![afp afp](https://i.tribune.com.pk/media/images/mike-lynch1724088008-0/mike-lynch1724088008-0.png)
Hewlett Packard (HP) announced on Monday its intention to pursue a $4 billion damages claim against the estate of British tech mogul Mike Lynch, who tragically died last month when his luxury yacht sank off the coast of Sicily.
The tech giant is determined to collect on a judgment rendered by a UK civil court, which ruled in HP's favor following a lawsuit involving the collapse of Lynch’s company, Autonomy Corp.
In 2022, a High Court judge found that Lynch and his former finance director, Sushovan Hussain, had fraudulently inflated the value of Autonomy shortly after HP acquired the company for $11.1 billion in 2011.
The acquisition had made Lynch one of Britain’s wealthiest men.
HP is now seeking $4 billion in damages, with Lynch’s widow, Angela Bacares, potentially responsible for the penalty, according to the Times of London.
The decision to move forward with the claim comes just a week after Lynch’s body was recovered from the seabed near Porticello, Italy, following the tragic sinking of his yacht, Bayesian, during a storm on August 19.
Seven people, including Lynch and his 18-year-old daughter, Hannah, lost their lives, while fifteen others survived, including Bacares.
HP acknowledged the potential public relations challenges of pursuing damages from a grieving family but emphasized its commitment to seeing the proceedings through to their conclusion.
“An English High Court judge ruled that HPE had substantially succeeded in its civil fraud claims against Dr. Lynch and Mr. Hussain,” the company stated.
A damages hearing was held in February 2024, with the judge’s decision expected to be announced soon.
In a separate legal battle, Lynch was acquitted by a federal jury in San Francisco in June on 15 charges, including wire fraud and conspiracy, related to allegations that he sought to inflate sales while running Autonomy.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ