Re: "we're using different accounting rules"
"we're using different accounting rules over here. We did nothing wrong."
He would say that wouldn't he.
Have a read of the following two examples taken from the extensive coverage of this week's HP press release (and Lynch's response) in the UK's non-IT press.
I assume it is accepted that Autonomy were doing these things, all that is seemingly at stake according to Lynch is whether it's legal (he says it is) or not.
Verbatim extracts below, please read full articles for more context:
[Autonomy US's CFO, later sacked by Lynch,] queried reciprocal transactions, which HP now alleges Dr Lynch and Mr Hussain used to falsely inflate sales. According to the court filing, a reseller would buy software without having a customer to sell it on to, allowing Autonomy to book the sale, and at a later date buy something without real value from the reseller to compensate.
For instance, HP alleges that in late 2010 Autonomy paid one reseller, MicroTech, $9.6m for what amounted to little more than a van.
Dr Lynch’s lawyers said the vehicle was part of a strategy to sell more software to sensitive US Government clients and the value of the licence it bought to use it was checked for fair value by Deloitte.
Riding high in the FTSE 100, in 2010 Autonomy founder and chief executive Mike Lynch decided to signal its status as part of Britain’s corporate elite by sponsoring a Premier League football team.
Autonomy’s deal with Tottenham Hotspur came with strings attached, according to Hewlett-Packard, which a year later would buy the company for $11.1bn. Autonomy would pay £9m to put its logo on players’ chests, and millions more in the second season, but the club would buy £4m of software and services in return, according to court documents.
The following year Spurs agreed to spend another £4m with Autonomy.