- Instructor: Anne Carver
- Duration: 3 hours
Date: 28 October 2022 (Friday) Time: 2:30pm–5:45pm Language: English Level: Elementary
Speaker: Anne Carver, now teaches part time at the Chinese University in the School of Business and in the School of Health, where she is an Honorary Professor.
Lawyer CPD / ACCA CPD / SFC CPT / Insurers’ CPD Pts: 3 Fee: HK$1,790
Highlights: On 28th January 2022 Mr Justice Hildyard delivered his 23-page Summary of Conclusions against Autonomy’s Chief Executive Mike Lynch and its Chief Financial Officer Shovan Hussain.
The lengthy and important Hewlett Packard trial began in March 2019 with the full reported judgment expected to be in excess of 1,500 pages. The 23-page Summary of Conclusions contains the Judge’s key findings in which he finds the Claimants, Hewlett Packard have substantially succeeded in their claims in these proceedings.
The first objective of this seminar is to discuss the personal liability of the two Defendants, Mike Lynch as de facto director and Mr Hussain as de jure director of Autonomy, made under section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967. We shall not explore the claims made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in relation to the responsibility of the issuer. We shall, instead, focus on the claims of civil fraud and/or misrepresentation made against the two Defendants. We shall examine Mr Justice Hildyard’s finding that these two had defrauded and deliberately misled the market by fraudulently inflating the company’s revenue and inducing Hewlett Packard to acquire Autonomy f or $11billion in 2011.In this seminar we shall focus on the Judge’s findings on the Misrepresentation Act and the definition of fraud.
The second objective of this seminar is to discuss Mr justice Hildyard’s findings on the breaches of fiduciary duty by the Defendants, the de facto director and de jure director of Autonomy.
The essential claim against the two Defendants is that Hewlett Packard was induced into making the acquisition of Autonomy by
Autonomy’s published information and by representations made personally by the Defendants. These personal representations are classified as “fraud” and/or misrepresentation made by the Defendant de facto and de jure directors. The questions raised in this most difficult of cases are thus highly significant in the development of the jurisprudence of company law for both English and Hong Kong company law. This Seminar hopes, at the very least, to clarify some aspects of this area of law for Hong Kong solicitors and their clients.