????英美納稅人如果希望今年過節(jié)期間（甚至一直到明年）多花點(diǎn)錢，他們或許會(huì)很高興了解到，因?yàn)榛萜眨℉ewlett-Packard）收購軟件公司Autonomy現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)弄得一團(tuán)糟，他們的這個(gè)愿望有可能會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)。

????上周，惠普要求美國證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）和英國嚴(yán)重詐騙調(diào)查局（Serious Fraud Office）立案調(diào)查在2011年10月惠普收購Autonomy之前，后者是否存在不當(dāng)會(huì)計(jì)行為。美國聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）和美國證券交易委員會(huì)早已經(jīng)開始動(dòng)用納稅人的資源。

????2011年11月21日，惠普CEO梅格?惠特曼曾宣稱Autonomy公司在惠普“2012年發(fā)展計(jì)劃中列于優(yōu)先位置的第1、第2和第3”。除了新任董事拉爾夫?維特沃斯，這一屆董事會(huì)當(dāng)時(shí)都看好這樁并購。2012年11月20日，惠特曼宣布對(duì)這樁2011年的收購交易減記88億美元，減記幅度高達(dá)85%。

????上周的惠普季度分析師電話會(huì)議猶如一場(chǎng)夢(mèng)魘，惠特曼啟動(dòng)防御，竭力維護(hù)備受抨擊的董事會(huì)。無論是在電話會(huì)議上，還是在隨后接受消費(fèi)者新聞與財(cái)經(jīng)電視頻道（CNBC）和Marketplace的采訪中，惠特曼都拿出上法庭的架勢(shì)來應(yīng)對(duì)，用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的套話來回應(yīng)對(duì)董事會(huì)的指責(zé)。不是科技套話，而是公司治理套話。套話的核心詞是什么？“依賴”。

????“聽到這個(gè)消息，我們很失望，”惠特曼告訴消費(fèi)者新聞與財(cái)經(jīng)電視頻道，但“擔(dān)任董事會(huì)職務(wù)只能這么干。你得依賴管理層的建議和（經(jīng)審計(jì)的）財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)，”她說?！拔耶?dāng)時(shí)投票贊成這樁收購，但我們就是干這個(gè)的?！彼闹?jǐn)慎措辭將董事會(huì)描繪成受害者，董事會(huì)遭到指責(zé)時(shí)通常都會(huì)用這樣的方式來保護(hù)自己。

董事會(huì)到底是干什么的？

????但依賴管理層必須有一個(gè)限度。特別是在大型交易和并購中，董事會(huì)需要考慮其他意見，仔細(xì)權(quán)衡其他選擇。在這樁交易于2011年10月完成前，惠普董事長瑞?萊恩曾出現(xiàn)在《信息周刊》（Information Week）的一次會(huì)議上?！癆utonomy是唯一的答案，”他說?！八麄兪仟?dú)一無二的。”

????不久后，甲骨文（Oracle）發(fā)布新聞稿披露了此前與Autonomy創(chuàng)始人邁克?林奇的協(xié)商談判：“甲骨文拒絕出價(jià)，因?yàn)锳utonomy當(dāng)前60億美元的市值太高了，”一份新聞稿稱。（惠普出價(jià)103億美元。）

????當(dāng)時(shí)其他的估值意見與甲骨文更為接近?！斑@樣的出價(jià)似乎不太理性，”Peel Hunt分析師保羅?莫蘭德告訴《金融時(shí)報(bào)》(Financial Times)，稱惠普支付的79%溢價(jià)“不可思議，被收購公司今年上半年的利潤增長僅6%?！睋?jù)消費(fèi)者新聞與財(cái)經(jīng)電視頻道報(bào)道，2011年7月甚至在惠普還沒有宣布這樁收購交易前，賣空者吉姆?查諾斯就發(fā)布了一份詳細(xì)的報(bào)告，對(duì)Autonomy的賬簿、信息披露和未來股價(jià)走勢(shì)表示了擔(dān)憂。

????即便是惠普管理層，也并不是一致支持這樁交易。事實(shí)上，CFO凱希?萊斯加克就曾堅(jiān)決反對(duì)這樁收購，惠特曼后來任命她負(fù)責(zé)惠普的并購盡職調(diào)查。據(jù)《財(cái)富》雜志記者詹姆斯?班得勒和多瑞斯?博克的文章，萊斯加克曾告訴董事會(huì)：“我認(rèn)為這家公司太貴了，”，還說“收購不符合公司的最佳利益?！?/p>

????U.S. and UK taxpayers looking to spend some extra dollars on behalf of corporations during the holidays (and into next year) will be pleased to know that Hewlett-Packard's bungled acquisition of software firm Autonomy has made that possible.

????Last week, HP asked both the SEC and the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office to open investigations into possible accounting improprieties that may have occurred at Autonomy prior to HP's purchase of the firm in October 2011. Taxpayer resources at both the FBI and SEC are already at work.

????On November 21, 2011, CEO Meg Whitman had touted Autonomy as HP's "priority #1, 2 and 3 for 2012." The entire current HP board, excluding new board member Ralph Whitworth, blessed the purchase. On November 20, 2012, Whitman announced an 85%, $8.8 billion write-down of the 2011 acquisition.

????As last week's HP (HPQ) quarterly analyst call unfolded like a bad dream, Whitman set the beleaguered board's defense in motion. On the call and in follow up interviews on CNBC and Marketplace, Whitman fashioned her court-ready responses to questions on the board's culpability in a geek code. Not technology geek, but governance geek. The code word in this case? "Rely."

????"We are disappointed by the news," Whitman told CNBC. But "that is what you do when you are on a board. You rely on the recommendations of management and the [audited] financials," she said. "I voted for this deal but we are where we are." Her carefully crafted words cast the board as the victim, wrapping it in a protective shield that directors most often use when they are sued.

Where was the board?

????But reliance on management has its limits. Particularly in large transactions and M&A situations, boards need to take into account other views and carefully weigh alternatives. Before the deal closed in October 2011, HP chair Ray Lane appeared at an Information Week gathering. "Autonomy was the only answer," he said. "They are unique."

????Not long after, Oracle issued press releases describing its earlier talks with Autonomy founder Mike Lynch: "Oracle refused to make an offer because Autonomy's current market value of $6 billion was way too high," one of the releases stated. (HP had offered $10.3 billion.)

????Other views on the valuation were closer to Oracle's. "This bid seems to defy logic," Peel Hunt analyst Paul Morland told the Financial Times, characterizing the 79% premium HP paid as "an 'amazing' premium for a company whose earnings grew by just 6 per cent in the first half of the year." And in July 2011, before HP even announced the acquisition, short seller Jim Chanos issued a detailed report citing concerns about Autonomy's books, disclosures, and future trajectory, according to CNBC.

????But even HP management was not unanimously supportive of the deal. In fact, CFO Cathy Lesjak, who Whitman later appointed to oversee M&A due diligence at HP, took a firm stand against the acquisition. According to Fortune'sJames Bandler and Doris Burke, Lesjak told the board, "I think it's too expensive," and, "This is not in the best interests of the company."