No. of Recommendations: 2
Having been one who has made many challenging posts concerning Compucom (CMPC) I read the article with a vested interest. It would seem to me that a legitimate line exists between what appears to be fact and outright fiction.

For instance, if you are were to come into possession of internal audit and other documents that strongly indicated a company was padding the books and concealing the accounting irregularities inside merger based restructuring charges, what would you do to inform shareholders?

The SEC does not have enough investigators to cover even 1/4 of the complaints being lodged. In the case of the SEC complaint filed against CMPC, the only way we discovered what action had been taken was through the filings of 2 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. After 2 years, the Plaintiff will finally get to see CMPC's answers to the SEC instruction for CMPC to “Provide us with a detailed summary of the individual components of the restructuring charge. For each component, discuss how the charge complies with the recognition criteria established in EITF 94-38.”

My preliminary investigation indicates the SEC dropped the ball on reviewing in detail CMPC's answers and comparing them to the internal audit report findings submitted with the SEC complaint filed in July of 1998. Only through a dedicated effort consisting of a follow-up to the second FOIA request has the SEC started to review the factors alleged in the 7/98 complaint. In addition, the Plaintiff (Cause #00-01963, 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas, County) has demanded through discovery that CMPC produce their answers to the 10-18-98 SEC instruction letter. All of which are publicly available through the court clerk's office.

IMO, I believe that sooner or later in the Plaintiff's prosecution of its case against Compucom, the focus will narrow for a while to certain issues discovered in the internal audit of the Dallas sales office, CMPC's answers to the 10-18-98 SEC instruction letter, and other similar scenario's.

I also believe that as the lawsuit moves deeper into discovery that it may become necessary to subpoena certain records and take limited depositions from Compucom customers listed in the internal audit report, and perhaps other audit reports to help clear up some issues.

In your opinion, do shareholders have a right to know what's going on here? Considering the handicaps of information distribution, what better place is there than these boards to discuss these matters?
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.