Search results
Fyffes Plc v DCC Plc [2005] IESC 3; [2005] 1 IR 59; 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.
Jul 27, 2007 · 2. Fyffes Plc, the plaintiff/appellant, and hereinafter referred to as 'Fyffes', has appealed from the judgment and orders of the High Court (Laffoy J.), in which claims made by Fyffes were dismissed, and in which it was ordered that Fyffes pay to the defendants the costs of the action (with a few exceptions).
- Denham J
- Ireland
- 27 July 2007
- [2007] IESC 36
People also ask
What is the basis of Fyffes v DCC plc?
What was the background of Fyffes v DCC?
Who is Fyffes plc?
Is Fyffes a public company?
- Facts
- Issues
- Holding
- Reasoning
- Significance
- Disposition
- Precedent
: 1. In November 1999, Fyffes launched worldoffruit.com, an online platform for the fresh produce industry, including a B2B trading system called FruitXchange. 2. The defendants and Fyffes agreed that Fyffes acted properly by not making any announcement regarding the new venture. 3. The trial judge found that a profit warning on March 20th caused a...
: 1. Whether the information in possession of the defendants would likely materially affect the price of Fyffes' shares. 2. Whether the reasonable investor test was correctly applied by the trial judge. 3. Whether the post-market events of March 20th were relevant in determining the price sensitivity of the information.
: 1. The court found that the information available to the directors was potentially price sensitive. 2. The court rejected the use of the reasonable investor test and found that the post-market events were not evidentially relevant. 3. The court allowed the appeal based on errors in applying the statutory test and the reasonable investor test.
: 1. The trial judge's conclusion that the information was potentially price sensitive was upheld. 2. The court found that the reasonable investor test was not suitable for assessing price sensitivity under Section 108(1) of the Act of 1990. 3. The court determined that the post-market events were not appropriate evidence for assessing the likely e...
: 1. The case highlights the importance of accurately assessing the materiality and price sensitivity of information in insider trading cases. 2. It clarifies the limitations of using the reasonable investor test in determining the impact on share prices.
: 1. The court allowed the appeal, indicating errors in applying the statutory test and the reasonable investor test.
: 1. The case sets a precedent for evaluating the materiality of information in insider trading cases and clarifies the application of tests in assessing price sensitivity.
Dec 21, 2005 · Decision: The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the defendant, Lotus Green, dealt indirectly in shares of Kimberley owned by Meriton. The court also noted that Lotus Green may have acted as an agent of DCC in relation to the holding and disposal of shares in Fyffes. The court emphasized the need for a purposive ...
Jan 27, 2005 · Fyffes Plc. Plaintiff/Appellant ... IESC 18 Denham J. Geoghegan J. Finnegan J. 250 and 251/2008 THE SUPREME COURT RSC O.31 r19 FYFFES PLC v DCC PLC & ORS 2005 1 IR 59 ...
- Mr Justice Fennelly,Mr Justice McCracken
- Ireland
- 27 January 2005
- [2005] IESC 3
In Fyffes v. DCC, the Irish High Court ruled that James Flavin, a non-executive director of the banana distributer, Fyffes PLC, did not engage in insider trading. The case is Ireland's most significant ruling on insider trading because it clarifies the test, under Irish law, for determining whether information available to an insider is price-sensitive.
Jan 27, 2005 · The Court held that privilege was not automatically lost by such disclosure. The Court emphasized that privilege exists to ensure the proper administration of justice. The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that the Respondents acted improperly by disclosing the documents to the Stock Exchange instead of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
