The "cancer" at the core of the action by Fyffes alleging insider dealing by DCC is that Fyffes expected DCC chief executive Jim Flavin to adopt an approach to confidential information on the fruit distributor which was "utterly opposite" to the approach taken by Fyffes, the High Court was told yesterday.
Fyffes was contending that trading information on Fyffes available to Mr Flavin prior to controversial share deals in February 2000 was price-sensitive and should have "jumped off the pages" at him when the evidence showed that the figures were not jumping off the page to Fyffes' own management, who knew their business a lot better, Kevin Feeney SC, for DCC, argued.
Fyffes was nonetheless asking the court to treat Mr Flavin entirely differently from the way that it should examine Fyffes' own actions and conduct, he said.
The evidence showed Fyffes, while having the same information as Mr Flavin, did not start, until at the earliest March 6th, 2000 and probably March 10th, 2000, the process which led to a profit warning on March 20th, 2000.
There was not, prior to March 6th, 2000, a single document which suggested that Fyffes had any change in its expectations for the financial year 2000, counsel said.
However, there was "an overwhelming volume" of information regarding Fyffes' conduct and actions in early 2000, which suggested Fyffes did not believe the information was price-sensitive, he submitted.
In its outlook statement of December 14th, 1999, when Fyffes had figures for November trading and some information about December 1999 and January 2000, it predicted 2000 would be a year of further growth.
Mr Feeney was continuing submissions on behalf of DCC in the action by Fyffes alleging insider dealing in connection with the €106 million sale of the DCC stake in Fyffes on three dates in February 2000.
The case is against DCC, Mr Flavin and DCC subsidiaries S & L Investments and Lotus Green, who deny the claims and plead the sale was properly organised by Lotus, a Dutch-registered subsidiary to which beneficial ownership of the Fyffes shares was transferred in 1995 for tax purposes.
The action had was expected to conclude yesterday, but legal submissions will now extend into next week.
Mr Feeney said the court must, when assessing whether the information in Mr Flavin's possession at the time of the share sales in February 2000 was price-sensitive, look at the information within the market on the dates in question, particularly the information emanating from Fyffes.
The fact information is confidential does not mean it is also price sensitive, he added.
The onus was on Fyffes to show the information would have had a effect on its share price if released to the market, he added.
The case continues today before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy.
