Statements made by Indian prosecutors who are pursuing Nokia for what they claim is a large outstanding tax bill are suggesting Nokia and Microsoft originally agreed to purchase an equity stake in Nokia, versus the later deal where Nokia purchased Nokia’s handset division instead.
The Financial Express writes:
The ACIT has also drawn attention to the fact that the Microsoft-Nokia agreement has undergone two amendments without there being any independent valuation of assets by a third party. "The decision of Microsoft Corporation to not purchase equity shares of Nokia Corporation and to purchase its assets only which are already attached by the department is a convenient coincidence and is an internal collusive agreement”, the ACIT in its application said.
Purchasing an equity stake would have made Microsoft a shareholder in Nokia and would have delivered an infusion of cash, but in all likelihood would have left Nokia intact and largely still in control of its operation and destiny as a phone maker, rather than having the handset division subsumed into Microsoft.
Which outcome would our readers have preferred? Let us know below.