UK tech tycoon Mike Lynch misplaced his bid to attraction his extradition to the US to face legal prices over the Hewlett Packard sale.

The Autonomy Corp. founder had tried to dam his switch to the US after the British authorities authorized the transfer in January 2022. This adopted a separate court docket judgment that he was dishonest within the $11 billion sale of his firm.

Not one of the grounds of attraction had been controversial, judges Clive Lewis and Julian Knowles wrote in a ruling Friday.
Lynch, who denies all the fees, had argued that the case belonged within the UK and will have been totally investigated by British authorities. Spokespeople for Lynch didn’t instantly reply to calls and emails requesting a remark.

It’s the newest chapter in a authorized saga that started shortly after the 2011 sale of Lynch’s Autonomy to Hewlett Packard. A yr after the sale, the Silicon Valley {hardware} large wrote down the worth of the deal by $8.8 billion.

Lynch, had been searching for to attraction on 5 grounds, together with his most important argument being that the legal case in opposition to him must be within the UK the place the majority of the occasions allegedly occurred.

“These issues belong firmly within the UK,” Alex Bailin, Lynch’s lawyer, mentioned on the listening to. “Extradition is just not within the curiosity of justice and the allegations can pretty be tried right here.”

It’s the newest chapter in a authorized saga that started shortly after the 2011 sale of Lynch’s Autonomy to Hewlett Packard. A yr after the sale, the Silicon Valley {hardware} large wrote down the worth of the deal by $8.8 billion.

Bailin mentioned that the UK’s Severe Fraud Workplace has “expressly reserved” its rights to prosecute Lynch within the UK if the extradition is refused. That is regardless of the SFO beforehand opening an investigation and shutting the case with none prices.

The US authorities opposed the applying to attraction. Its attorneys mentioned that the “USA was integral to all elements of the alleged fraud” and that the extradition ought to proceed because it was predominantly US-based shareholders who had been victims of the fraud, in accordance with court docket paperwork ready for the listening to.