HP and Autonomy continue legal fight in UK

Apr 1, 2015

The OEM announced it would sue former staff of the software company for damages, who in turn revealed they would counter-sue HP for “loss and damage”.autonomy-logo

The Guardian reported on the new legal battle between HP and CEO of Autonomy Mike Lynch, alongside former Finance Director Sushovan Hussain. The OEM acquired Autonomy in 2011, but wrote down its worth in November 2012, claiming that “accounting fraud and inflated financials” from Autonomy officials, including Lynch, were to blame, and HP’s shareholders sued HP for mismanagement, though a settlement was announced in June 2014 and secured in March this year.

The UK Serious Fraud Office closed its investigation into the circumstances of the acquisition in January this year, but HP has now filed a claim for $5.1 billion (€4.7 billion) in damages at the UK High Court in the chancery division against Lynch and Hussain, marking the “first time the company has taken direct action against Lynch and Hussain”. The OEM stated that the lawsuit “seeks damages from [Lynch and Hussain] of approximately $5.1 billion. HP will not comment further until the proceedings have been served on the defendants”.

In response, Lynch and Hussain – who have since founded Invoke Capital, a technology fund – have vowed to file a counterclaim against HP “for loss and damages” caused by the OEM’s “smear campaign”. Their claim is said to be for around £100 million ($147 million/€137 million), and a spokesperson said that “the former management of Autonomy announces today they will file claims against HP for loss and damage caused by false and negligent statements made against them by HP on 20 November 2012 and in HP’s subsequent smear campaign”.

The Guardian noted that HP’s filing of the claim is “understood” to have taken place to “avoid any issues concerning possible statutes of limitations”, in other words, so that they do not miss the deadline “by which a plaintiff must launch legal action or abandon a claim”. This is in direct response to the Serious Fraud Office closing its investigation, though jurisdiction for some of the allegations was handed over to both the FBI and US Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigations.

Search The News Archive