The mammoth judgment of Ms Justice Mary Laffoy in the Fyffes v DCC case raises serious questions about corporate governance. • How could information about three months trading not be price sensitive at all and information about four and a half months trading be massively price sensitive? • How, if Jim Flavin of DCC acted unlawfully, as Fyffes claimed, did Fyffes themselves also not act unlawfully?
It may be 18 months before we know exactly how the Irish Ferries stand-off has benefited its parent group Irish Continental. As the group's financial year-end does not coincide with the calendar year it may be that long before the relevant details of the expense involved in the redundancy package figures in the group accounts.
20 October 2004
The linkages and similarities between Independent News and Media and Irish Ferries. By Colin Murphy, Emma Browne, John Byrne and Vincent Browne
In June 2005, both SIPTU and Irish Ferries agreed to a six week truce during which time Greg Sparks, of Farrell Grant Sparks accountants and SIPTU union official, Martin King did a review of Irish Ferries operations.
The claims of 'highest international standards' in the Corrib gas project are no more than a 'public relations attempt to placate an inquiring public', according to a new Centre for Public Inquiry report. Harry Browne reports
Global Mobile Vision, the company accused by former employees of withholding wages and bizarre work practices, is being sued by its recruitment company and being investigated by the Department. By Ruairi McCann, Colin Murphy and Hilary Curley
Vitali Vitaliev is traumatised by ghosts, ghost tours and phones that go ring in the night.
Magill submitted a list of questions on May 25 last to Mr Kevin McGoran, chief executive of Fitzwilton plc in connection with the £30,000 transfer by way of a cheque made payable to cash to Mr Ray Burke on June 7, 1989. Matheson Ormsby Prentice, solicitors to Fitzwilton plc replied on May 26 last. The reply in full states:
We refer to your fax yesterday addressed to Fitzwilton. We are instructed to reply on his behalf and on behalf of Fitzwilton. By way of preliminary comment on your letter, we would make the following points:
The futurists were not so wrong about the wealth-creating potential of technology. Where the futurists went badly wrong was in their benign judgement of human nature. The naïve assumption was that the benefits would be equally shared.