Sushovan Hussain told me to fiddle revenues, says Autonomy sales chief

Plus: Barrister's questions 'abuse of process', rages opponent


Autonomy Trial While he agreed that Autonomy’s ex-CFO was a "highly ethical person", Stouffer Egan couldn't quite bring himself to tell the High Court that Sushovan Hussain had never fiddled Autonomy's accounts.

Leading barristers in the case also clashed repeatedly over whether Egan was being asked deliberately leading questions, causing judge Mr Justice Hildyard to intervene at length.

Cross-examining Egan on behalf of Hussain, barrister Paul Casey asked Autonomy's one-time US sales chief whether he agreed that Hussain was a "highly ethical person" and that he had a "positive impression" of the former CFO.

Egan agreed, saying "the sentiment rings true".

However, when it came to the detail of certain Autonomy deals that were struck towards the end of fiscal quarters, Egan was not so direct.

Casey told him that HPE alleges a deal between reseller DiscoverTech and Autonomy, the end customer for which was a firm called Prisa, had been finalised in April 2011 (in fiscal Q2) but was falsely backdated to 31 March (ie, Q1).

Egan himself described this in his witness statement:

In early April 2011, Mr. Hussain told me that he needed a deal to make up for a revenue shortfall in Q1 2011… He told me that the deal documents had to be dated March 31, 2011. I called David Truitt [his contact at DiscoverTech]. I asked him, as a favor and a one-time request, to do a deal that would be backdated to March 31. On April 4, 2011, I sent Mr Truitt a letter agreement dated March 31...

Casey took Egan through some transcripts from Hussain's 2018 US criminal trial, where Truitt detailed his version of events. Describing how Truitt was uncomfortable because he wasn't sure if it was permitted to backdate sales under the IFRS accounting standard that Autonomy used at the time, Casey asked Egan: "Wasn't that his concern that he raised with Mr Hussain?"

"My memory of what Mr Truitt raised at the meeting was that he was uncomfortable with it, didn't like being asked to do it, didn't want to be asked to do it again," replied Egan. "And, in general, Mr Hussain acknowledged that concern, did impart that it was OK, not ideal, and not something he wanted to be doing as a practice and that he wouldn't be asking again."

Wasn't Truitt's discomfort because the deal was done before the end of Q1 and it was just the paperwork being backdated, Casey asked?

"My feeling," said Egan, "was I did not feel as though we had done the deal so I had bad feelings about papering it after the end of the quarter."

Casey changed tack. Two weeks after that deal, Truitt had had a meeting with Hussain. He asked Egan: "Wasn't the primary purpose of that meeting to enable Mr Truitt to pitch software to Mr Hussain and yourself?"

"My memory is that he asked to see Mr Hussain primarily to discuss the Prisa deal," replied Egan.

'When did Mr X stop beating his wife?'

Egan was then re-examined by Lawrence Rabinowitz QC, HPE's lead barrister. As Rabinowitz asked him whether testimony he had given to the US courts was "accurate and correct", Robert Miles QC, barrister for Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch, got to his feet.

"Can I make an intervention, please?" he said, addressing judge Mr Justice Hildyard. "This is something that we've seen earlier in this trial. The technique that the claimants tend to use is to go to earlier evidence of witnesses, they've generally done it by using the witness' witness statement, and then they say to them: 'Is that your evidence?' Then they're going here to different parts of the evidence of the witness in the trial and then they say to him: 'Is that your evidence?' This is leading. It's suggesting the answer. I'm very concerned about this technique."

The transcripts of the US criminal trial of Hussain are being used as exhibits in the UK civil case. Later on, Miles compared Rabinowitz's method of questioning as being like asking: "When did Mr X stop beating his wife?" and even used the phrase "abuse of this process".

"I'm asking whether he accepts it's an accurate and correct statement. That, with respect, is an entirely different point," riposted Rabinowitz. "My question is not framed in a leading way."

Miles shot back: "With respect, it's his evidence that he gave under oath before the jury, we know all the circumstances of it. With respect, it's pretty plain what the suggestion is."

Egan had signed a deferred prosecution agreement in which he agreed to co-operate with American government prosecutors.

'That is a concern, isn't it?'

Mr Justice Hildyard, who had previously come across as something of a kindly great-uncle mediating between two squabbling but fondly regarded nephews during previous disagreements between Hill and Rabinowitz, made his view clear.

"I share with you that I find this a difficult issue," he said, continuing:

It seems to me that the difference between, on the one hand, asking a witness in re-examination to reconfirm what they have said in a witness statement is not easy to distinguish between asking them, in re-examination, to confirm the evidence that has been attributed to them in an earlier transcript or in a note read to them in the course of that earlier transcript, because in each case you are implicitly suggesting that it would be the worse for them if they did not confirm their earlier evidence. So you are asking a question which expects a certain response and I think that is a concern, isn't it, Mr Rabinowitz?

"In my respectful submission," replied HPE's barrister, "the only way your lordship can be sure you're not getting a partial view of this witness' evidence, not in his witness statement but by reference to what he has previously said, because that's how it was put to him, is for your lordship to be shown the rest of that evidence."

The judge responded: "One can get into – you can remind him about things which would shade his answers, might explain his answers in cross-examination, but to go back and say, 'Look, you said this in your earlier evidence, would you like to say it again?', that's leading, isn't it?"

The rest of the afternoon was filled with Rabinowitz referring to things Egan had said previously, Hill jumping to his feet and objecting that the question was leading, and Great Uncle Hildyard, the very incarnation of patience, having to mediate peace between the two bristling barristers. This met with limited success, however:

A snippet from the court transcript

All in all, the scene was not typical of what one would imagine from High Court exchanges between 2019's Commercial Litigation Silk of the Year and the attorney-general of the Duchy of Lancaster, himself a part-time High Court judge.

Egan has now finished giving his evidence. The case continues, with a question hanging over how Hussain will continue taking an effective part in proceedings given that he will be sentenced in the US on Monday. He is widely expected to go to prison. ®


Other stories you might like

  • Screencastify fixes bug that would have let rogue websites spy on webcams
    School-friendly tool still not fully protected, privacy guru warns

    Screencastify, a popular Chrome extension for capturing and sharing videos from websites, was recently found to be vulnerable to a cross-site scripting (XSS) flaw that allowed arbitrary websites to dupe people into unknowingly activating their webcams.

    A miscreant taking advantage of this flaw could then download the resulting video from the victim's Google Drive account.

    Software developer Wladimir Palant, co-founder of ad amelioration biz Eyeo, published a blog post about his findings on Monday. He said he reported the XSS bug in February, and Screencastify's developers fixed it within a day.

    Continue reading
  • FTC urged to protect data privacy of women visiting abortion clinics
    As Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, safeguards on location info now more vital than ever

    Democrat senators have urged America's Federal Trade Commission to do something to protect the privacy of women after it emerged details of visits to abortion clinics were being sold by data brokers.

    Women's healthcare is an especially thorny issue right now after the Supreme Court voted in a leaked draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that declared women's rights to have an abortion are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    If the nation's top judges indeed vote to strike down that 1973 decision, individual states, at least, can set their own laws governing women's reproductive rights. Thirteen states already have so-called "trigger laws" in place prohibiting abortions – mostly with exceptions in certain conditions, such as if the pregnancy or childbirth endangers the mother's life – that will go into effect if Roe v Wade is torn up. People living in those states would, in theory, have to travel to another state where abortion is legal to carry out the procedure lawfully, although laws are also planned to ban that.

    Continue reading
  • Zuckerberg sued for alleged role in Cambridge Analytica data-slurp scandal
    I can prove CEO was 'personally involved in Facebook’s failure to protect privacy', DC AG insists

    Cambridge Analytica is back to haunt Mark Zuckerberg: Washington DC's Attorney General filed a lawsuit today directly accusing the Meta CEO of personal involvement in the abuses that led to the data-slurping scandal. 

    DC AG Karl Racine filed [PDF] the civil suit on Monday morning, saying his office's investigations found ample evidence Zuck could be held responsible for that 2018 cluster-fsck. For those who've put it out of mind, UK-based Cambridge Analytica harvested tens of millions of people's info via a third-party Facebook app, revealing a – at best – somewhat slipshod handling of netizens' privacy by the US tech giant.

    That year, Racine sued Facebook, claiming the social network was well aware of the analytics firm's antics yet failed to do anything meaningful until the data harvesting was covered by mainstream media. Facebook repeatedly stymied document production attempts, Racine claimed, and the paperwork it eventually handed over painted a trail he said led directly to Zuck. 

    Continue reading
  • Florida's content-moderation law kept on ice, likely unconstitutional, court says
    So cool you're into free speech because that includes taking down misinformation

    While the US Supreme Court considers an emergency petition to reinstate a preliminary injunction against Texas' social media law HB 20, the US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday partially upheld a similar injunction against Florida's social media law, SB 7072.

    Both Florida and Texas last year passed laws that impose content moderation restrictions, editorial disclosure obligations, and user-data access requirements on large online social networks. The Republican governors of both states justified the laws by claiming that social media sites have been trying to censor conservative voices, an allegation that has not been supported by evidence.

    Multiple studies addressing this issue say right-wing folk aren't being censored. They have found that social media sites try to take down or block misinformation, which researchers say is more common from right-leaning sources.

    Continue reading
  • US-APAC trade deal leaves out Taiwan, military defense not ruled out
    All fun and games until the chip factories are in the crosshairs

    US President Joe Biden has heralded an Indo-Pacific trade deal signed by several nations that do not include Taiwan. At the same time, Biden warned China that America would help defend Taiwan from attack; it is home to a critical slice of the global chip industry, after all. 

    The agreement, known as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), is still in its infancy, with today's announcement enabling the United States and the other 12 participating countries to begin negotiating "rules of the road that ensure [US businesses] can compete in the Indo-Pacific," the White House said. 

    Along with America, other IPEF signatories are Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Combined, the White House said, the 13 countries participating in the IPEF make up 40 percent of the global economy. 

    Continue reading
  • 381,000-plus Kubernetes API servers 'exposed to internet'
    Firewall isn't a made-up word from the Hackers movie, people

    A large number of servers running the Kubernetes API have been left exposed to the internet, which is not great: they're potentially vulnerable to abuse.

    Nonprofit security organization The Shadowserver Foundation recently scanned 454,729 systems hosting the popular open-source platform for managing and orchestrating containers, finding that more than 381,645 – or about 84 percent – are accessible via the internet to varying degrees thus providing a cracked door into a corporate network.

    "While this does not mean that these instances are fully open or vulnerable to an attack, it is likely that this level of access was not intended and these instances are an unnecessarily exposed attack surface," Shadowserver's team stressed in a write-up. "They also allow for information leakage on version and build."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022