Case3:12-cv CRB Document Filed08/31/15 Page1 of 8 EXHIBIT 9

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document435-13 Filed08/31/15 Page1 of 8 EXHIBIT 9"

Bertram Hancock
8 years ago
Views:

1 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of EXHIBIT

2 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ MARC WOLINSKY (pro hac vice) GEORGE T. CONWAY III (pro hac vice) VINCENT G. LEVY (pro hac vice) West nd Street New York, NY 0 Tel./Fax:.0.00/00 MWolinsky@wlrk.com GTConway@wlrk.com VGLevy@wlrk.com FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP NEIL A. GOTEINER, State Bar No. Montgomery Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Tel./Fax:..00/0 NGoteiner@fbm.com Attorneys for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All Actions TO HARRIET STEINBERG AND EDWARD VOGEL S INTERROGATORIES Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

3 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ( HP ), by and through counsel, hereby responds and objects to Harriet Steinberg and Edward Vogel ( Steinberg ) s Interrogatories to HP served on March,. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS HP specifically incorporates in each of its responses to the specific Interrogatories below, as if fully set forth therein, the General Objections and Objections to Definitions, Instructions and Time Period set forth in HP s Responses and Objections to Steinberg s Request for Production of Documents, dated April, and served concurrently herewith. INTERROGATORY NO. : RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES Identify each change or reform made to the Prior Procedures prior to the commencement of the formation of the DRC and the date of such change or reform. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : The information responsive to Interrogatory No. is set forth in the following documents: (a) HP_DER_ (identifying formal policies that were in place related to prospective mergers and acquisitions as of August, ); and (b) HP_DER_ (identifying reforms undertaken by management, but not approved by the HP board, before the DRC was involved). INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify each change or reform made to the Prior Procedures after the formation of the DRC, but prior to December,, and the date of such change or reform. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : HP states that no such changes were made. INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify each change or reform to HP s corporate governance procedures proposed by the Settling Plaintiffs and the date of such proposal. TO STEINBERG S INTERROGATORIES --

4 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : The information responsive to Interrogatory No. is set forth in the Declaration of Ann M. Ashton, which has been filed with the Court, along with the decision of Judge Walker in the fee arbitration. See Docket #-. In addition, information responsive to this Interrogatory is set forth in: (a) slides provided by Robbins Geller to counsel for the DRC proposing that HP adopt certain governance reforms; (b) HP_DER_ (the reforms referenced in the DRC and HP board resolutions of January and shared with plaintiffs counsel at the outset of the negotiations with plaintiffs counsel that resulted in the settlement); (c) HP_DER_ (the settlement reforms, as adopted by the board in July ); and (d) HP_DER_ (the written charter of the Risk Management Committee). HP otherwise objects to Interrogatory No. to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to assessing the fairness or adequacy of the proposed settlement. INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify each change or reform to HP s corporate governance procedures proposed by the Settling Plaintiffs that was adopted by HP and the date of such adoption. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : See response to Interrogatory No.. INTERROGATORY NO. : State whether any provision of the Governance Reforms were implemented prior to their having been formally approved by the HP Board and, if so, identify those provisions and their date of implementation. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : As explained in the Declaration of Rishi Varma (filed with the decision of Judge Walker in the fee arbitration (Docket #-)) prior to the completion of the DRC s work, the Risk Management Committee was formed to expand the internal oversight of HP s existing Transaction Approval Process and was made responsible for assessing the risks associated with due diligence conducted in proposed acquisitions. However, the formal charter of the Risk Management Committee was not implemented until after the DRC completed its work (HP_DER_000000). TO STEINBERG S INTERROGATORIES --

5 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of HP also made changes to the legal processes utilized in M&A transactions and implemented enhanced internal procedures prior to the commencement of the settlement negotiations. See Docket #- at. HP further refers Steinberg to the following documents: (a) HP_DER_ (identifying formal policies that were in place related to prospective mergers and acquisitions as of August, ); (b) HP_DER_ (identifying reforms undertaken by management, but not approved by the HP board, before the DRC was involved); (c) HP_DER_ (the reforms referenced in the DRC and HP board resolutions of January and shared with plaintiffs counsel at the outset of the negotiations with plaintiffs counsel); (d) HP_DER_ (the reforms adopted by the HP board); and (e) HP_DER_ (the written charter of the Risk Management Committee). INTERROGATORY NO. : State with specificity the source of any proposals to change the Prior Procedures, whether generated internally at HP or by outside sources, and the date on which each such proposal was first made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : See response to Interrogatory No.. INTERROGATORY NO. : State with specificity whether and to what extent the Governance Reforms would have acted to prevent the loss suffered in connection with the Autonomy Acquisition. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : HP states that, in light of the nature of the massive fraud perpetrated at Autonomy and Deloitte UK s failures, different M&A procedures would not have prevented the losses suffered by HP in connection with the Autonomy acquisition. See Walker Tr. at :- (Docket #-). HP notes, however, that Judge Walker found in the fee arbitration that the settlement reforms are directly tailored to prevent the types of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty involved in large acquisitions and therefore provide a substantial benefit to HP and its shareholders (Docket #-). TO STEINBERG S INTERROGATORIES --

6 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of INTERROGATORY NO. : State with specificity the reasons why the Prior Procedures proved inadequate to prevent the losses suffered by HP in connection with the Autonomy Acquisition. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : See response to Interrogatory No.. INTERROGATORY NO. : State with specificity whether, and to what extent, the Governance Reforms would have caused HP s conduct to have differed in connection with the Autonomy Acquisition. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : Information responsive to Interrogatory No. is contained in documents reflecting the governance practices at the time of the Autonomy acquisition and the Governance Reforms that form part of the settlement: (a) HP_DER_ (identifying formal policies that were in place related to prospective mergers and acquisitions as of August, ); (b) HP_DER_ (the reforms adopted by the HP board); and (c) HP_DER_ (the written charter of the Risk Management Committee). INTERROGATORY NO. : State with specificity the reasons any person who declined to be interviewed by the DRC provided for declining to be interviewed. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : INTERROGATORY NO. : REDACTED Identify each person who participated in drafting responses, or in providing the information necessary to draft responses, to these Interrogatories. TO STEINBERG S INTERROGATORIES --

7 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : HP objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it requests information that is not relevant to assessing the fairness or adequacy of the proposed settlement, and to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney client, work product and/or other applicable privileges. WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ By: Marc Wolinsky George T. Conway III Vincent G. Levy West nd Street New York, NY 0 Telephone: () 0-00 Facsimile: () 0-00 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP Neil A. Goteiner Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 Attorneys for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company Dated: April, TO STEINBERG S INTERROGATORIES --

8 Case:-cv-000-CRB Document- Filed0// Page of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Caroline Olsen, declare under penalty of perjury: I am a citizen of the United States, employed in New York County, New York, and an attorney in this case. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is West nd Street, New York, NY 0; CAOlsen@wlrk.com On April,, I served a copy of HP s Responses and Objections to Harriet Steinberg and Edward Vogel s Interrogatories by transmitting the document electronically, via , to the address(es) set forth below: ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP Ian D. Berg (Bar No. ) Jeffrey S. Abraham Lawrence D. Levit Philip T. Taylor High Bluff Drive, Suite 00 San Diego, California 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - iberg@aftlaw.com jabraham@aftlaw.com llevit@aftlaw.com ptaylor@aftlaw.com Executed on April,, in New York, New York. Caroline Olsen TO STEINBERG S INTERROGATORIES --

Case3:07-cv-03679-JSW Document123 Filed10/12/12 Page1 of 5

Case3:07-cv-03679-JSW Document123 Filed10/12/12 Page1 of 5 Case:0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice Jeff D. Friedman ( Shana E. Scarlett ( HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Hearst Avenue, Suite Berkeley, CA 0 Telephone: (0-000 Facsimile: