Autonomy Trial The counterclaim of the ex-autonomous CEO, Mike Lynch, against HPE, amid their ongoing legal struggle over an unreliable acquisition of $ 11bn HP in 2011, failed – because he was filed against the wrong legal entity, claimed HPE barrister in court this afternoon.
Announcing that £ 121m ($ 160m) counterfeit Lynch was actually against Autonomy, over statements made in 2012 by Hewlett Packard about his $ 8.8bn property and the merger, barrister Laurence Rabinowitz QC told the High t Court: “Everyone in relation to statements made by HP. Not Autonomy. ”
In other words, it was claimed that Lynch, effectively, had been prosecuted by HP's Autonomy following the acquisition, however, his counterclaim to Autonomy claimed that HP had been contaminated. Therefore, it is alleged that he is prosecuting one entity for words said by another, that the English legal system will introduce.
Legally, Lynch is prosecuted by the company who inherited Autonomy's assets, ACL Netherlands BV, with HPE and some of its other corporate attendances supporting that legal case – although HPE is leading the litigation. actual.
However, Rabinowitz told Mr Justice Hildyard, the trial judge, that it was only because HPE and Autonomy had first prosecuted him: “Dr Lynch did not claim in two years; he would not have brought a claim other than the fact that a claim was brought against him. When a claim was brought against Dr Lynch through Autonomy, that caused a problem … Dr Lynch could not claim against Autonomy for defamation. ”
Lynch's counterclaim for $ 160m states that Hewlett Packard, as he was called in 2012, had made statements about his handling of Independence in the years immediately preceding the purchase of Lynch's post-Automobile business. , Invoke Capital Partners. Lynch said that 11 separate statements of HP had caused Annog to miss out on bargains sold about $ 160m, that “between $ 126m and $ 130m” would flow into Lynch's pig bank.
“What someone finds, my lord, in this counterclaim is an allegation that Autism has broken the contract, that Autonomy is negligent and that Autonomy has broken the Data Protection Act 1998,” said Rabinowitz to Mr. Ustus Hildyard. “All in relation to statements made by HP, not Autonomy. Your lordship will also have indicated that Dr Lynch does not suggest that any of these cases caused him any loss directly. ”
If HPE loses, can Lynch grab a win?
Separately, the judge revealed a little more to think about the case following questions this morning about HPE's legal argument that Autonomy accounting could be creative but not deliberately fraudulent.
“If Mr Justice Hildyard had asked Rabinowitz,“ do you manage to show that he was improper accounting but did not show that he was fraudulent, would the counterclaim survive? ”
Rabinowitz replied: “No, I think that what we are saying is that he is deceptive.” T
Patiently, the judge tried again:
Put it in layman terms. Dr Lynch crosses that he has been accused of dishonesty and fraud. And he feels he should get compensation for that. However, if you show that the accounts are misleading – that is you failed to show that he was dishonest in that process, would the counterclaim still succeed?
Rabinowitz provoked his head: “It would fail anyway as a matter of law, because those statements were made by HP and not Autonomy,” adding: “My lordship will have noticed that Dr Lynch has not. says little about the post-acquisition autonomy of HP.
In written submissions, HPE said that “Lynch's desire to focus on the period following the acquisition – unlike the assumption period that the fraud was committed in – was itself said. It is equally informative that Dr Lynch has not yet explained the relevance of these post-acquisition issues to the issues to be decided by the Court in this case. ”
Tomorrow's cases start with Lynch and Hussain defending themselves against HPE accusations, the court has risen early after the end of HPE's opening statements this afternoon rather than starting a new string late in the legal day. The trial continues. ®
Someone who was less enthusiastic about this afternoon's sounds sounded high half way through, heard clearly throughout the courtroom.
While Rabinowitz and Mr Justice Hildyard suddenly ignored and continued, suddenly all lawyers began to sleep roughly with the army of reporters and reporters at the back of the room looking around like meerkats, searching to identify the depressing perpetrator. Unfortunately, your correspondent was too far to see who he was, although he was from the general direction of Lynch and Hussain's legal teams.
Become a Pragmatic Security Leader