Computer Associates kept its books open after quarter-end to book extra revenue
Computer Associates · Enterprise software (listed)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Document authenticity / direct pull
Would have compared contract dates with signature and delivery evidence.
Can mislead when: The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet.
Bank credits vs books
Would have matched quarter-end revenue to cash.
Can mislead when: AA only sees the accounts the company links, so an undisclosed account stays invisible. Cash-heavy businesses and timing differences create false flags.
Books edit log
Would have shown entries posted after the quarter closed.
Can mislead when: Logs can be disabled at database level (auditors qualified this in year one) or tampered with on export. Kubr needs the company to cooperate.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C1 Would have matched quarter-end revenue to cash.
- C5 Would have compared contract dates with signature and delivery evidence.
- C12 Would have shown entries posted after the quarter closed.
Valuation context
Offered in India- Peer multiples and the exit-multiple bridge would have shown how much of the story relied on valuation holding.
Model check
Offered in India- C1 Would have matched quarter-end revenue to cash.
IC note
Offered in India- C5 Would have compared contract dates with signature and delivery evidence.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.