DCC'S FORMER executive chairman Jim Flavin waived a €500,000 bonus last April as a result of the Supreme Court ruling against the business in the Fyffes insider dealing case.
As the company fought a High Court application by corporate enforcer Paul Appleby to have inspectors appointed to examine its illegal dealings in Fyffes shares, it emerged in its annual report that Mr Flavin opted not to take his annual bonus because of the cost the business incurred as a result of the case. DCC took a once-off charge of €50 million in the year to March after the settlement of the long-running civil action taken against it by Fyffes.
"Jim Flavin informed the [remuneration] committee that, in light of the financial cost to DCC of the Supreme Court decision in the Fyffes case, he did not wish to receive any bonus in respect of the year, notwithstanding his belief at the time of the sale of the group's 10 per cent shareholding in Fyffes plc in February 2000 that he was acting correctly and in the best interests of DCC and its shareholders."
This reduced his annual remuneration to €989,000 for the year from €1.52 million in the previous period, when he received a €508,000 bonus. The overall remuneration of the DCC board, which unanimously backed Mr Flavin after the Supreme Court ruling, fell to €3.27 million last year from €3.65 million.
Each of the board members is seeking re-election at the company's annual general meeting on July 18th. "Our judgment as experienced business people was exercised with appropriate advice, and in good faith," said non-executive chairman Michael Buckley of the board's deliberations on the case in his annual report statement.
"We based it solely on our assessment of what was in the overall interest of the company and its shareholders."
Mr Flavin, who received a €150,000 bonus when the High Court found in DCC's favour in its original ruling, resigned last month after Mr Appleby initiated his case.
In court yesterday, lawyers for Mr Appleby said it was "difficult to see" how the ruling against DCC was not a matter that merited investigation by an inspector. DCC argued there were no grounds to warrant such a severe step being taken.
