Vol. 550 No. 5
4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she intends to hold an investigation into whether the mergers and monopoly legislation may have been broken in the take over of a company (details supplied), especially having regard to allegations that were made in a recent court case; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9598/02]
I am aware of the legal proceedings to which Deputy Rabbitte is referring and also of the fact that one of the parties concerned was willing to accept, for the purpose of those proceedings, that he controlled the Master Meats Group in 1987.
I take it the Deputy is referring to a merger notified to the Minister on 14 September 1988 under the Mergers Act, relating to the acquisition by Master Meats Anstalt, a Liechtenstein company, of Mr. Pascal Phelan's 50% shareholding in Master Meats. In the 1988 notification it was stated that the acquiring company was backed by "Middle Eastern interests" but no further information was given as to the principals behind the company. The proposal was cleared by the then Minister that same day.
It subsequently came to light that Mr. Phelan's business partner, Mr. Taher, had previously sold his 50% stake in Master Meats to another Liechtenstein company, Taros Anstalt, in April 1987. It also emerged that the shareholders of Taros Anstalt were Mr. Schneider, Mr. Mansur and Mr. Hardman and that negotiations on their behalf were conducted by Mr. Larry Goodman.
The take over of Master Meats and related issues was the subject of an investigation by the Fair Trade Commission in 1989. In giving evidence to the commission, Mr. Goodman stated that he was not a beneficial owner of shares in Master Meats and that the Minister had been made aware of the identities of the three shareholders before the 1988 transaction was notified. However, my Department has no record of any meetings between the Minister and Mr. Goodman in that regard.
The more recent history regarding these matters is that on 14 November 2000, Mr. Paschal Phelan initiated proceedings in the High Court against Mr. Goodman and Mr. Taher claiming a conspiracy to force him out of the company. During a preliminary court hearing Mr. Phelan's lawyers lodged a notice of motion for discovery of certain documents held by my Department relating to the 1988 notification. Mr. Goodman's counsel then said he would be willing to assist the court in accepting, for the purpose of those proceedings, that Mr. Goodman controlled the Master Meats Group in 1987. I am concerned about the implications of this matter and my officials are taking legal advice as to what further action should be taken.
According to Mr. Goodman's evidence to the Fair Trade Commission, he said – I am quoting from memory –"I didn't own it. I never owned it and I can put my hand on my heart and say that." On that basis, the beef tribunal did not consider the matter of Master Meats, despite claims to the contrary in this House by myself and a number of other Deputies. On the basis of her reply, the Minister now agrees that it transpires that Mr. Goodman did own and control Master Meats. Was the evidence given to the Fair Trade Commission sworn evidence and, if so, will her Department be taking any action in that regard? In terms of a breach of the relevant Mergers and Monopolies Act, does the Minister have any advice from her Department concerning the feasibility of its taking appropriate action at this late stage? Will the State be initiating action to recover at least part of the huge sums of taxpayers' money paid to Mr. Goodman to discharge his fees at the beef tribunal?
I understand it is not clear that the evidence to which the Deputy refers was given on oath. With regard to the other matters, if false information was given in the context of a merger, that merger could be made null and void. We are discussing something that happened 14 years ago and, therefore, I am not sure about the legal implications. That is why we are awaiting advice from the Attorney General. We were advised, during the proceedings, that we were not free to become involved in this matter. We were awaiting the outcome of those proceedings which concluded a month or so ago. Since then my officials have been examining the matter and consulting with the Attorney General's office in relation to the legal implications that now arise. Given that what was said during the court case is contrary to what emerged when the Fair Trade Commission examined this matter, it is my opinion that a number of serious issues now arise.
Is an outstanding legal action being taken by the same gentleman and his company against the Department for enormous supposed damages in respect of a different matter?
Yes, as the Deputy knows there is a legal action which is being vigorously contested. My Department has sought to advance that particular case.
