HP Autonomy eDiscovery Tools: Targeting former Autonomy Execs?
Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) alleges Autonomy used misleading accounting amid the HP-Autonomy M&A negotiations in mid-2011. But how’s this for the height of irony: Autonomy offers eDiscovery solutions that “help organizations, law firms and legal service providers better meet client needs without the cumbersome integration efforts that other vendors face.” Now wouldn’t it be ironic if HP used those eDiscovery tools to build a case against former Autonomy executives?
Let The VAR Guy set the stage: During a Q4 2012 earnings call last week, CEO Meg Whitman alleged that former Autonomy used misleading accounting and withheld key information during the mid-2011 M&A process with HP. HP and former Autonomy executives are now locked in a legal war of words.
How might Autonomy’s eDiscovery technology assist HP in this battle? Consider Autonomy’s claims about the technology, which state:
“Autonomy’s eDiscovery solutions have emerged as the trusted choice of the top legal, corporate, and financial institutions to address the challenges of complex litigation and are used by more legal service providers globally than any other solution. From applying advanced analytics to understanding concepts in client data, our technology automates legal hold notification workflows and culls down massive potentially responsive data sets for review and production. Autonomy addresses each and every stage of litigation and regulatory investigations, spanning the entire Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) on a modular, end-to-end platform that eliminates the risks and excessive costs associated with handing off client data between vendors and disparate technologies. This modular e-discovery approach allows organizations to enable functionality based on their changing complexity of requirements.”
Wow. That sounds like incredibly powerful technology. But is it powerful enough to help HP build a legal case against former Autonomy executives? The VAR Guy is listening closely for answers…
The irony is this: if the product is as good as they say, it will uncover all the evidence…. thus proving that the price HP paid was justified after all.
If the product isn’t as good as they claim, it won’t find the evidence… and the very lack of evidence will prove that HP was overcharged.
For those of us in the eDiscovery world, we don’t actually want to see Autonomy hurt, but I tell you this, the technology isn’t that great, and the price HP paid was absolutely, unequivalently mind boggling. And I can’t speak to whether or not they did anything to doctor numbers, my guess the purchase price was based purely and only based on buying into an industry with a huge buzz word. “eDiscovery” I worked very closely with HP’s Mamp;A team on the possible acquisition of 2 eDiscovery firms- there was no one on either of the due diligence teams I worked with over the course of 14 months that had the experience to accurately value either deal- Meg Whitman HAS NO FAULT IN THIS DEAL SHE WALKED INTO A DEAL THAT WAS DONE.
Adding to that the claims Autonomy makes above seem grossly exaggerated, how can they say they are used by more legal services providers globally than any other firm? I’ve been in sales for 7 years and I haven’t ever competed with them in 1 deal, not 1. And their Legal Hold terminology and positioning along with the idea and team leading that product was taken directly from their former employer where the product was designed and built by an executive team member long before the market even existed. And that much has always been talked about. It would be interesting to see the products side by side.
Meg was on the board…..that approved the deal, setting her up for the CEO position! HP is cursed and the word is Meg’s resume is back on the street already!
The VAR Guy appreciates the views. Generally speaking our resident blogger doesn’t think Whitman is responsible for the Autonomy issues. But Ray Lane? Hmmm… The VAR Guy will be watching to see how HP’s executive chairman navigates all this…
-TVG