3 ms·

>See, when you do due diligence you should assume that the company lies. That's why you go there in the first place, if you believe everything they tell you the

>See, when you do due diligence you should assume that the company lies. That's why you go there in the first place, if you believe everything they tell you then you're going to get fleeced if they lie. Even doing due diligence, you rely on their information, expertise and record-keeping. Lying or misleading is unacceptable. This whole story is messed up. I still detect a bit of apologism on these boards, even though it looks like fraud was committed. Assume everyone lies? Really? What sort of world are you doing business in?

jacquesm 10y ago
Yes, lying or misleading is unacceptable. And this should lead to the deal being terminated before it is closed. There is no reason the company should get away with this prior to the deal being closed, assuming everybody plays their assumed role. But in this case I suspect that the investors did a slipshod job of their duty to inspect. After all, what the company said doesn't really matter, what matters is what the investors themselves determined to be the truth based on the evidence provided to their technical team and what the technical team did to ascertain this evidence was correct. As for what world I'm doing business in: I work hard to keep the money of my clients safe by detecting mistakes/fraud/omissions/issues before the deal is consumed and I have a hard time believing anybody competent signed off on the Theranos deals from a technical point of view. It's a fact of life that when you're an investor every now and then someone will attempt to take you for a ride, this is why investors perform due diligence to begin with, to make sure that they have covered their responsibility towards those whose money they manage.