It is weird, but clearly from the Exhibit the COO was given duties to root out issues that were problems not under the new CEO but existing problems the COO was being hired to address and fix--it mentions lavish spending on airline trips, gross misbidding, and the need for performance based commissions to name a few.
I don't understand how anyone can seem to ignore the fact that the old CEO signed that agreement as if it was done in secret by the board in order to take over the company. I see now that he did retain plenty to do himself (R&D Marketing, etc) but clearly he had to have had a lot of faith that the COO was highly competent. If you don't think the COO is, then blame must be put on the former CEO for not recognizing it.
I don't think the stmt about 'go around' was referencing complaints to the CEO as it wouldn't make sense to give the appearance of giving up power in order to receive complaints formerly not being made to him. It just seems to me there were problems not with the new COO who nobody even knew, but with the existing CEO. If there were issues with the new COO and staff, you don't fix them by making the COO in charge of almost everything.
That's how it looks to me.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
