Lynch claims that HP's senior executives were aware of all aspects of Autonomy prior to acquisition, and has launched a smear campaign against Lynch and Autonomy in order to cover up their failure to perform their due diligence.
The questions asked of Meg Whitman and the Board are bullet pointed below:
Lynch brings up some excellent points, which undoubtedly will be hastily brushed under the carpet by Whitman and her PR machine, loudly distracting people with their "Five Year Turnaround" plan rhetoric.
As I have stated before, this comes down to a few possibilities, none of which are a positive sign of leadership for HP and the future of the company.
1. Autonomy was not fully vetted the way that it should have been before leading shareholders to believe that it was a solid buy for HP.
2. Autonomy was vetted but the Board and CEO at the time decided it was a favorable buy, despite its alleged shortcomings, and failed to disclose aforementioned shortcomings.
3. Autonomy was properly vetted and things looked good, but leadership failed to properly grow Autonomy into HP's offerings in a way that was economically viable.
|Meg Whitman - Always Pointing Fingers|
Still, in typical Meg Whitman fashion, this acquisition's failure is solely Autonomy's fault.
She claims, among other things, that Autonomy used misleading accounting tricks.
You're HP! Even if this is true, it is on leaderships' shoulders to have tasked competent accountants to go over the details with a fine toothed comb.
But sure - it is easier than saying "I'm Sorry".
My question here is: Can HP survive moving forward with someone who fails to take responsibility for bad decisions? Meg Whitman is the face of HP -- and as such, should take responsibility for a bad buy, apologize to shareholders for HP's failure, and figure out a plan to move forward.