Super Micro has released the results of an independent review that took about five months and said there was no evidence that its current senior executives knew about the diversion of the products at issue. It is the second time in less than two years that the company has relied on outside advisers, hired at its own expense, to answer allegations involving management oversight.
Review says current executives were not found to have known
According to the findings disclosed earlier this week, the outside review reached two core conclusions: no current senior executive was found to have known the destination of the shipment in question, and the company did not directly sell controlled products to the buyers named in the case.
The process was led by lead independent director Scott Angel and audit committee chair Tally Liu. Munger Tolles handled the legal side, while AlixPartners provided forensic accounting work. The review took about five months to complete.
The report says this outcome closely mirrors the company’s 2024 outside review. The wording is different, but the result is largely the same: senior management was cleared of knowledge-based responsibility.
Taiwan described as a transfer hub in the case
As described by prosecutors, the alleged handling of the high-end chips was crude in execution. Investigators said controlled GPU server serial-number labels were heated with a hair dryer, removed, and reattached, while sham inspection machines were set up to deal with audits. Customs paperwork was also described as falsified.
Orders allegedly moved first through intermediary companies in Southeast Asia, obscuring the identity of end customers on paper. The goods then flowed into China along a Taiwan–Southeast Asia route starting in 2024. The three named individuals are Super Micro co-founder Liao Yi-hsien, Taiwan sales manager Chang Jui-tsang, and contractor Sun Ting-wei. Their roles all sat at the starting point of that route.
Taiwanese prosecutors are still pursuing that line of investigation. Starting June 29, the Keelung District Prosecutors Office directed the Taipei field office of the Investigation Bureau and the Keelung City Police Department’s Criminal Investigation Corps to raid 12 locations, including Super Micro’s Taiwan office, colocation provider Chief Telecom, and distributor Aetina. Six people were taken in. Among them, Aetina general manager Lu, along with two Super Micro sales staff identified by the surnames Lin and Wang, were detained. By late July, prosecutors had also detained an NVIDIA employee.
A repeat of a familiar playbook
Super Micro last used an independent review to answer outside criticism in 2024.
In August that year, short seller Hindenburg Research published a report alleging accounting problems at the company. Super Micro denied the claims. On Oct. 24, auditor EY resigned and wrote in its resignation letter that it could no longer rely on representations from management and the audit committee. EY also questioned the company’s commitment to integrity and ethical values. Super Micro shares fell 33% that day.
The board then formed a special committee and hired Cooley and forensic accounting firm Secretariat Advisors. That review concluded on Dec. 2 and said the evidence examined did not raise substantial concerns about the integrity of senior management or the audit committee, or about their commitment to ensuring that the financial statements were materially accurate. EY was later replaced by BDO, and both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission reviewed company documents.
Now, after the indictment of a co-founder, the board has again handed the matter to independent directors. The article frames that as the same company and the same board turning to the same type of internal self-review for the second time in under two years, with both efforts beginning only after outside pressure had already escalated.
Case figures and balance-sheet strain both in view
The report says the matter involves $2.5 billion in related revenue and $510 million worth of servers containing controlled chips that entered China over a two-year period. In the end, three people were indicted, while Super Micro itself was not named as a defendant and has not been accused of any violation. The company’s compliance failure, in that framing, was reduced to employees not following company policy.
Investors are also watching the company’s cash burn. Super Micro reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $39.06 billion, up 78% from $21.97 billion in fiscal 2025. But net cash used in operating activities reached $6.81 billion in the same year, compared with net cash provided of $1.66 billion a year earlier. Ending inventory rose to $12.9 billion.
The report’s point is blunt: the pressure on the stock is not only about compliance questions. It is also about how fast money is leaving the business as orders and inventory build at the same time.