Dotcom millionaire who ‘duped’ Reform boss admits he never had meetings with Apple

A former dotcom millionaire who boasted about having ‘negotiations with Apple’ to secure investment for his social media start-up has admitted never meeting anyone from the company.

Robert Bonnier, a businessman once handed a record fine for misleading the stock market, is embroiled in a bitter legal row with Reform treasurer Nick Candy.

Bonnier, 56, is said to have enticed Candy into a multi-million-pound investment in one of his firms, a fledgling social media company called Aaqua.

It is alleged that Bonnier misrepresented his relationship with companies Apple and LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE (LVMH) to mislead investors.

Candy, 52, launched a successful attempt to freeze Bonnier’s assets last summer, with the Dutchman filing a counter-claim that the asset freeze sparked the downfall of his business.

Bonnier, a former investment banker, made his name as the founder of phone directory firm Scoot in 2000.

The company soared to valuation of £2.5 billion in 2000 but sank to £5 million when the dotcom bubble burst.

Candy is seeking £6 million in damages from Bonnier – who has hit back with a £150 million lawsuit of his own.

Bonnier, representing himself at the High Court, said in his oral closing submissions today that documents suggesting a working relationship between Apple and Aaqua were ‘works in progress’.

He explained: ‘In the 90s, I worked for a company – at the time one of the most valuable companies in the world, Vodafone.

‘It took me 27 months to formulate a very, very constructive partnership.

‘In the case of someone like Apple, who will indicate all the terms, you need to go to them extremely prepared.

‘You can’t have Apple say I want full exclusivity when you want to deliver a ubiquitous proposition.

‘There are so many, many aspects you need to present that demonstrate maturity with which you will go into these discussions.’

Mr Justice Robert Bright then put to Bonnier: ‘So far as the claimants are aware, there are no documents anywhere in disclosure that suggest you were in negotiation with Apple or, indeed, LVMH at around the time we’re talking about.

‘Are you able to identify any such documents to me?’

Bonnier replied that evidence of his negotiations with LVMH was contained in the ‘6,000 documents’ handed over for a counter-claim in relation to the freezing order on his assets.

‘What about Apple?’, the judge asked.

‘There were no meetings with Apple’, Bonnier admitted.

But he said he had an ‘off-the-record meeting’ with former Apple CFO Luca Maestri in 2020.

Jonathan Nash, KC, for CVS, described evidence of Mr Bonnier’s misrepresentations as ‘overwhelming’.

He also sought to refute other strands of Bonnier’s argument made in written submissions.

‘There is a suggestion that my client deliberately held back suspicion about what Mr Bonnier was telling them.

‘I’m afraid it is a ridiculous suggestion that a party, believing that it was being defrauded, would nonetheless continue with the transaction, investing a number of millions of pounds, but not raise their suspicion or concern in order to give itself the option of getting out at a later stage.

‘Investors, and certainly not investors as experienced as Mr Smith, do not conduct themselves in that way’, he argued.

He concluded: ‘We do invite your lordship, as you will do anyway, to make very clear findings – particularly about the element of dishonesty (on the part of Bonnier).’

The judge conceded that his judgement would ‘not be unassisted’ by what he considered to be ‘concessions’ made by Bonnier in his closing oral submissions.

These concessions included ‘that Apple had no hand at all in the drafting of the draft agreement, were not involved in any negotiations’ and that there wasn’t ‘any documentary record of any dealings with Apple’, he said.

The trial was then concluded, with Mr Justice Bright informing parties that he would aim to provide his judgement by the ‘week after next’.