HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife). :-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 18:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife). :-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
It's vindictive and mean-minded. I wonder who made the decision?
On 9/4/24 22:45, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 18:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife). :-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
It's vindictive and mean-minded. I wonder who made the decision?
Greed hath no bounds. I guess it will be the shareholders forcing
this, but the uk case has not yet been appealed, so if will take a
lot of time.
Greedy grubby, spiv company, completely devoid of it's founders
ethical values and attitudes. Just say no...
On 9/4/24 22:45, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 18:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife).
:-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
It's vindictive and mean-minded. I wonder who made the decision?
Greed hath no bounds. I guess it will be the shareholders forcing
this, but the uk case has not yet been appealed, so if will take a
lot of time.
Greedy grubby, spiv company, completely devoid of it's founders
ethical values and attitudes. Just say no...
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 18:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife). :-(
=20
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
=20
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
It's vindictive and mean-minded. I wonder who made the decision?
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife). :-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
Simon.
On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 19:43 +0100, chrisq wrote:
On 9/4/24 22:45, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 18:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife).
:-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
It's vindictive and mean-minded. I wonder who made the decision?
Greed hath no bounds. I guess it will be the shareholders forcing
this, but the uk case has not yet been appealed, so if will take a
lot of time.
Greedy grubby, spiv company, completely devoid of it's founders
ethical values and attitudes. Just say no...
Trouble is their Zbooks are very nice. I don't buy them new though.
On 9/4/24 22:45, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 18:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife). :-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
It's vindictive and mean-minded. I wonder who made the decision?
Greed hath no bounds. I guess it will be the shareholders forcing
this, but the uk case has not yet been appealed, so if will take a
lot of time.
Greedy grubby, spiv company, completely devoid of it's founders
ethical values and attitudes.
On 9/5/2024 2:43 PM, chrisq wrote:
On 9/4/24 22:45, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-09-04 at 18:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
HPE have decided to go after Mike Lynch's estate (ie: his wife). :-(
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/02/hpe_mike_lynch_damages/
Absolutely the wrong thing for them to do.
It's vindictive and mean-minded. I wonder who made the decision?
Greed hath no bounds. I guess it will be the shareholders forcing
this, but the uk case has not yet been appealed, so if will take a
lot of time.
Greedy grubby, spiv company, completely devoid of it's founders
ethical values and attitudes.
Now it is practically a confession.
https://fortune.com/europe/2024/09/13/hewlett-packard-chief-mike-lynch-grieving-family-lawsuit/
"a ?difficult decision? done in ?the best interests of shareholders?"
I don't think there is much difference between that and "greed".
Can I assume that, in order to protect the shareholders, they intend to
go after the HP management who made the purchase decision in the first place without carrying out the due diligence checks before buying Autonomy ?
No, I didn't think so. :-(
On 9/16/2024 8:31 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
Can I assume that, in order to protect the shareholders, they intend to
go after the HP management who made the purchase decision in the first place >> without carrying out the due diligence checks before buying Autonomy ?
No, I didn't think so. :-(
The acquisition was done in the very short reign of Leo Apotheker.
According to Wikpedia he got 7.2 M$ in severance pay, 3.56 M$
in shares and a performance bonus of 2.4 M$ when he was kicked out
after 10 months.
And he has done rather well as member/chairman of various
companies boards since then.
But he does not have 4 B$.
On 2024-09-16, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
I wonder if HPE's plan is to try and make Mrs Lynch throw in the towel
while she is under extreme emotional stress and hence they can claim
some sort of "victory", at least in their little minds ? :-( :-(
From https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/16/hpe_lynch_damages/ is this
little gem:
|In addition to damages, HPE has the right to ask the Lynch estate to cover |its legal costs, believed to be at least £40 million ($52.8 million).
I wonder if HPE's plan is to try and make Mrs Lynch throw in the towel
while she is under extreme emotional stress and hence they can claim
some sort of "victory", at least in their little minds ? :-( :-(
On 2024-09-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
On 9/16/2024 8:31 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
Can I assume that, in order to protect the shareholders, they intend to
go after the HP management who made the purchase decision in the first place
without carrying out the due diligence checks before buying Autonomy ?
No, I didn't think so. :-(
The acquisition was done in the very short reign of Leo Apotheker.
According to Wikpedia he got 7.2 M$ in severance pay, 3.56 M$
in shares and a performance bonus of 2.4 M$ when he was kicked out
after 10 months.
And he has done rather well as member/chairman of various
companies boards since then.
But he does not have 4 B$.
The point is to make an example of him for not following established procedures and hence costing them a _lot_ of money.
That way, future executives will be less tempted to do the same thing
and hence the shareholders benefit.
These people get a _lot_ of money. They should have a level of
responsibility that matches earning that amount of money.
On 9/16/2024 2:18 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
On 9/16/2024 8:31 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
Can I assume that, in order to protect the shareholders, they intend to >>>> go after the HP management who made the purchase decision in the
first place
without carrying out the due diligence checks before buying Autonomy ? >>>>
No, I didn't think so. :-(
The acquisition was done in the very short reign of Leo Apotheker.
According to Wikpedia he got 7.2 M$ in severance pay, 3.56 M$
in shares and a performance bonus of 2.4 M$ when he was kicked out
after 10 months.
And he has done rather well as member/chairman of various
companies boards since then.
But he does not have 4 B$.
The point is to make an example of him for not following established
procedures and hence costing them a _lot_ of money.
That way, future executives will be less tempted to do the same thing
and hence the shareholders benefit.
These people get a _lot_ of money. They should have a level of
responsibility that matches earning that amount of money.
I totally agree with that.
But unless there is a claw back clause in his contract,
then there is no way to move forward with that.
And I am a little bit puzzled that you believe that
the company should try and claw back severance/bonus
of a an ex-CEO for negligence in an
acquisition, because it may deter other CEO's from
doing the same, but you don't believe that the
company should try and claw back the gain of
company sale based on fraudulent accounting practices
from the company's CEO? The CEO avoided jail because
the court did not find it proven that he knew about the
fraudulent accounting practices, but while not knowing
is not an criminal offense, then it is still
negligence and clawing back the gain may deter other
CEO's from doing the same.
Arne
On 18/09/2024 02:12, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
And I am a little bit puzzled that you believe that
the company should try and claw back severance/bonus
of a an ex-CEO for negligence in an
acquisition, because it may deter other CEO's from
doing the same, but you don't believe that the
company should try and claw back the gain of
company sale based on fraudulent accounting practices
from the company's CEO? The CEO avoided jail because
the court did not find it proven that he knew about the
fraudulent accounting practices, but while not knowing
is not an criminal offense, then it is still
negligence and clawing back the gain may deter other
CEO's from doing the same.
Over here in the UK, we have a legal principle of Caveat Emptor
Lynch, who was on Friday waiting to find out if he could be extradited
to the US to face a separate criminal trial, was found to have defrauded
HP by manipulating Autonomy?s accounts to inflate the value of the
company. He has always denied the accusation and said on Friday that he
would appeal.
?Claimants have substantially succeeded in their claims in this
proceeding,? said Mr Justice Hildyard, after a 93-day trial during which 28,000 documents were considered as evidence..
He said the damages were likely to be significantly less than the $5bn claimed by Hewlett-Packard (HP) and successor companies, while he also
cast doubt on the reliability of some of the US firm?s witnesses.
However, he ruled that HP had been induced into overpaying for the
takeover, due to fraud perpetrated by Lynch and Autonomy?s former
finance director, Sushovan Hussain, who is in jail in the US after being found guilty of fraud relating to the same deal .
On 2024-09-17, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
Lynch, who was on Friday waiting to find out if he could be extradited
to the US to face a separate criminal trial, was found to have defrauded
HP by manipulating Autonomy?s accounts to inflate the value of the
company. He has always denied the accusation and said on Friday that he
would appeal.
This is the same legal system that said hundreds of innocent people were ripping off the Post Office and then proceeded to destroy their lives.
Since the details of that became fully public, my opinion of our legal
system in related matters has taken a massive nosedive.
?Claimants have substantially succeeded in their claims in this
proceeding,? said Mr Justice Hildyard, after a 93-day trial during which
28,000 documents were considered as evidence..
He said the damages were likely to be significantly less than the $5bn
claimed by Hewlett-Packard (HP) and successor companies, while he also
cast doubt on the reliability of some of the US firm?s witnesses.
However, he ruled that HP had been induced into overpaying for the
takeover, due to fraud perpetrated by Lynch and Autonomy?s former
finance director, Sushovan Hussain, who is in jail in the US after being
found guilty of fraud relating to the same deal .
Annoying how the fact that HP never even completed the expected due
diligence before purchase doesn't enter into this decision.
Also, the numbers don't add up. From:
https://www.cio.com/article/304397/the-hp-autonomy-lawsuit-timeline-of-an-ma-disaster.html
the claim is that Autonomy overstated its revenue by US$700 million yet
HP did a multi-billion USD writedown. HP massively overpaid for Autonomy
and are trying to deflect blame away from their massive screwup in both overpaying and not even waiting for the due diligence to be completed.
How do you get from a $700 million fraud claim to a $5 billion+ writedown ?
On 18/09/2024 02:12, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/16/2024 2:18 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
On 9/16/2024 8:31 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
Can I assume that, in order to protect the shareholders, they intend to >>>>> go after the HP management who made the purchase decision in the first place
without carrying out the due diligence checks before buying Autonomy ? >>>>>
No, I didn't think so. :-(
The acquisition was done in the very short reign of Leo Apotheker.
According to Wikpedia he got 7.2 M$ in severance pay, 3.56 M$
in shares and a performance bonus of 2.4 M$ when he was kicked out
after 10 months.
And he has done rather well as member/chairman of various
companies boards since then.
But he does not have 4 B$.
The point is to make an example of him for not following established
procedures and hence costing them a _lot_ of money.
That way, future executives will be less tempted to do the same thing
and hence the shareholders benefit.
These people get a _lot_ of money. They should have a level of
responsibility that matches earning that amount of money.
I totally agree with that.
But unless there is a claw back clause in his contract,
then there is no way to move forward with that.
And I am a little bit puzzled that you believe that
the company should try and claw back severance/bonus
of a an ex-CEO for negligence in an
acquisition, because it may deter other CEO's from
doing the same, but you don't believe that the
company should try and claw back the gain of
company sale based on fraudulent accounting practices
from the company's CEO? The CEO avoided jail because
the court did not find it proven that he knew about the
fraudulent accounting practices, but while not knowing
is not an criminal offense, then it is still
negligence and clawing back the gain may deter other
CEO's from doing the same.
Arne
Over here in the UK, we have a legal principle of Caveat Emptor
There is two sides, at least, to that.
The buyer should know what he is buying, and that is his responsibility, including making sure the seller is being honest.
Then again, a seller being fraudulent, should not be tolerated.
Not that I know much, but I thought HP was at fault. Then again, there is the
old "reach for a lawyer" that is sort of despise.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 422 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 196:05:44 |
| Calls: | 8,950 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,352 |
| Messages: | 5,992,422 |