Jenny SjöbergLokal guide

23 september 202616 omdömen

Lägger betyget en stjärna för deras visselblåsartjänst är inte ok. Att stänga, rapportering, av mycket allvarligt karaktär och att man inte ens ges möjlighet att lömna fullständiga uppgifter.

Rapportera

Kiarokh Moattar

24 juni 20264 omdömen

One star is generous. If negative stars existed, I would not hesitate. EY Parthenon was appointed as an independent valuation expert in a shareholder dispute involving a forced buyout. The forcing party’s obvious interest was the lowest possible valuation, something I flagged from the start. EY’s role was to serve both parties impartially. They did not. They assured me their valuation would follow one core principle: “a willing seller, and a willing purchaser, acting economically rationally with access to equivalent information.” This persuaded me to trust the process. It turned out to be an empty promise. The final report relied entirely on curated information from the party forcing the buyout; the same party whose only interest was a cheap acquisition. There was no “willing seller” and no “willing purchaser” in the analysis. The forcing party was allowed by EY to present unverifiable data and play both an unwilling buyer and an uninterested seller, portraying the company as worthless while wanting to acquire it. The irony of wanting to buy something you claim has no value was lost on EY. Every methodological choice was pushed to its most pessimistic extreme. For the buyer profile, they chose a passive financial investor with no IT knowledge, relying on the current management entirely. In reality, SaaS companies are acquired by IT companies with shared customer bases and quantifiable growth potential. This choice alone made the valuation meaningless. They applied an extreme discount to comparable multiples without reasoning, and used a wind-down model with no justification; while this company has operated independently for years. The report was a handful of pages of analysis dressed up in a polished slide deck. No reasoning was provided for any of the pessimistic choices. I had to babysit the process to ensure the basics of the governing contract (the document governing EY’s assignment) were being followed. From my first email, I submitted evidence-based feedback: analytical requests, documented concerns, and questions that could have been answered. I used their own data to show their claims were self-contradicting. Over months, not a single concern was addressed, not one question answered, not one meaningful adjustment made. Each time: “we have considered your input”, with nothing to show for it except cosmetic changes. When I asked for explanations, the engagement partner wrote that he did not believe “a more extended exchange of views” was necessary. His final response: “In the end it is my independent judgment that must be reflected in the valuation.” No reasoning. No dialogue. Just a door arrogantly slammed shut by someone who could not bring himself to say: “Your points are correct. Let me fix what I was about to carelessly destroy.” The result? A conclusion that bore no relation to the company it claimed to describe. For a functioning, 16-year-old SaaS company with paying subscribers, a recognised global brand, hundreds of user reviews above 4.5/5, a documented codebase, and over a decade of intellectual property. None registered as having value! For a six-figure fee, this is what I received. This was not an independent valuation, not a professional one, and not a humane one. It was a rubber stamp. Just get the work done, get paid, move on. The obvious flaws and discrepancies I pointed out were left unchanged and unanswered. If you are a minority shareholder hoping for a fair valuation process, look elsewhere. And if you are deciding whether to rely on EY Parthenon in a similar scenario (a forced buyout where one party controls the company, the information, and the narrative) just know this: EY will gladly take your money, ignore your input, and deliver a result that serves whoever controls the story.

Rapportera