HPE urges judge to pick through Deloitte-bashing report it claims demolishes Autonomy founder's defence
- Reference: 1614346744
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/02/26/hpe_lynch_frc_report_extra_evidence_application/
- Source link:
If successful, HPE's move would allow Mr Justice Hildyard to take into account the [1]Financial Reporting Council's (FRC) extremely unflattering findings * against Deloitte and former auditors Richard Knights and Nigel Mercer, who, the FRC found, wrongfully signed off misleading statements in Autonomy's accounts.
[2]
Given that a substantial part of Lynch's High Court defence amounted to "Deloitte said it was OK so we did nothing wrong", having the FRC's findings read by the judge could punch a hole through his case.
I just got here – what's it all about?
In 2011, HP bought Autonomy, a maker of software to keep track of unstructured data, founded by Mike Lynch in the UK for $11bn.
After the buyout, the US IT titan wrote down the value of Autonomy by $8.8bn, claiming the British firm had [3]"misrepresented" its value. Lynch, Autonomy CEO at the time of the biz gobble, denies this.
HPE is now suing Lynch and Autonomy financial chief Sushovan Hussain at the High Court in London, seeking $5bn in damages. Over [4]in the States , prosecutors are pursuing a separate criminal fraud case against Lynch and Autonomy bean-counter Stephen Chamberlain. All three men deny any wrongdoing.
[5]
Barrister Conall Patton QC, for HPE, told the court yesterday the company's legal application to admit the report as evidence raised three things: "First, is the proposed evidence relevant to the issues in the proceedings? Second, is it admissible? And thirdly, if it is relevant and admissible, should it be admitted as a matter of discretion?"
Richard Hill QC, for Lynch, was firmly against letting the FRC report be read in full by the judge, saying HPE was "trying to get material before this court that shows someone else's decision making rather than real expert evidence."
Mr Justice Hildyard, who alternated between a suit jacket and a cosy green jumper at various points during the day's proceedings, was thoughtful about this, saying:
Is it not right, in a case such as this, to try and identify what the full point on admissibility is if there is one, and is not the full point in this case whether the findings of the tribunal were expert findings or adjudicatory – quasi-judical findings? If the latter, would you accept the material is not admissible?
The hearing eventually settled into debate about that point: was the FRC report basically a piece of expert evidence, like the testimony of expert accounting witnesses [6]Gervase MacGregor (for Lynch) and [7]Peter Holgate (for HPE) ? And if so, how much weight should the judge place on it? Or was it, legally, something else altogether?
Mr Justice Hildyard said he had "dipped" ("but no more") into the report, saying: "I'm naturally, as a human being, curious about it."
Sporting a lockdown mane reminiscent of Rod Stewart in his heyday, Patton added that the FRC report was compiled by accounting experts as well as former Supreme Court judge Lord Dyson, meaning the judge ought to take a close look at it: "We say the tribunal was free to take advantage of its own knowledge and expertise of accounting matters."
The judge said he would make his decision about the FRC report "internally" and would give his reasons for admitting it as evidence either as part of the main judgment in the case or in a separate judgment later on.
The main judgment is expected, the court heard, to be handed down by "the end of Q1"**. Once that has happened, the [8]extradition case against Lynch will restart, having paused until Mr Justice Hildyard pronounces his judgment. ®
Bootnotes
*"I have read the December, I think it was, or was it September – maybe it was September? – announcement that a fine had been levied and Mr Knights had been dismembered," remarked Mr Justice Hildyard with a mischievous smile.
Knights was not hanged, drawn, and quartered by the FRC, though that would have resulted in far more public interest in the accounting regulator's disciplinary methods. He was instead debarred from membership of the Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for five years and fined £500,000.
"Sounds worse than it is!" added the judge.
**Hildyard ended the day's proceedings by saying: "It's very nice – I know this isn't quite live, I've had the other odd hearing, but it's a great pleasure to have argument for once instead of the internal debate which I've enjoyed for many months, enjoyed being a relative term! Please stay safe and well, and thank you very much."
[9]
The closing submissions in the High Court case alone came to around 5,000 pages.
Get our [10]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/06/frrp_deloitte_autonomy_auditors_report/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_business/policy&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YDkpLOdwaW1ssnUiHcewXAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/20/hp_alleges_autonomy_fraud/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/23/mike_lynch_new_charges/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_business/policy&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YDkpLOdwaW1ssnUiHcewXAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/25/autonomy_kraft_capax_sale_expert_evidence_trial/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/10/autonomy_trial_hpe_expert_accountant_report/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/11/lynch_extradition_criminal_charges_never_dropped/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_business/policy&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YDkpLOdwaW1ssnUiHcewXAAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: report demolishes Lynch's defence ... not sure.
The annoying thing about an MOT inspection, is that passing it doesn't mean your car is considered legally safe to drive on the road. It's a requirement to have an MOT certificate to be able to drive it on public roads, but if you look at the small print it offers no guarantee that the car is road legal, no recourse for legal action against the inspector if subsequently found to be unsafe, and you are still solely liable for the car being legally "safe to drive".
Re: report demolishes Lynch's defence ... not sure.
" I get my car MOTd "
I am not a lawyer either but ...
A vehicle keeper is required by law to keep it in a roadworthy condition at all times when in use on public roads. The MOT is explicitly not an assurance of its condition at any time other than she specific time of the test, and is also explicitly not an absolute guarantee of its condition even then. An MOT certificate is ultimately based on the opinion of the tester. So while a vehicle keeper might well have a claim in law against an MOT tester that missed something rendering the vehicle unfit to drive, that would not nullify the keeper's legal obligation to maintain it in a roadworthy condition, or contribute to avoidance of any penalty for not so doing.
Similarly and specifically to this case , if a business employs an auditor, the business is nevertheless responsible for any consequences of relying on the resulting audit. In more general terms, a principal is responsible for the actions and omissions of subcontractors and agents it appoints.
Re: report demolishes Lynch's defence ... not sure.
Im not convinced. Yes Autonomy are responsible for their financial practises but having passed multiple audits they have a strong argument to say they had no reason to suspect that their financial practises were dodgy or that the auditor was not doing his job properly.
I haven't read the criticism of the Deloitte auditor - I would say the validity of it as evidence depends whether it addresses any key points around how Autonomy recognised revenue. If the auditor was just struck off for being a bit slapdash its a lot weaker than being struck off for fundamentally giving bad audit advice on Autonomy's revenue recognition.
Expert evidence versus adjudicatory findings
HPE hired their own accounting expert, whose evidence has been heard. Now, having apparently failed to establish using this expert testimony that the accounting practices were incorrect, they want to introduce into evidence a finding from the accounting regulatory body - an adjudicatory document - to get them over the line that the books were not a true and accurate statement of the health of the business. Which they also failed to notice during due diligence.
We've recently heard from the relevant Minister (in the context of illegal building cladding) 'Caveat Emptor.'
Seems to apply very well here.
Perhaps HPE should sue the accountants - jointly and severally - for damages. Less likely to prove to be a man-of-straw, and there appears to be a prima facie case against them in tort. Or their own accountants who performed the due diligence - ditto.
By coincidence, I came across Mike Lynch in a surprising context last week. I was looking for information on an unusual synthesiser I used to own, a machine called the Cheetah MS800. It was designed by none other than Mike Lynch, who shortly before starting Autonomy worked as a designer of audio equipment.
See if HPE want to buy one at vast expense, and do a bit of eBay arbitrage
Oh course they'd buy it, but do you really want to spend the next 5 years fighting against extradition?
report demolishes Lynch's defence ... not sure.
(I am not a lawyer)
I get my car MOTd. Something bad happens and it also turns out that with the benefit of a lot of hindsight that the car should never have passed the MOT.
I do not see that as my fault, it is the garage's and I have every right to depend on that statement.
Unless HPE can prove that Autonomy actively told an untruth to Deloitte, and that untruth caused Deloitte to sign off the accts, dont see how this makes much difference.
If they can prove that, they can show Autonomy have a case to answer without needing this report.
Strikes me as the 'look at all these documents, something in there means he is the bad guy' approach to prosecution.
Perhaps there is a commentard who actually has more than just an opinion out there who can correct me.