> But you seem to be saying it is the seller's responsibility to understand the buyer's product and evaluate the integration during due diligence?
I'm not OP, but I don't think that's what they meant:
>> the product not being able to integrate with your product like they claimed
It's lack of due diligence by the buyer after being deceived (intentionally or not). I imagine the seller saying "We support gRPC too, so we can interop easily" and then discovering that's not quite the case afterwards.
Re:Lessons Learned after $5B of M&A
by 0xbadcafebee on Saturday February 19, 2022 @11:16AM
(#30398179)
Yep. It's 100% the buyers' responsibility to vet what they're buying, but the seller can obscure a lot until after the sale.
It's like buying a used car. You need a mechanic to really get in there and find all the rotten bits, based on where you intend to drive it (and how long)
This one jumped out at me.
I've definitely seen integration struggles post-acquisition, but I typically find that the parent company (buyer) needs to be accountable for that integration. But you seem to be saying it is the seller's responsibility to understand the buyer's product and evaluate the integration during due diligence? Did I read that correctly? If so, I'd like to understand that perspective better - would you be willing to elaborate?