The bitter High Court civil trial involving three shareholders of tech conference giant Web Summit has been struck out with no order on legal costs.
The case was resolved last month after talks between the parties concluded with founder Paddy Cosgrave saying he was “delighted” two of his former friends would now leave the company.
Majority shareholder Mr Cosgrave was suing David Kelly, who owned 12 per cent of the business, for alleged breaches of his fiduciary duties as a director of the company.
Mr Cosgrave was, in turn, being sued by Mr Kelly and another shareholder, Daire Hickey, who holds 7 per cent of the shares in Web Summit, for both alleged shareholder oppression and alleged breaches of a profit-sharing agreement.
Masseur admits to sexually assaulting woman during massage at Co Cork hotel
There’s a simple reason why building projects - from the petty to the transformative - take so long in Ireland
Donald Trump marks first 100 days in power with speech designed to leave fact-checkers with migraine
‘My future looks empty and lonely ... I should have invested more in friends, but it feels too late now’
Details of the resolutions were not made public in court.
Web Summit, the court heard, has been valued at between €280 million and €360 million.
Joe Jeffers SC, for Mr Kelly, had told the court that all matters had been resolved to a satisfactory conclusion between the parties and that the case could be listed for mention before the court today.
In court, Mr Justice Michael Twomey said he was “happy” to strike out the five actions in civil cases that had been expected to last up to nine weeks.
Mr Justice Twomey had previously said he was “really, genuinely pleased” for all parties, who saved court time and avoided possible “reputational and personal” costs by resolving matters.
[ Web Summit case: Three angry men finally settle their differencesOpens in new window ]
Bernard Dunleavy SC, for Mr Cosgrave, had said that proceedings brought by Mr Kelly and Mr Hickey were an attempt to avoid a discount on the potential sale of their shares in the tech conference firm.
Mr Dunleavy said Web Summit is “big enough and valuable enough” to make the two minority shareholders “millionaires many times over in the morning” if they sold their stakes.
Mr Cosgrave’s side also claimed that Web Summit lost more than €11 million after Mr Kelly “co-opted for private profit” the workings, expertise and networks of a fund set up by Web Summit in starting up a new, rival tech fund called Semble. The claim was strenuously denied by Mr Kelly, the court heard.
Mr Dunleavy had said the five cases were “connected by a bitterness animating every aspect of the proceedings”.
Lawyers for Mr Hickey had alleged that Mr Cosgrave engaged in a “vendetta” against their client in an attempt to “blackmail” him into giving up his shares in the company.
Eoin McCullough SC, for Mr Hickey, said Mr Cosgrave had allegedly refused company information, strategy and finances to Mr Hickey, who had complained about corporate governance between 2019 and 2021.
None of the three men were in court on Tuesday but all were legally represented before Mr Justice Twomey, who congratulated the legal teams on implementing the agreements and said he appreciated there could sometimes be “slips” between agreements and outcomes.
“That’s the end of the matter,” he said.
