The High Court has ordered investor John O’Meara to give further details of his claim against Goodbody Stockbrokers and two other financial services companies over an Anheuser-Busch rights offer. The order concerns the information needed to define the case before trial; it does not decide liability or damages.
In a judgment delivered on 29 July 2016, Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled on Goodbody Stockbrokers’ application for further and better particulars of the claim. O’Meara says he acquired Anheuser-Busch shares in January 2008 and missed a rights offer later extended to existing shareholders because of the defendants’ actions. He alleges breaches of contract and duties, negligence, misrepresentation, loss of opportunity and unjust enrichment.
The judgment recounts his claim that Goodbody gave him what he described as “the run around” after he learned the offer had lapsed. He also alleges that Goodbody said Bank of New York Mellon had made a standard payment to shareholders who did not take up the offer, and that Goodbody had instructed Pershing and the bank to sell his rights. These are allegations set out in the pleadings, not findings by the court.
Goodbody sought details including the relationships O’Meara says he had with Pershing and the bank, the statutory duties allegedly breached, how he calculated his loss, whether he received a payment related to the lapsed rights, and whether any defendant acquired the rights. O’Meara’s replies included that some matters were not particulars, were unknown pending discovery, or were covered by the statement of claim.
Justice Barrett found the replies left Goodbody without a sufficiently clear outline of the case it would have to meet. He ordered further particulars on the alleged relationships with Pershing and the bank; the statutory breaches relied on; whether O’Meara would have exercised the rights and whether he later bought or sold shares; any payment received; claims relating to income and other rights attached to the shares; the alleged loss; and the basis for aggravated or exemplary damages and misrepresentation. He also ordered details of whether a defendant acquired the rights and how long O’Meara held his shares, including any disposal date and price.
The ruling addresses pleadings and pre-trial procedure. The judge expressly did not determine whether aggravated or exemplary damages might ultimately be awarded. The underlying claims remain to be decided on the evidence at trial.