Hewlett-Packard lost hundreds of millions in Autonomy acquisition, judge rules
The company claimed at a nine-month trial in 2019 that Mr Lynch inflated Autonomy's revenues and 'committed a deliberate fraud over a sustained period of time', which it said forced it to announce an 8.8 billion dollar (£6.5 billion) write-down of the firm's worth just over a year after the acquisition.
In a ruling in 2022, Mr Justice Hildyard said the American firm had 'substantially succeeded' in their claim, but that it was likely to receive 'substantially less' than the amount it claimed in damages.
He said that Autonomy had not accurately portrayed its financial position during the purchase, but even if it had, HPE would still have bought the company, but at a reduced price.
A hearing was then held last year to decide the amount that Mr Lynch must pay in damages, before the businessman died aged 59 along with his 18-year-old daughter, Hannah, and five others when his yacht, the Bayesian, sank off the coast of Sicily last August.
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Hildyard ruled that HPE suffered losses amounting to £697,876,753 through the purchasing of Autonomy, some of which is set to be paid by Mr Lynch's estate.
He also ruled that Mr Lynch's estate is liable to pay part of around 47.5 million dollars in damages, which is worth around £35 million.
Some of the money is due to be paid by Sushovan Hussain, Autonomy's former chief financial officer, who was also sued by HPE.
He was convicted in April 2018 in the US of wire fraud and other crimes related to Autonomy's sale, and was sentenced to five years in prison.
While he has since settled HPE's claim, he could still be required to pay damages.
A further hearing to deal with matters including interest, currency conversion and whether Mr Lynch's estate can appeal against the decision is set to be held in November.
Handing down his ruling, Mr Justice Hildyard expressed his 'great sympathy' for Mr Lynch's family, calling his death a 'tragedy'.
He said: 'It is a source of anxiety to me that I have to deliver a judgment that will inevitably cause further stress on those involved.'
In the 197-page ruling, he said he considered that HPE's claim 'was always substantially exaggerated' and that the five billion dollars figure claimed 'was not based on detailed analysis'.
Following the ruling in 2022, Mr Lynch, who was also the founding investor of cybersecurity giant Darktrace, was extradited to the US in May 2023 to face criminal charges after his removal was approved by the then-Home Secretary Priti Patel.
He was cleared of accusations that he orchestrated a fraud and conspiracy over Autonomy's sale in the US in June 2024, and was celebrating the acquittal on his yacht at the time of his death.
In a statement written before his death, issued posthumously by his representatives on Tuesday, Mr Lynch said: 'Today's High Court ruling reflects that HP's original five billion dollar damages claim was not just a wild overstatement – misleading shareholders – but it was off the mark by 80%.
'HP acquired Autonomy for 11.6 billion dollars and today's judgment is a view that Autonomy's actual value was not even 10% below the price HP paid.
'This result exposes HP's failure and makes clear that the immense damage to Autonomy was down to HP's own errors and actions.
'An appeal process will be considered later this year.
'The English civil case included hearsay evidence from the US and we were never able to question or cross-examine those witnesses.
'This is in direct contrast to the rights of defendants in the US legal system.
'When in the US criminal trial we were able to cross-examine the relevant witnesses, a very different story emerged. Why is the English legal system so trusting?'
A spokesperson for HPE said: 'We are pleased that this decision brings us a step closer to the resolution of this dispute.
'We look forward to the further hearing at which the final amount of HPE's damages will be determined.'
Jeremy Sandelson, who was appointed by the court as administrator of Mr Lynch's estate, said he would be 'examining the judgment carefully', including whether to appeal both the 2022 ruling and the judgment on Tuesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Spectator
The state will do anything but fix the migrant crisis
Migrant hotel protests are erupting across the country, as 'tinderbox' Britain catches fire. What began with a series of protests in Epping, Essex, over the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by a recently arrived Ethiopian migrant, has now spread, as Brits air long-standing grievances about asylum seekers they have been forced to host in their own communities. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity Demonstrations have so far been reported in Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth, Norwich, Leeds and Wolverhampton, Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, Altrincham and even at Canary Wharf in London. With years of unaddressed anger rapidly making themselves felt, the police, pulled in all directions, are struggling to keep up. 'Local commanders are once again being forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps', admits the head of the Police Federation. Still, it seems there is one thing the government is more than happy to devote resources to: trawling the internet for anti-migrant sentiment. The Telegraph reports that an elite team of police officers convened by the Home Office is set to monitor social media to flag up early signs of unrest. Working out of the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) in Westminster the new National Internet Intelligence Investigations team will 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering in order to 'help local forces manage public safety threats and risks'. If this new division was just about intelligence-gathering that would be one thing. It's true that social media is in invaluable resource for following events on the ground at such gatherings, while local Facebook groups are often where grassroots protests are organised. Yet we know that when it comes to the British state and social media, censorship and punishment for online speech is never far behind. Ever since Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly linked the Southport unrest last year with social media, the idea has firmly taken root in Whitehall that the best way to stop unrest is to aggressively police the internet. Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, already takes this view, and the link has even been drawn in Department for Education guidance on how to talk to schoolchildren about the Southport disorder. In a recent report, the police inspectorate said that that forces must be 'better prepared and resourced to monitor, analyse, use and respond to online content', which it argues was a risk to public safety. This general zeal for social-media policing is why Big Brother Watch believes the new unit is very likely to infringe on free speech. The investigations team is 'Orwellian' and 'disturbing', says interim director Rebecca Vincent, creating the possibility that it 'will attempt to interfere with online content' as other government bodies are known to have done during Covid. As if there weren't enough threats to free speech already. This week age verification provisions in the latest stage of the Online Safety Act (OSA) kicked in, meaning that some footage of protests is now inaccessible on social media for many users. Not even parliamentary privilege is safe from the censorship regime. Katie Lam's searing April speech on the rape gangs, in which she quoted court transcripts and survivors, could not be watched on X without age verification. We are beginning to look like North Korea with rainbow flags: for the public's 'safety', footage exposing grievous failures of the British state now cannot be viewed in the UK. Little wonder, given the OSA explicitly earmarks content relating to 'child sexual abuse' and 'illegal immigration and people smuggling' as the 'kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from'. The Conservatives, who bequeathed us this blank cheque for digital authoritarianism, certainly need to take a long, hard look at themselves. The claims that the OSA is merely about restricting access to pornography has been exposed as a mere fig leaf. And still things could still get worse. As the Free Speech Union has noted, shortly after last year's riots, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship lobby group with ties to Morgan McSweeney, 'hosted a closed-door meeting under the Chatham House rule to discuss the role of social media in civil unrest'. In attendance were officials from the Home Office, the Department of Science, Information and Technology, Ofcom and other organisations. The CCDH proposals that emerged included amending the OSA to 'grant Ofcom additional 'emergency response' powers to fight 'misinformation' that poses a 'threat' to 'national security' and 'the health or safety of the public''. This would give Secretary of State Peter Kyle the ability to directly flag unapproved content to be taken down at a time of 'crisis'. Should the unrest continue this could well be coming down the track. What all this illustrates is just how ill-equipped the people in charge are to deal with Britain's problems, as The Spectator's Madeline Grant noted earlier this week. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity. Spin doctors 'manage' the news. Police surveil social media. The government shuffles asylum seekers from hotel to hotel, or to HMOs, or even to privately rented accommodation (which it uses your own taxes to outbid you for). For his part, the prime minister has been tweeting about the women's football. As the unrest grows, leading politicians continue doggedly insist that Britain remains a 'a successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith country'. In reality, there are answers to the asylum hotels crisis, it's just that the government simply lacks the will to act. Large numbers of illegal migrants need to be deported, while those that are here should be placed in a secure holding facility somewhere remote. What is surely obvious by now where they should not be: in hotels, in an Essex market town 500 yards from a school; on the Bournemouth beachfront; in the London's financial district; in a Leeds suburb right next to a shopping centre. As it is, however, it seems the regime will try anything and everything before addressing people's real concerns.
Scotsman
16 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Investors need certainty to build the homes Scotland needs
We must unlock the investment that would deliver new housing, says Colin Brown Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... In May 2024, the Scottish Parliament declared a national 'housing emergency' with some councils also declaring a housing emergency in their areas. The announcement of the emergency came two months after the Scottish Government laid the Housing (Scotland) Bill before the Scottish Parliament. The Bill continues to work its way through Holyrood and is expected to come into force later this year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Observers in the world of institutional investment and those working in the sector have been watching the progress of the Bill with interest. Of particular concern to investors are proposals around rent controls. Colin Brown is a Partner at TLT To give one example that has occurred recently – a London-based investment firm, was about to commit many millions of pounds to its first Scottish investment before discovering that a committee considering the Bill had voted to include purpose-built student accommodation as subject to statutory rent controls. All of the financial appraisals the firm had undertaken in making the decision to invest in Scotland were potentially being ripped up by MSPs and they had no power to do anything about this. In this situation, the Scottish Government moved quickly to make clear it would not support rent control for purpose-built student accommodation. Whilst the project is now starting to come out of the ground it remains to be seen whether they consider Scotland a safe haven for future investment. The rental income which institutional investors derive from their investments in bricks and mortar helps to fund many individuals' pensions. The investors need to understand that in exchange for making their money available they will get a return on their investment and this return has generally been left to market forces – the law of supply and demand. The housing emergency should make investment in new build housing in Scotland a win-win. The country gets much-needed new housing to alleviate the emergency, and the investment funds get to deploy their capital to deliver housing and make a return on their investment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the UK in the first quarter of this year £1.2 billion was invested in private rental accommodation with the potential for £6bn to be invested by the end of the year. 76 per cent of this investment is being directed outside London, with Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds leading the way. Every penny of this investment creates new housing and sustains and creates job opportunities. The fact that Scotland has not been able to open the investment tap when cities in England are seeing private rental accommodation expand, could be seen as a missed opportunity. In launching the latest consultation, the Social Justice Secretary acknowledges that rental properties are a crucial element of the efforts to tackle the housing emergency. Government policy has slowed investment into the sector in recent years and resulted in lower investor confidence in providing much-needed housing. Rent caps and controls are of course not universally despised and a balance must be struck between protecting tenants and unlocking the investment that delivers the new housing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The latest consultation on exemptions for certain types of properties from rent control closed earlier this month. There will be investors with capital looking for a home waiting to see if the legislative and political environment in Scotland means they should be deploying more of this in Scotland or continuing to explore opportunities which guarantee a better return elsewhere.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
EU-US tariffs: five key takeaways from the trade deal
Donald Trump has announced a deal with the EU imposing tariffs of 15% on most goods entering the US from Europe and requiring the bloc to make huge investments in US energy products, averting a trade war between the two of the world's largest economies. Though the 15% rate is half of what Trump had threatened, many will be disappointed by it. When the UK accepted tariffs of 10% in its trade deal with the US in May, it was widely reported that European leaders considered it to be a bad deal. Brussels also agreed to buy, over three years, $750bn (£560bn) worth of oil, gas, nuclear fuel and semi-conductors, including liquified gas, while at the same time agreeing to invest $600bn (£446bn) in the US, including purchases of military equipment, according to Trump. One analyst suggested the deal was a 'big win' for the US president while it was less clear what the EU gained. 'A 15% tariff on European goods, forced purchases of US energy and military equipment and zero tariff retaliation by Europe, that's not negotiation, that's art of the deal.,' Prashant Newnaha, senior Asia-Pacific rates strategist at TD securities said. Here are five key takeaways: The US will keep in place a 50% tariff on steel and aluminium according to Trump, although European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said the tariffs on steel could be replaced with a quota system with further negotiation. There was also confusion over pharmaceuticals after Trump said the sector would not be included, however a senior US official later confirmed that they were in fact covered by the 15% tariff. According to von der Leyen, zero tariffs will apply to a range of sectors including 'all aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generics, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, natural resources and critical raw materials'. But there was ongoing uncertainty for some industries – Sunday's announcement did not clear up what tariffs European wine and spirits producers will face in the US. Carsten Nickel, deputy director of research at Teneo, said Sunday's accord was 'merely a high-level, political agreement' that could not replace a carefully hammered out trade deal: 'This, in turn, creates the risk of different interpretations along the way, as seen immediately after the conclusion of the US-Japan deal.' On Sunday, a senior US administration official told reporters in Washington that Trump retained the ability to increase the tariffs in the future if European countries do not live up to the investment commitments contained in the deal. The deal creates a division on the island of Ireland, as traders in Northern Ireland can sell into the US on a 10% tariff rate, courtesy of the UK deal, while their neighbours in Ireland will be hit with the 15% rate. The disparity will make for difficult diplomatic conversations over guarantees to maintain stability on the entire island in the Good Friday agreement, which had already been rocked by the fallout from Brexit, when customs arrangements involving Northern Ireland became a huge headache for EU and UK negotiators. Ireland's deputy prime minister, Simon Harris, said he 'regretted' the 15% tariff rate but said 'certainty' was important. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector. German carmakers, VW, Mercedes and BMW were some of the hardest hit by the 27.5% US tariff on car and parts imports now in place. But the powerful BDI federation of industrial groups was vocal in its disappointment. 'Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry,' said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. The country's VCI chemical trade association said the accord left rates 'too high'. The impact of the tariffs is likely to be substantial on some companies; automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3bn euro ($1.5bn) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Though von der Leyen framed the agreement as a 'good deal' that would bring 'stability' and 'predictability', Brussels' original aim in the talks was for a 'zero-for-zero' tariff deal and tariffs remain far higher than historically. 'The crippling uncertainty is largely over, the deal is bearable for the EU,' said Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank. 'Trump can claim that the asymmetric deal is a 'win' for him. But of course, the outcome is still bad relative to the situation that prevailed before Trump started his trade wars.' US consumers are also likely to bear the costs of tariffs as companies pass on the expense in increased prices, many economists have warned. With agencies
