A stockbroker told the High Court yesterday that it became apparent before a controversial €106 million sale of the DCC stake in Fyffes plc in February 2000 that DCC chief executive Mr Jim Flavin was a "seller" and was giving a "firm lead" to a stockbroker to go and get buyers.

Mr Bruce Ashmore, formerly of Goodbody Stockbrokers, who was involved in purchasing the DCC stake in Fyffes over three days in February 2000, said he had a number of phone conversations with Mr Ronan Godfrey, head of the equity desk at Davy Stockbrokers, to organise the purchase of the first tranche of the DCC stake on February 3rd, 2000.

Taped recordings of those conversations were played to the court.

In one conversation, Mr Ashmore asks: "Any em news or..." and Mr Godfrey replies: "Ah no, he's technically still not dealt so he's to come back to me."

Mr Ashmore said he assumed the "he" referred to by Mr Godfrey was Mr Flavin.

Mr Ashmore was giving evidence on the 33rd day of proceedings in which Fyffes claims the sale of the shares in February 2000 breached "insider dealing" provisions of the Companies Act. The action is against DCC, Mr Flavin and two DCC subsidiaries - S&L Investments Ltd and Lotus Green Ltd. The defendants plead the share sales were properly organised through Lotus Green.

Yesterday, Mr Ashmore said he was a member of the equity desk at Goodbody in January 2000 and reported directly to Mr Roy Barrett, managing director of the firm. Mr Ashmore had joined Goodbody in 1987 and resigned in December 2001. He had planned to set up a hedge fund but had problems because of a reference from Mr Barrett. He had "an issue" with Mr Barrett who "basically tried to blame some compliance issues on me which I am contesting".

He was involved in the buying of the DCC stake in Fyffes on February 3rd, 8th and 14th, 2000. Goodbody was involved in half of the first sale and did all of the second and third sales.

He had read transcripts of phone conversations with Mr Godfrey on February 3rd and these were an accurate summary of the conversations.

Prior to February 3rd, 2000, Mr Barrett would have been in discussions with Mr Flavin and would have relayed those discussions back to Mr Ashmore and others. Mr Barrett had told him to contact Mr Godfrey about forming a joint bid with Davy for the DCC shares in Fyffes.

Before February 3rd, he would have lined up some buyers on the basis of instructions from Mr Barrett and would not get buyers unless there was a clear intent to sell. He would have been aware Fyffes' share price was climbing around that time and that DCC had an 11 per cent stake in the company.

Mr Barrett would have made contact with Mr Flavin to see if he was interested in buying or selling shares at an agreed price. It had become apparent that Mr Flavin was a seller and was giving a firm lead to Mr Barrett to go and get buyers.

In relation to the February 3rd deal, it was agreed that Davy would buy some 17.9 million shares at €3.20 and would then sell half of those to Goodbody. In documents, it was shown that the brokers' commission on that €57.3 million sale was some €143,000.

A total of six phone conversations between Mr Ashmore and Mr Godfrey on February 3rd, 2000 were played to the court. These showed Mr Ashmore and Mr Godfrey arranging for the purchase of the DCC shares that day.

Mr Ashmore said he phoned Mr Godfrey on February 3rd under instructions from Mr Barrett. Mr Godfrey bought stock from DCC and Mr Ashmore and Mr Godfrey did a broker deal under which Davy sold 8.9 million Fyffes shares to Goodbody. He understood the vendor of the stake was DCC.

On February 8th, Goodbody had bid for eight million Fyffes shares at €3.60. Mr Ashmore said he got the price from Mr Barrett. Mr Barrett had given him a piece of paper with a name "Von Diepenhorst", but the person was actually Tom Diepenhorst, and a phone number in the Netherlands.

Mr Barrett had said: "You need to call this fellow for tax reasons." Mr Ashmore said he had concerns about forms and money laundering but Mr Barrett had said he would "sort out compliance".

Mr Ashmore said he rang the Dutch number and spoke to Mr Diepenhorst whom, he believed, was expecting his call. There was no negotiation. Mr Diepenhorst had said that, acting as principal, Mr Ashmore could have eight million shares at €3.60.

Mr Ashmore said he could not recall the February 14th sale as clearly but it was "along the same lines" as the February 8th sale. Mr Diepenhorst had said Mr Ashmore could purchase 5.3 million shares at €3.90.

He personally had had no discussions with Mr Flavin about the sales. All the discussions and negotiations on the sale side were with Mr Barrett. He was present for discussions between Mr Flavin and Mr Barrett.

"It was basically negotiating the deals, price, size, the usual."

Under cross-examination by Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for DCC, Mr Ashmore agreed he had not spoken to Mr Flavin at any stage.

He said that, in February 2000, Fyffes shares were dealing in unusually large volumes and their value was way in excess of what would be normal trading values. He agreed there was a demand at that time for technology stock.

Fyffes' attraction was that it was a known and reliable business and also had an exciting internet angle. He agreed there was a craze for dot.com shares and referred to Baltimore Technologies as an example of a tech stock going from "hero to zero".

The case resumes on Tuesday.