[ad_1]
Autonomy test Mike Lynch, former CEO of Autonomie, counterclaims against HPE, will fail in his legal battle over HP's $ 11 billion untimely acquisition of battery life in 2011 because it was filed against the bad legal entity, boldly said this lawyer in court this afternoon.
Declaring that Lynch 's counterclaim amounted to £ 121 million ($ 160 million) against Autonomy, following statements made in 2012 by Hewlett Packard about its devaluation of the merger,' 'and' '. an amount of $ 8.8 billion, lawyer Laurence Rabinowitz, QC, told the High Court: by HP. Not autonomy. "
In other words, it was claimed that Lynch had actually been sued by HP's Autonomy following the acquisition. However, his counterclaim against Autonomy alleges that HP defamed him. Thus, he claims, he pursues one entity for words spoken by another, with which the English legal system will not put.
In legal terms, Lynch is sued by the company that inherited Autonomy's badets, ACL Netherlands BV, with HPE and some of its other companies in support of this lawsuit, although HPE is currently at the origin of the dispute.
Even so, Rabinowitz told Judge Lynch, Judge Lynch, that he had filed the counterclaim only because HPE and Autonomy had sued him: "Dr. submitted no application in two years; he would not have made a claim if he did not. When a claim was filed against Dr. Lynch by Autonomy, this resulted in a problem … Dr. Lynch could not make a counterclaim against Autonomy for defamation. "
Lynch's counterclaim for $ 160 million indicates that Hewlett Packard, as it was known in 2012, had made statements about its management of self-sufficiency in the years immediately preceding the redemption, which had damaged his business, Invoke Capital Partners. Lynch said HP's 11 separate statements had caused Invoke to lose approximately $ 160 million worth of contracts, of which "between $ 126 million and $ 130 million" was expected to flow into Lynch's piggy bank.
"What we find, my lord, in this counter-claim is an allegation that Autonomy breached the contract, that Autonomy was negligent and that Autonomy acted in violation of the law of 1998 on data protection, "Rabinowitz told Judge Hildyard. "All this in relation to the statements made by HP, not with Autonomy. Your lordship will also have noted that Dr. Lynch does not suggest any of these violations actually caused him a direct loss. "
If HPE loses, can Lynch win?
Separately, the judge revealed a little more thought on the case following the questions this morning on HPE's legal argument that Autonomy's accounting could have been creative, but not deliberately misleading.
"If," asked Judge Hildyard in Rabinowitz, "you manage to show that the accounting was inappropriate but did not show that it was fraudulent, would the counterclaim survive?" "
Rabinowitz replied, "No, I think what we are saying is that it was fraudulent."
Patiently, the judge tried again:
Put it in simple terms. Dr. Lynch is convinced of being accused of dishonesty and fraud. And he thinks he should have a reward for that. If you had to show that the accounts were misleading, nevertheless, he – that you has not demonstrated that he was dishonest in this process, would the counterclaim still succeed?
Rabinowitz shook his head: "That would fail anyway legally, given that these statements were made by HP and not by Autonomy", adding: "My lordship will have noticed that Dr. Lynch says very little about the HP integration after acquisition of Autonomy. "
In its written submission, HPE stated that Lynch's "desire to focus on the period following the acquisition – as opposed to the pre-acquisition period in which the fraud was perpetrated – is itself revealing. It is also instructive that Mr. Lynch has not yet explained the relevance of these post-acquisition issues to the issues that the Court must decide in these proceedings. "
Tomorrow, the Lynch and Hussain cases will begin to defend themselves against HPE's charges, with the court rising early after the end of HPE's opening remarks this afternoon instead of starting a new installment late in the legal day. The trial continues. ®
Start note
Someone who was less enthusiastic about the debates this afternoon sank halfway to midway, clearly heard in the courtroom.
While Rabinowitz and Judge Hildyard ignored and continued, all the half-asleep lawyers and the army of flacks and journalists at the back of the room began to look around like meerkats, seeking to identify the sleepy culprit. Unfortunately, your correspondent was too far away to know who it was, although that comes from the general direction of Lynch and Hussain's legal teams.
Sponsored:
Become a leader in pragmatic security
Source link
