Exchange says DPP informed of contact with DCC

Response: The chief executive of the Irish Stock Exchange (ISE) has said it kept the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) informed as to its contacts with DCC in relation to the Fyffes/DCC insider dealing investigation. Colm Keena, Public Affairs Correspondent, reports.

The exchange yesterday issued a lengthy statement in relation to the matter and the chief executive Tom Healy spoke with The Irish Times. A copy of the statement was sent to the DPP's office by the exchange, but a spokeswoman for the DPP said there would be no comment.

The statement from the exchange was its first response to a series of internal DCC memos disclosed in the Supreme Court last year. The exchange said it had been prevented from commenting until the related Fyffes/DCC civil action alleging insider trading was concluded.

Mr Healy said that, following contacts from DCC in late 2002, which suggested that expert reports drafted for DCC might be made available, the DPP was kept informed by telephone as to developments.

He said that, in January 2003, the DPP was informed by letter as to the contacts and that a number of letters ensued, leading up to the reports being conveyed to the DPP in July 2003.

He said it was not the case that he had ever offered to "vet" the reports for DCC and only forward those that would be helpful to DCC's case. He said it would be a criminal offence for him as regulator to disclose anything concerning the content of the report the ISE had forwarded to the DPP on the case, and he had never done so.

He said he had at all times encouraged DCC to forward the expert reports to the DPP and felt that, given what they were, they could hardly be otherwise than helpful to DCC. However, he had never disclosed whether they had in any way altered the ISE's initial report or initial view on the case.

Asked why the exchange had read the reports, he said he couldn't remember but DCC "must have wanted to see our reaction" and the exchange wanted to see what was in them.

Commenting on a memo that spoke of "vested interests" and DCC's likelihood of making more progress with the ISE board than with its executive, Mr Healy said the board had no adjudicating role in the matter. It had at one stage been approached by DCC but had made clear that it would not be getting involved. He said the board had not known that the ISE had forwarded a report to the DPP until it was disclosed in a newspaper report.

He said he disputed the accuracy of the picture painted by some of the memos. In December 2002, two officials from the exchange viewed the expert reports prepared by DCC in the offices of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The next day an adviser to DCC, Donal O'Connor, of PwC, wrote a memo stating that Mr Healy had told him the ISE review of the documents had not changed the basic picture or core of the report sent to the DPP.

Mr Healy said he had no memory of making any such comment to Mr O'Connor. He said he was being asked to comment on memos by third parties that he had never seen. "I'm not sure it did happen."

His colleague, Brian Healy, director of trading and regulation, also disputed the impression created by some memos that mentioned him. He said it was not the case that he had ever conveyed to DCC the thinking of the Garda or the DPP in relation to the substantive issue in the case.

Brian Healy said he had discussed with the Garda and DCC the possibility that there could be direct contact between the two sides, or contact by way of a solicitor. The Garda had no difficulty with such a scenario and he had simply conveyed this to DCC.

The two executives said the exchange had received a huge number of calls and approaches from DCC over the period 2002 to 2004 and that DCC was repeatedly trying to find out what the exchange was thinking. DCC would outline possible scenarios and draw conclusions from the response of the exchange.

In its statement, the exchange pointed out that it was not a party in the Supreme Court case where the memos were disclosed.

It said the judgments in the case issued by Mr Justice McCracken and Mr Justice Fennelly did not support allegations that had been made.