ShellNews.net: FINANCIAL TIMES: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: THE DOUBLE STANDARDS OF SIR MARK MOODY-STUART: 17.30pm Tuesday 5 July 2005
By John Donovan
ShellNews.net Editor and a Shell shareholder
I am writing with regard to the letter from Sir Mark Moody-Stuart published by The Financial Times on 30 June 2005 under the headline: “Enjoy a free trip and get to ask Shell a question.”
In his letter Sir Mark questioned the independence of individuals who asked questions at his final AGM as a Shell Transport director. He also made reference to the “Alternative Shell Report” published by the Friends of the Earth. I note that Tony Juniper, Executive Director of the FOE subsequently confirmed that the FOE did not pay for the relevant individuals to travel to the AGM as Sir Mark had wrongly alleged.
It is a bit rich for Sir Mark to make such an unfounded comment bearing in mind the question mark over the purported independent endorsement of The Shell 2003 Report by Transparency International which Shell circulated to its shareholders last year.
A section on page 25 was devoted to Shell’s reputation. Alongside the hype about survey results carried out in 2003, was an endorsement of Shell’s ethical policies by “Transparency International” – which promotes business ethics and, as its name implies, “transparency”. The organisation’s endorsement was within the stated context of the so-called “Panels of external experts”, who “gave their independent views of how well Shell has performed.” All very impressive!
However, it was not disclosed that Mr George Moody-Stuart, an Executive Committee member of the organisation (and its former Chairman) is the brother of Sir Mark, who at the time, was still a Shell director. Is it possible that Shell shareholders would have been less impressed about the “independent” endorsement if they had known about that undeclared connection?
Perhaps because of my protests
to Shell last year on the subject, instead of an “independent endorsement” by
Transparency International, there is this year an “Independent Assurance Report”
by KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, who have provided “an independent opinion on
information contained in the 2004 Shell Report”.
However, KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers earn huge sums as Shell auditors and are named Defendants in a multi-billion dollar class action law suit brought against Shell in the US courts by the lead plaintiff lawyers, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP.
It states in section 8 their Amended Complaint: -
PricewaterhouseCoopers UK and KPMG NV: -
(a) Individually and jointly issued materially false and misleading audit opinions and made false representations.
(b) Improperly acted as both Shell auditors/consultants and consequently suffered from disabling conflicts of interest. This dual role violated Generally Accepted Accountancy Principles in the U.S. and contravened the spirit of the US Securities & Exchange Commission rules regarding auditor independence and thus compromised their required auditor independence.
(c) In the five years from 1998 to 2002 inclusive the combined remuneration received from Shell by PwC and KPMG was $96 million in Audit fees and a staggering $185 for “non-audit” services. The fees were of great importance to the partners in PwC and KPMG as part of their income was dependent on the continued business with the Shell Group who were “crown jewel” clients.
Under the circumstances I do not feel in the least bit “assured” as a Shell shareholder by this latest so-called independent opinion.
LEGAL STUFF (NO NEED TO READ UNLESS YOU ARE A SHELL LAWYER, OR SOMEONE WITH A DEEP INTEREST IN SHELL, OR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OR COPYRIGHT ISSUES)
LEGAL STATEMENT BY THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP REGARDING THIS WEBSITE: I, Alfred Donovan, would like to remind Shell lawyers that the "group" has placed on record its acknowledgement of my freedom to air my opinions about Shell on ShellNews.net. I did of course already have rights under various freedom of expression conventions and declarations but its nice to know that Shell, one of the multinational rulers of our planet, recognises this fact. The Royal Dutch Shell Group made the following unusual statement in a legal document in regards to this website: - "The... Group... have been aware of the site since the beginning and whilst they would not endorse or agree with many of the comments made by the Respondent on the website, they have taken the view that the Respondent is entitled to express his opinions and to use the Internet as a medium for doing so." This statement drafted by Shell lawyers and authorised by the "Group", amounts to tacit approval/acceptance/recognition of this website by Shell. It was submitted to The World Intellectual Property Organisation in May 2005 by Shell International Petroleum Company Limited on behalf of the Royal Dutch Shell Group in proceedings against me, Alfred Donovan, as the "Respondent" (owner) of three domain names, including www.royaldutchshellplc.com. It remains a mystery why Shell has taken an entirely different view regarding the fundamental human right to freedom of expression in respect of the former Shell geologist Dr John Huong, the well-known Shell whistle-blower, in relation to postings under his name elsewhere on this same website. Eight companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group collectively obtained a High Court Injunction to silence him. The Injunction remains in force.
Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Site Ownership: Shell 2004.com (also known as ShellNews.net) IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE SHELL SHAREHOLDERS ORGANISATION: CHAIRMAN ALFRED E DONOVAN, 847a Second Avenue, New York City, NY 10017, USA. The statements expressed here, and any opinions, are those of the writers alone, and neither are opinions of nor reflect the views of Shell2004.com. Content created by the writers is the sole responsibility of the writers and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed. This goes for all links, too: Shell2004.com has no control over the information you access via such links, does not endorse that information, cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon, and shall not be responsible for it or for the consequences of your use of that information.
© 2004/5 Shell2004.com All rights reserved.
Click here for ShellNews.net HOME PAGE