar. Wyly pointed to alleged accounting problems at CA. But Computer Associates’ eight independent directors voiced their support for management. The eight directors wrote that they had reviewed the company’s accounting practices, and that they and the company’s independent auditor found those practices “appropriate and transparent,” according to The Wall Street Journal. Cut to Kevin Bacon shouting, “Remain calm. All is well.” Had the board sided with Wyly, CA potentially would have avoided additional years of fraud and mismanagement.
9. November 18, 2002: Wang resigns as chairman. In a prepared press release, he said, “I am pleased to have completed the transition of leadership to Sanjay, who has been a trusted colleague and valuable partner, in a smooth and orderly way.” Smooth and orderly? Trusted colleague? Wang had tried to fire Kumar only a few months earlier, BusinessWeek later reported in 2004. With friends like these…
8. April 9, 2004: Three former Computer Associates finance executives pleaded guilty for their roles in the software giant’s accounting scandal. Former CFO Ira Zar pleaded guilty to conspiracy, securities fraud, and obstruction. David Rivard, former vice president of finance, and David Kaplan, former division vice president of finance, each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, according to CFO magazine.
7. April 12, 2004: BusinessWeek reported that Kumar and Wang suffered a falling out in 2001 over the way Kumar was running CA. The magazine also indicated that federal prosecutors investigating CA’s accounting planned to pit Kumar and Wang against each other. It would be three years and a day before that strategy began to play out.
6. April 22, 2004: Amid more accounting concerns at CA, Kumar resigned as CEO and Chairman but took on the new post as chief software architect. According to the board, “The changes in Sanjay’s role are not based on the conclusion that he engaged in any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the conduct in question occurred during his tenure, and the Board felt this action was appropriate. We are pleased that Sanjay has agreed to assume the role of chief software architect, enabling CA’s stakeholders to continue to benefit from his extraordinary knowledge, expertise and experience.” Alas, CA’s board once again misses an opportunity to clean up its management team.
5. June 4, 2004: Amid increased scrutiny from investigators, Kumar finally resigns from CA and cuts ties to the company.
4. November 23, 2004: CA hires IBM veteran John Swainson as president and CEO-elect. Real change is finally under way. He takes on the CEO post within a few short months. Executive turnover accelerates in early 2006, but Swainson apparently begins to stabilize the company by early 2007.
3. April 14, 2006: Kumar pleaded guilty to criminal charges that he led a $2.2 billion accounting fraud at CA, according to Bloomberg and CFO magazine.
2. April 13, 2007: Kumar agrees to repay $800 million over his lifetime to CA shareholders. The very same day, CA announces that it believes Wang participated in accounting fraud at the company. Wang denies wrongdoing and expresses shock. The gloves, as Newsday put it, are now off. The Old CA–at least symbolically–is dead. Long live the New CA.
1. April 22, 2007: CEO John Swainson is scheduled to keynote CA World, a big customer and partner gathering in Las Vegas. Instead of looking back on accounting scandals that predate his executive team, Swainson can look ahead and focus on business.
CA doesn’t stand for “creative accounting”, it stand for “Criminal Associates” Rot in [#$@#], Slappy.
I thought CA stood for Chicken Always.
JOHN DOE – you are obviously a CA employee – (or have been in the past) – training courses in Islandia – chiken for breakfast lunch and diner…. aahh the good old days…..NOT!
[…] in Las Vegas. We#8217;ve heard CA promise to fix itself before. But now that new management is firmly in place, it just might be […]
I worked for CA for 11 years and enjoyed my time there, so I speak from experience.
CA was no different to any other IT company at the time of the 35 day month. It’s like being caught speeding on the freeway; everybody around you is doing the same speed, but your’re the one caught. The revenue was still real, dont forget that, but the problem was the animosity created by the billion dollar bonus awarded to Charles, Sanjay and others. That act was stupid, upset investors and brought scrutiny from the SEC and DOJ into popular play. From there, it was just like any of us caught in the act; deny first hoping it will go away; the hole gets deeper, the lies more complex, but to no avail. As confusus says, “when you’re in a hole, first thing to do is throw away the shovel”.
Sanjay and Stephen dont deserve 12 and 7 years jail; drug pushers hurt people; they deserve the harsh treatment. Instead of wasting the obvoius talent the guys have, put them to work in a business entity designed to help those underprivledged, starving, downrtodden or any entity working to better a desperate situation; get the hate and revenge out of the equation and turn their punishemnt to create a useful result.
I was employed at CA for about 2 years and was a customer before that. The problems with the company are not just with the people at the top the people in the field are as dishonest as any of the executives. If you have a conscience you have a hard time sleeping when you’ve told the customer lie upon lie. The company can’t change that much because they are dependant on the sale. When you have something to sell that doesn’t work that well in the first place or that everyone wants to modify in some way you will always be stuck making up stories. If the sales people were held accountable for the satisfaction of the customer after they have found out they need to fill out a change request of put in a DAR for stuff that was promised in the sales cycle we might see some change. The company I work for now uses me as a BS meter for all new CA work, so I am still making money because of CA.
Thanks John