Satyam is still not Shivam Sundaram

I came across an article named "In defence of Satyam". The point that article was trying to make was and I quote "I believe Satyam is being crucified for a minor trespass". The author believed that Maytas has won the bid for Hyderabad metro and needs money. Satyam on the other hand, is sitting on a huge pile of cash. So they did no wrong investing in Maytas.

With due respect to author, whatever be the circumstances, it was not a good corporate governance practice from Satyam. Promoters don't even have 10% shareholding in Satyam. How can they invest in their own company on behalf of more than 90% shareholders? Where goes the arm length distance practice? Had Maytas been owned by someone else, would Satyam still invest in it?

Maytas winning the Hyderabad Metro project is still contentious as pointed by Mr. Sreedharan and in all possibilities would suffer litigation apart from the serious liquidity crunch.

How does it make sense for an IT firm sitting on surplus cash to invest in an infrastructure firm. Satyam is not a fund or investment house. It's an IT firm and it doesn't make an iota of sense to invest in Maytas on the pretext that infrastructure is a HOT sector.

It was a clear cut case of money laundering and fraud. If Mr. Raju was so keen and confident of Maytas being a hot buy, he should have sold his share in Satyam and invest his personal wealth in Maytas.

Had it not been fund houses and institutional buyers, this fraud would have gone un-noticed. Cheers to shareholder activism.