Witness says Flavin had key data prior to sale

A retired investment fund manager has told the High Court he believed stock market analysts would have revised downwards their forecasts for Fyffes had they seen information on Fyffes trading performance that was available to DCC chief executive Jim Flavin in early 2000.

Mr John Brindle said that even though the market would not have known the Fyffes business as well as Mr Flavin did, it would not have assumed from the information that Fyffes could have recovered losses it had sustained from November 1999 to January 2000.

The information showed Fyffes trading some €13.9 million behind the previous year and behind an already conservative budget. Any outsider would have seen from the information that it was going to make life more difficult, he said.

Mr Brindle rejected suggestions by Mr Michael Ashe SC, for DCC, that he had used an incorrect arithmetical basis and means of analysis in reaching his conclusion that the information available to Mr Flavin was price-sensitive - likely to have a material effect on the Fyffes share price.

He also disagreed that the basis for his calculations about Fyffes share price movements from December 1999 was incorrect and that he had paid insufficient weight to the market's interest in dotcom stocks in 2000. He also rejected a suggestion that the market was disregarding Fyffes core business in its entirety when valuing Fyffes shares at the time. It was his view that, in Fyffes case, the pent-up demand within the market for dotcom stocks depended on the core business staying intact.

Mr Brindle was being cross-examined on the 36th day of the action in which Fyffes alleges "ìnsider dealing" in connection with the €106 million sale of the DCC stake in Fyffes over three days in February 2000. The action is against DCC, Mr Flavin and two DCC subsidiaries who deny the claims, deny possession of price-sensitive information at the time of the sales and plead the sales were properly conducted by one of the defendant subsidiaries, Lotus Green Limited.

It is expected that the case on behalf of Fyffes will conclude by the end of next week, with the last witness understood to be the retired chairman of Fyffes, Mr Neil McCann. The case for the defence will then open and the first witness for the defence will be Mr Flavin.

Yesterday, Mr Brindle, a former investment fund manager with Standard Life Assurance, now retired, and a founder member of the Irish Association of Investment Managers, agreed that the stock market monitored banana price trends and other factors affecting the profitability of Fyffes.

However, he said, the market would not have had access to the detailed information available to Mr Flavin in January 2000 and also did not know then what percentage of Fyffes profits the banana division accounted for.

Mr Brindle said the market's reaction to Fyffes December 14th 1999 interim results statement showed the market did not then fully understand what was then going on in Fyffes and had not correctly quantified the situation.

He said the rise in the Fyffes share price from January 2000 was due to Fyffes launching its ecommerce venture, worldoffruit.com.

The rise in the stock price then was quite uncharacteristic of movements in the Fyffes share price. He added that he shared the scepticism voiced by Mr Flavin in 1999 about the potential for dotcom stocks.

Asked was there a "herd instinct" in 2000 regarding dotcom stocks, he replied: "For the majority of the herd, yes." He regarded Fyffes as a "hybrid" stock with a strong core business and a dotcom arm. There were obvious benefits for Fyffes at this time because of its core business having an internet venture. Fyffes stock was perceived as "a different animal" in early February 2000 because of worldoffruit.

Mr Brindle said he was aware of the Stock Exchange listing rules and that a company has an obligation to announce to the market any events or alterations in its trading performance likely to have a material effect on its share price.

Mr Ashe asked several questions regarding the Fyffes chairman's statement, dated January 31st and circulated to shareholders about February 18th 2000, which statement predicted 2000 would be another year of growth for Fyffes.

Mr Brindle said he regarded a company's annual report as a historical document. He would expect the report to reflect what the Fyffes chairman had said in the company's preliminary results announcement on December 14th 1999.

If there was a change in the company's expectation around the time of the issuing of the report, Mr Brindle said he would expect that there would be an announcement from the company "at the appropriate time".

He agreed a company was a very important source of information to the market as to that company's performance.

A company had to balance a number of factors when deciding whether it should issue a profit warning. One month's information about trading performance in a volatile company like Fyffes would not necessarily reflect a trend.

To see an important trend in a company such as Fyffes could require something like three months' information.

He said it would be relatively unusual for announcements from a company not to have some influence on its share price.

An incorrect announcement could damage investors as had happened with Fyffes in 1997 when it issued a statement that the market interpreted as a profit warning. In the event, Fyffes met expectations that year.

The hearing continues today before Ms Justice Laffoy.