Lawyers 10, Rest of the World 0.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
-- Walter Scott, "Marmion" (1808)
Lawyers for a man who sued the Cambridge Analytica group for £20,000 claiming misuse of his personal data have suggested the controversial data-mining biz misled a High Court judge when the companies were put into administration. In a hearing at the High Court today, barrister Andreas Gledhill told Insolvency Judge Barnett: " …
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"...is it me or did none of that make any sense?"
Nope, I didn't understand anything of that legal mumbo-jumbo either.
Luckily for us there are commentards here on El Reg that do understand a bit of what this about.
(See "ZippyÂ´s Sausage Factory" comment below for more details.)
It makes sense, but you need to read carefully through the guarded language used by barristers.
Instead of overtly stating that CA was operated fraudulently, they have to tease out the evidence on piece at a time. The information that Emerdata were funding CA's costs is (IMO) damning because it shows that Emerdata are effectively cutting CA free in the hope that the problems with CA are not then traced back to the wider group of companies and that Emerdata don't have to face any legal consequences. If they succeed, and it looks as if they have, then they get to open another CA-like company and do it all over again. The picking around Green's involvement appears to be trying to highlight that CA wasn't necessarily bankrupt but was positioning itself to become bankrupt in the hope that would kill off any SARs.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021