Infosys on Friday said it has decided to sell its subsidiary Panaya – the Israeli firm whose acquisition became a contentious issue between the founders and the erstwhile management led by Vishal Sikka.The Bengaluru-based firm is also looking at offloading its other subsidiaries Kallidus and Skava.
“In the quarter ended March 31, 2018, on conclusion of a strategic review of its portfolio of businesses, the company initiated identification and evaluation of potential buyers for its subsidiaries, Kallidus and Skava (together referred to as ‘Skava’) and Panaya (collectively referred to as ‘disposal group’),” Infosys said in a regulatory filing.
The company expects the sale to be completed by March 2019.
“Accordingly, assets amounting to ₹ 2,060 crore (USD 316 million) and liabilities amounting to ₹ 324 crore (USD 50 million) in respect of the disposal group have been reclassified and presented as ‘held for sale’,” Infosys said.
Infosys said upon reclassification, an impairment loss of ₹ 118 crore (USD 18 million) in respect of Panaya has been recognised in the consolidated profit and loss for the quarter and year ended March 31, 2018.The corresponding write-down in the investment value of Panaya in the standalone financial statements of Infosys is ₹ 589 crore (USD 90 million), it added.A whistleblower report last year alleged wrongdoings by Infosys and some officials in the USD 200 million acquisition of Israeli automation technology firm Panaya.
An internal audit committee set up by Infosys found no evidence supporting the whistleblower’s allegations.However, Infosys founder NR Narayana Murthy had demanded that the full report by Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher on these whistleblower allegations be made public.Later in October, the Infosys board – under its new chairman Nandan Nilekani – gave a clean chit to the controversial Panaya acquisition, saying there was no merit in the allegations of wrongdoing.
It had also said that after a “careful re-consideration” it has concluded that putting out more details of the probe would “inhibit the company’s ability to conduct effective investigations into any matter in the future”.
