ANALYSIS: Witnesses may be recalled after DCC received new information from Fyffes, writes Colm Keena.

DCC had a good morning session at yesterday's proceedings in the ongoing Fyffes/DCC insider dealing case.

At the outset there was that classic of courtroom dramas, the discovery of hitherto undisclosed documents that might be of significance to the case.

The possibility arose during Thursday's evidence from Mr Carl McCann that documents might be in existence concerning complaints to Fyffes following Fyffes' profit warning of March 20th, 2000. No such documents had been handed over to DCC during the discovery process that preceded the hearing.

Yesterday, Mr Michael Cush SC, for DCC, said his side had received a number of letters at 10 a.m. from Fyffes and they included letters that DCC would have used in its cross-examination of every witness to date.

He pointed to one letter in a bundle handed to Ms Justice Mary Laffoy which, he said, was from Mr Neil McCann, chairman of Fyffes, and contained a reference to Fyffes' view on trading in November and December 1999 and when it had expected trading to improve.

These are matters that may be pertinent to whether information that was available to DCC chief executive Mr Jim Flavin, in February 2000, was price-sensitive or not.

Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for Fyffes, said it might be argued that the letters did not come under the terms of the discovery sought prior to the case, which concerned the February DCC share sales rather than the March profit warning. However, his side was not making an issue of this.

DCC reserved its position. The whole affair could see witnesses being recalled.

When Mr Gerry Scanlan, the senior independent director of Fyffes, took the stand, there was much talk again of what Fyffes felt about trading at different periods during the early part of its 2000 financial year.

In January 2000, the directors of Fyffes, including Mr Flavin, were given management accounts for November and December 1999, the latter including an estimate for January 2000. The financial year began on November 1st, 1999 and a budget meeting in late October 1999 had set out targets for the coming year. Growth was expected despite the difficult trading that existed at the time.

Mr Scanlan said he read the November accounts, which he received in early January, but did not think the bad trading outlined was "material" to the company's prospects for the year.

He said he had noted when he'd joined Fyffes that periods during a year could be volatile but that the Fyffes' executives were excellent at drafting targets that transpired to be correct over a full year.

This was music to DCC's ears. It has put it to witnesses that the November and December management accounts showed the sort of trading that was envisaged when the budget was drafted in late October 1999.

If, in January 2000, Fyffes thought it was still going to make the year, despite difficult trading, how could the company now argue that the November and December accounts were price-sensitive information?

The information did not affect Fyffes's view of the likely outcome for 2000, DCC counsel has argued in cross-examining witnesses.

In the afternoon, however, Mr Scanlan's evidence was less useful to the DCC case. Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for DCC, moved on to the December management accounts, received by the Fyffes directors in late January 2000.

Mr Scanlan said these accounts convinced him that Fyffes was not going to make its target for 2000. The estimated profits for January meant the upturn expected in that month had not occurred, he said.