The Infosys row has resurfaced after N R Narayana Murthy, the founder of the company wrote a mail to its board a few days ago, demanding that they make the Panaya probe report public, ET Now news channel reported on Thursday.
Let us rewind. On February 16, 2015, a whistleblower had written to the Securities and Exchange Board of India, saying that Infosys had overpaid for the acquisition of Panaya, an Israeli firm. After a strenuous probe of two years, the Infosys management was given a clean chit in June this year by international law firm Gibson Dunn and investigation firm Control Risks.
"We found no evidence supporting the whistleblower allegations regarding acquisitions, there were no conflicts of interests or kickbacks, required approvals for M&A were obtained, thorough due diligence was done, valuations of the target companies done by an outside advisor were reasonable and the purchase price was within the range determined by the advisor. We found no evidence that the CEO received excessive variable compensation or incurred unreasonable expenses for security, travel and its Palo Alto office," the investigators said in a statement.
In an assertive email to employees, Infosys CEO Vishal Sikka said, "Reports questioning the company's acquisition of Panaya were orchestrated by people who are hell-bent on harming the reputation of the company and its employees." He denied that the management of the company benefited in any sort from the acquisition, calling the allegations "libellous".
Sikka and his team were still struggling to move past the allegations and its aftermath when Murthy demanded Panaya probe to go public. Differences over corporate governance between Murthy and Sikka don't seem to be abating.
Previously, the founders of Infosys had also raised objections to the quantum of salary hike given to Vishal Sikka and size of severance packages given to former CFO Rajiv Bansal and former General Counsel David Kennedy.
As told to ET Now by unidentified sources, Infosys has no plans to make the report public as this would violate client confidentiality agreements between Panaya's investors and their limited partners.