HP–Autonomy: A cautionary case study
Few cases illustrate this point better than Hewlett-Packard’s ill-fated acquisition of Autonomy in 2011. It is a well-trodden example but still resonates as a case example of a triumvirate where the dynamic had gone awry.
At the time, HP was pursuing a transformation of its business model. The $11bn purchase of Autonomy, a UK software company, was pitched as a way to shift the strategic direction of HP from a producer of hardware to a software and services supplier. It was not a large ‘bolt-on’ acquisition, but a high-stakes move on the company’s long-term strategy.
According to court documents reported by CFO.com at the time, HP’s then-CFO Cathie Lesjak “vehemently opposed” the deal, warning it was not in the best interests of the company. Nonetheless, CEO Léo Apotheker pressed ahead with the deal, bringing the proposal to the Board, which approved it. Independent chairman Raymond Lane is also reported to have harbored doubts about the deal’s valuation.
The outcome is well known. Léo Apotheker was ousted before the acquisition closed. Meg Whitman, his successor, was therefore compelled to complete a deal that she did not initiate. Less than a year later, HP announced an $8.8bn write-down. The strategic transformation was derailed, and the company was left with years of litigation and reputational damage.
For CFOs, the lesson is clear. Even when the risks are clear and voiced, you need to get the dynamics right. If the critical triumvirate is misaligned – with a CEO who is enthused about the deal, a CFO who is doubtful, and a Board that is disengaged – the guardrails can fail. In this case, the consequences were serious.