The following is a timeline of events in the Fyffes/DCC case.
January 2000:The directors of Fyffes plc are sent trading statements for November and December 1999 containing negative trading information.
February 2000:Executive Chairman of DCC plc Jim Flavin sells Fyffes shares worth ¤106 million on behalf of DCC. The DDC shareholding constituts 10 per cent of Fyffes, of which Flavin is a non-executive director. DCC makes a profit on the sale of ¤85 million.
March 2000:Fyffes makes a trading statement to the market after which its share price drops by 25 per cent. A Garda inquiry is subsequently conducted into the share sale and there is contact with the Director of Public Prosecutions. No action is been taken.
January 2002:Fyffes initiates a civil case against DCC, its executive chairman Jim Flavin, and two DCC subsidiaires alleging that Flavin was in possession of price sensitive trading information at the time he made the DCC deals.
December 2004:The case opens in the High Court before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. DCC and Flavin say that (1) Flavin did not deal and (2) that the information he had in his possession was not price sensitive. The case lasts for 87 sitting days.
DCC claims that a Dutch resident subsidiary, Lotus Green, made the decision to sell the Fyffes shares, and not Flavin. A tax scheme the company had established required that Lotus Green made the decision.
It emerges that Fyffes had issued a positive outlook statement in December 1999 for the 2000 financial year, even though it was by then experiencing trading difficulties. Also, Fyffes had issued options and allowed a senior executive sell shares, when it knew of the trading data which it was now claiming was price sensitive.
December 2005:Ms Justice Mary Laffoy finds that Flavin dealt in the shares but that the information he had in his possession at the time was not price sensitive. Although the January 2000 trading statements contained "very bad news for Fyffes" she found that a "reasonable investor"would not have concluded that it meant the company's expectations for the year had altered.
She also said that contrary to the stance taken by Flavin and DCC, Flavin had controlled the sale. She referred to the “absurdity” of the defendents’ evidence that Lotus Green and not Flavin had dealt.
July 2007:A unanimous five-judge ruling of the Supreme Court overturns the High Court finding that the information in Flavin's possession was not price sensitive. One judge says a "common sense"analysis of the situation indicates the information was price sensitive. The court refers the matter back to the High Court for the purpose of deciding on damages. The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement tells the court it can of its own motion decide, on the basis of evidence heard, whether it should impose disqualification sanctions. This matter also is referred back to the High Court.
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling the board of DCC expresses its “full confidence in and unanimous support for Jim Flavin”.
