Having watched and listened repeatedly to the 55 minute SciQuest Q2 Scoop video, and reviewing my corresponding 33 pages of notes, further contradictions in terms of SciQuest’s SLAPP and subsequent $3.5 million lawsuit have come to light.
On page 18, point 46 of the SLAPP document, SciQuest contends that my November 28th, 2014 post titled “With SciQuest’s selection, Deloitte’s demonstrates once again why professional services firms should stick to number crunching” is defamatory.
Their reason is that The statement that SciQuest is “in obvious trouble” and did not deserve Deloitte’s recognition is false, and implies that SciQuest is not experiencing any growth, improvement, or progress.
Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that I have, over the years, questioned on more than one occasion, Deloitte’s expertise in offering insights to the procurement world. By the way, I was not alone in raising a red flag regarding Deloitte’s, as demonstrated by this ZDNet article.
Let’s also overlook the reported challenges that SciQuest has and is facing – which by the way were confirmed by the words of both their CFO and CEO per my September 6th, 2015 post A Material Change at SciQuest?
In today’s post, it is the reference to the company’s assertion regarding SciQuest “not experiencing any growth, improvement, or progress” as being false, that I will specifically address.
Towards the end of the video, during the Q&A session, SciQuest CEO Stephen Wiehe made the statement that employees should not “look at the price” of SciQuest stock – which he assures them will be fine come January.
He then goes on to say that the low stock price is the result of an “investor base shift” which was traditionally “driven by growth.” Since the company “stopped making acquisitions . . . our growth has topped out so we are not growing a huge amount.”
Ponder these words for just a moment.
Beyond Wiehe’s own words, the fact is that SciQuest’s problems relative to growth are well documented. This includes the May 20th, 2014 Zack’s post, in which the investment research firm wrote the following; “That is why we currently have a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell) on this stock and are looking for it to underperform in the weeks ahead. So either avoid this stock or consider jumping ship until the estimates and technical factors turn around for SQI.” It should be noted that the Zack’s post came out several months before my November Deloitte’s post. I wonder if SciQuest is suing Zack’s, as well as anyone else who has questioned the company’s growth and lack of traction?
But here’s the thing, beyond industry coverage, Wiehe’s own words about the company’s growth having “topped out,” and that SciQuest is “not growing a huge amount” makes one wonder why they are claiming my November post is defamatory.
In this regard, these inconsistencies are obviously troubling and do require further investigation, especially given that this contradicts what the company is saying (or not saying) to the procurement world.
In short, we need to know the truth.
As I had indicated in today’s opening paragraph, through my review of the information I have received from sources, there appears to be other inconsistencies. I will, as part of my ongoing obligation to you, keep you posted.
In the meantime, my invitation to SciQuest to come forward and share their side of the story – whether it be in the form of a letter that I will post on my blog, or an interview on my radio show, remains open.
Follow this story on Twitter using the hashtag #SQSLAPP