Fyffes Plc v DCC Plc

Last updated
Fyffes Plc v DCC Plc
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameFyffes Plc v DCC Plc, S&L Investments Ltd, James Flavin and Lotus Greene Ltd
Decided27th January 2005
Citation(s)[2005] 1 IR 59; [2005] IESC 3; [2005] 1 ILRM 357
Transcript(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2005/3.html
Case history
Appealed from High Court
Appealed to Supreme Court of Ireland
Court membership
Judges sittingGeoghegan J., Fennelly J., McCracken J.
Case opinions
The court ruled that disclosure of privileged documents to a third party does not always destroy or waive the privilege over expert advice obtained in connection with litigation and pending criminal prosecution for insider dealing.
Decision byFennelly J.

Fyffes Plc v DCC Plc[2005] IESC 3; [1] [2005] 1 IR 59; [2] is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court considered the plaintiffs allegations that the defendants had impliedly waived their privilege over expert advice obtained in connection with litigation and pending criminal prosecution for insider dealing. [1] The case has been construed as one that raises questions surrounding "corporate governance" in Ireland. [3] It is considered important in Irish legal history because the court ruled that disclosure of privileged documents to a third party does not always destroy or waive the privilege itself. [4]

Contents

Background

Fyffes Plc is a fresh fruit produce company based in Dublin, Ireland. It was owned by the McCann family, who were involved in the business since 1902. [5] DCC Plc is also an Irish company specialising international sales, marketing, and support services. James (Jim) Flavin [6] founded DCC Plc in 1976, and became the chief executive and deputy chairman of the company. He was also a director at Fyffes Plc. S&L Investments Ltd and Lotus Green were both subsidies of DCC Plc. [7]

A financial year in Fyffes Plc ran from 1st of November until the 31st October. They would announce their results every 6 months. [8] The preliminary results for the full financial year, ended on the 31st of October 1999 and were reported on the 14th of December 1999. [8]

It was understood that the profits 'before tax and exceptional items had been €82.9 Million, which was an increase over 1998 by 5.1%. [8] Due to this boost in profits that the report stated Fyffes was confident for the year 2000, which would have been considered a year of "further growth." [8]

However, in November, the company's figures were below budget and performance when compared to the previous year. [8] On the 25th of January 2000, a document was spread amongst directors such as Jim Flavin at Fyffes Plc, including the "actual trading performance for the first two months of the 1999 financial year (November and December)." [8] It forecast a disastrous year for the company and their trading performances, and the company had lost €2.5 million in the first quarter of that financial year. [8] The prediction was that the company was now going to be €13.7 million worse off than the previous year. [8]

Jim Flavin allegedly arranged for all of the DCC Plc shares in Fyffes (10.5%) to be sold on February 3rd, 8th and 14th when the share price was increasing from 3.29 to 3.90. This occurred five weeks before any profit warnings from Fyffe's. [8] The Irish Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange launched investigations towards the end of 2001, and this was reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). [8]

The main argument Fyffe's made was that the share sales were illegal because Flavin was in possession of 'price sensitive information' [1] by default of being a director. Subsequently, he was aware of the poor financial performance of the documents sent out. [8] The appellant claimed damages against the respondent under Part V of the Companies Act 1990, [9] for alleged “insider dealing". [1] This was unlawful under both Section 111 [9] and Section 109 of the Criminal Justice Act. [10]

Fyffes took a case up against DCC Plc in the High Court and lost the action. Laffoy J argued that the defendants were "not in possession of price-sensitive information" [1] and did not act unlawfully in February 2000 when DCC sold shares in the company worth €106 million, making a profit of €85 million. [11]

Holding of the Supreme Court

Fyffe's Plc challenged a High Court judgment on January 27, 2005. The lower court denied an application under Order 31 Rule 18 of the Superior Courts Rules to review sensitive information papers supplied to the respondents. [12] 'The Respondents got expert opinions from a number of people, and it is common practice before this Court that the many reports and papers providing such advice would, in the regular course of events, be entitled to privilege. MacCracken J determined whether 'that privilege has been lost or waived' in this appeal. Insider trading was covered by Part V of the Companies Act 1990. [1]

The Stock Exchange submitted the insider trading case to the DPP in November 2001, according to the media. They also said that DCC wrote to the stock exchange regarding this. The media also reported that DCC sought to tell the stock market that they had no price-sensitive information. The respondent argued they were allowed to engage the Stock Exchange and DPP when their inquiry began in 2001. To minimise commercial consequences if convicted of insider trading, they sought to persuade the DPP not to prosecute. The stock exchange's DPP report was also criticised for lacking information. [13]

Hence, DCC did not commit a crime by disclosing material that had been left out and may have impacted the Stock Exchange's report to the DPP. The respondent argued that limited ownership of private or privileged materials does not imply any loss of privilege. Fyffe Plc responded that the respondent firms actively intended to influence the stock Exchange in  'criminal proceedings by furnishing these documents', which might affect the DPP's decision not to charge them. MacCracken J. disregarded the functus officio argument. Under Section 115, [9] the stock exchange must transmit all documents to the DPP. He stated that "there still remained a function to be performed by the stock exchange." [1]

"Fyffes main objection to this procedure appears to be that in effect they were giving the information and documents to the Stock Exchange on the basis that the information would be passed on to the Director of Public Prosecutions if the news was good, but not if the news was bad," MacCracken J stated. It was suggested that the Stock Exchange was reviewing the reports. [14] "The confidentiality agreement" [1] between DCC and the Stock Exchange in their correspondences does not apply to any papers or information the Stock Exchange is lawfully compelled to provide to the DPP, the judge argued. The stock exchange may inform the DPP of investigations and findings. [1]

The judge did not find any substance in the argument that the respondent could have potentially benefited from disclosing confidential documents to the Stock Exchange and thus influenced their decision. Nevertheless, the court made it clear that to show the respondents influenced the decision, Fyffes would need to challenge the issue 'without the benefit of the documents'. Fyffes requested that the respondent's waiver of confidentiality be taken away. [15]

MacCracken J did not consider the respondents to have acted improperly by providing the materials to the Stock Exchange instead of the DPP. However, he admitted that DCC had an advantage in revealing the materials. He contrasted this case to Goldberg v NG and Ors to show the key difference. NG initiated the civil, criminal, and regulatory investigations in Goldberg. Fyffes' view did not influence the Stock Exchange's decisions. In this case, the restricted disclosure of essential papers was not unjust, thus the Court did not discuss it. The general norm applies only if the disclosing party and the recipient of the materials are connected for malicious intentions.

Fennelly J found that the respondent's only aim was to prevent the criminal investigation from going ahead by influencing the stock exchange, who then can persuade the DPP. It is not part of the court’s function to comment on the general desirability of such behaviour. The respondents did have an advantage, but that does not automatically put Fyffes in an unfavourable position.

Finally the appeal in this case was dismissed by both MacCracken J and Fennelly J. [12] They both agreed the respondents did not commit an act that would waive privilege.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insider trading</span> Public company stock or securities trading using nonpublic information

Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other securities based on material, nonpublic information about the company. In various countries, some kinds of trading based on insider information are illegal. This is because it is seen as unfair to other investors who do not have access to the information, as the investor with insider information could potentially make larger profits than a typical investor could make. The rules governing insider trading are complex and vary significantly from country to country. The extent of enforcement also varies from one country to another. The definition of insider in one jurisdiction can be broad and may cover not only insiders themselves but also any persons related to them, such as brokers, associates, and even family members. A person who becomes aware of non-public information and trades on that basis may be guilty of a crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public limited company</span> Publicly traded limited liability company

A public limited company is a type of public company under United Kingdom company law, some Commonwealth jurisdictions, and the Republic of Ireland. It is a limited liability company whose shares may be freely sold and traded to the public, with a minimum share capital of £50,000 and usually with the letters PLC after its name. Similar companies in the United States are called publicly traded companies. Public limited companies will also have a separate legal identity.

The Harken Energy Scandal refers to a series of transactions entered into during 1990 involving Harken Energy. These transactions are alleged to involve either issues relating to insider trading, or influence peddling. Although no wrongdoings were found by any investigating authorities, the matter generated political controversy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Euronext Dublin</span> Irish stock exchange

Euronext Dublin is Ireland's main stock exchange, and has been in existence since 1793.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chiquita</span> Banana producer and distributor company

Chiquita Brands International S.à.r.l., formerly known as United Fruit Co., is a Swiss-domiciled American producer and distributor of bananas and other produce. The company operates under a number of subsidiary brand names, including the flagship Chiquita brand and Fresh Express salads. Chiquita is the leading distributor of bananas in the United States.

DCC plc is a leading Irish international sales, marketing and support services group. Headquartered in Dublin, the Group operates across three sectors: energy, healthcare and technology. DCC plc is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Assets Bureau</span> Irish law enforcement agency

The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) is a law enforcement agency in Ireland. The CAB was established with powers to focus on the illegally acquired assets of criminals involved in serious crime. The aims of the CAB are to identify the criminally acquired assets of persons and to take the appropriate action to deny such people these assets. This action is taken particularly through the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The CAB was established as a body corporate with perpetual succession in 1996 and is founded on the multi-agency concept, drawing together law enforcement officers, tax officials, social welfare officials as well as other specialist officers including legal officers, forensic analysts and financial analysts. This multi-agency concept is regarded by some as the model for other European jurisdictions.

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case decided in 1953, which saw the formal recognition of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power. The US Supreme Court confirmed that "the privilege against revealing military secrets ... is well established in the law of evidence".

SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 CFR 240.10b-5, is one of the most important rules targeting securities fraud in the United States. It was promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), pursuant to its authority granted under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule prohibits any act or omission resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. The issue of insider trading is given further definition in SEC Rule 10b5-1.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States securities regulation</span> Law and regulations that relate to Securities

Securities regulation in the United States is the field of U.S. law that covers transactions and other dealings with securities. The term is usually understood to include both federal and state-level regulation by governmental regulatory agencies, but sometimes may also encompass listing requirements of exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange and rules of self-regulatory organizations like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a deceptive practice in the stock or commodities markets that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information. The setups are generally made to result in monetary gain for the deceivers, and generally result in unfair monetary losses for the investors. They are generally violating securities laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fyffes</span> Japanese-owned food company

Fyffes plc is a fruit and fresh produce company. The Fyffes brand is most closely associated with the banana industry, although it is applied to a wide range of fruits and fresh produce, including the Fyffes Gold Pineapples, and Fyffes melons.

The Guinness share-trading fraud was a major business scandal of the 1980s. It involved the manipulation of the London stock market to inflate the price of Guinness shares to thereby assist Guinness's £4 billion takeover bid for the Scottish drinks company Distillers. Four businessmen were convicted of criminal offences for taking part in the manipulation. The scandal was discovered in testimony given by the US stock trader Ivan Boesky as part of a plea bargain. Ernest Saunders, Gerald Ronson, Jack Lyons and Anthony Parnes, the so-called Guinness four, were charged, paid large fines and, with the exception of Lyons, who was suffering from ill health, served prison sentences. The case was brought by the Serious Fraud Office.

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called "act-of-production doctrine". Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.

The mosaic theory in finance involves the use of security analyst personnel to gather information about a company or corporation to evaluate and determine its financial stability. In addition to public information available to all investors, securities analysts also have access to non-public information which the vast majority of investors do not possess. Trading based on such non-public information can be considered illegal if the information is also material, as defined by insider trading laws.

Paul Gallagher SC is an Irish barrister who was Attorney General of Ireland from 2007 to 2011 and again between 2020 and 2022. During his first term as Attorney General, there was a period of significant economic difficulty in the Republic of Ireland, causing him to advise on the bank guarantee scheme, the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency and the Troika programme.

Davy Group is Ireland's largest stockbroker, wealth manager, asset manager and financial advisor and has offices in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Galway and London. Davy offers services to private clients, small businesses, corporations and institutional investors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">STOCK Act</span> Legislation of the 112th United States Congress

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 is an Act of Congress designed to combat insider trading. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 4, 2012. The law prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading, by members of Congress and other government employees. It confirms changes to the Commodity Exchange Act, specifies reporting intervals for financial transactions.

Total Produce plc was an Irish producer of fresh produce. It was formed from the demerger of a division of Fyffes and listed on the Irish Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. It bought into and then merged with another major food producer, Dole.

<i>F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another</i> Irish Supreme Court case

F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another[2014] IESC 1; [2014] 1 IR 280 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court "clarified two important points about the habeas corpus jurisdiction":

  1. that the High Court's jurisdiction does lie in respect of detention orders made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction; and
  2. although the Constitution does not allow for stays to be placed on orders of habeas corpus, "orders can be made for controlling the release of persons who are incapable of protecting themselves."

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fyffes Plc -v- DCC Plc & ors [2005] IESC 3, 27 January 2005, retrieved 2023-04-15
  2. ↑ "Fyffes Plc v D.C.C Plc". vLex. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  3. ↑ Sean Small, 'The Boardroom Out in the Open: The Case of Fyffes v DCC and the Implications For Corporate Governance in Ireland' (2011)
  4. ↑ "Law Report". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  5. ↑ "'Mixed emotions' as McCann family Fyffes link broken". Independent.ie. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
  6. ↑ "Jim Flavin was with Fyffes from 1980s to 2000". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  7. ↑ "DCC executive ordered changes to draft Lotus Green minutes". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "The curious ethics of corporate Ireland | Magill". magill.ie. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
  9. 1 2 3 Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  10. ↑ Oireachtas, Houses of the (2004-07-06). "Criminal Justice Act 2006 – No. 26 of 2006 – Houses of the Oireachtas". www.oireachtas.ie. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  11. ↑ Doyle, Kilian. "Flavin cleared of insider trading in Fyffes action". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
  12. 1 2 "Insights". www.eversheds-sutherland.com. Retrieved 2024-04-08.
  13. ↑ "Background". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  14. ↑ Mulhere, Desmond (June 2009). "'Legal Update: Commercial Law - Directors'" (PDF). The Bar Review. 14 (3): xlv – via The Law Library.
  15. ↑ "The Danger of Waiving Privilege on Connected, Related or Similar Documents". www.mccannfitzgerald.com. Retrieved 2024-04-08.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.