The High Court heard that the estate of British technology tycoon Mike Lynch should be liable to pay more than £1.35bn to Hewlett-Packard (HP) over fraud linked to the sale of Autonomy.
Lynch, who founded software firm Autonomy in 1996, sold it to HP in 2012 for $11.1bn, but after a bust-up over allegations of artificially inflated revenues, growth and gross margins, HP sued.
The £3.7bn mammoth case went to trial in 2022 at the English High Court, resulting in a lengthy judgment in the American tech firm’s favour.
Lynch was also extradited from the UK to the US to face criminal charges in San Francisco; however, an American jury found him not guilty and acquitted him of all charges.
The consequential and further argument of the case was delayed as Lynch, along with his daughter, Morgan Stanley International Bank chair Jonathan Bloomer, and Chris Morvillo, a partner at magic circle law firm Clifford Chance, died in a tragic superyacht accident last August.
The court awarded HP £700m
HP pursued his widow and estate for compensation in civil litigation. Back in July, the High Court, after a significant time, ruled that Lynch’s estate was to pay just under £700m to HP.
The £700m figure represented a significant reduction from the amount originally claimed.
Today, according to PA, Mr Justice Hildyard is overseeing the consequential and further argument trial for the case, running from Tuesday to Friday.
In written submissions for the hearing, the barrister for HP, Patrick Goodall KC, said that Mr Lynch’s estate was liable to pay $1,786,668,553 (£1.35bn), which includes around $761m (£578m) in interest.
The senior barrister said Lynch had “not only perpetrated an enormous fraud, but lied about it at every stage”. As a result of the lengthy legal battle, HP had spent almost £150m and was seeking nearly £113m in costs from Lynch’s estate.
The barrister for Lynch’s estate, Richard Hill KC, said that the $761m (£578m) in interest sought by HP was an “excessive sum… based on a flawed analysis” and that the “legally and economically rational approach would provide for a materially lower figure”.
Hill KC also added that the amount Lynch’s estate should pay in costs should be reduced due to the “exaggeration” of HP’s claim, and “the way in which they pursued their case in these proceedings”.
The Silk for the deceased mogel told the court that the two earlier rulings should be allowed to be appealed, claiming that the judge “erred in law” and that there was a “compelling reason for allowing the appeal to be heard”.
However, Goodall KC said that there should be no appeal, arguing that while the estate “does not seek to appeal any of the findings of actual fraud”, it “pursues an appeal aimed at escaping the consequences of that fraud”.
A judgment on this trial will be expected in writing at a later date.