LETTER TO MR PETER MONTAGNON, HEAD OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH INSURERS
24 June 2004
Mr Peter Montagnon
Head of Corporate Governance
The Association of British Insurers
51 Gresham Street
London, EC2V 7HQ
3 PAGES BY FAX ONLY TO: 020 7696 8999
Dear Mr Montagnon
THE MAD HATTERS TEA PARTY AT SHELL
I am aware of your interest in Shell Transport and Trading Company plc. I appreciate that you are a busy man, but I would be grateful if you would glance through the content of this letter. You might find it interesting.
Shell still pretends that it is following the strictures of its ethical code, while it actually engages in deceit and cover-up, even hiding or obscuring information from Shell shareholders. This is what Dr John Huong, a former Shell geologist for nearly 30 years, has recently described as a “con-artist mentality at Shell”. (See shell2004.com)
There have been three classic examples of such behaviour by Shell management in recent days:
THE SHELL 2003 REPORT
Shell circulated to its shareholders “The Shell Report 2003”. A section on page 25 is devoted to Shell’s reputation. Alongside the hype about survey results carried out in 2003, is 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!
What is not disclosed is that Mr George Moody-Stuart, an Executive Committee member of the organisation (and its former Chairman) is the brother of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, a current director of Shell Transport And Trading Company plc (and a former Group Chairman of Shell). Is it possible that Shell shareholders would be less impressed about the ethics endorsement if they knew about that undeclared connection? The report by Friend of the Earth “Behind the Shine", has in any event, exposed Shell’s report as another exercise in empty rhetoric and futile propaganda.
SECOND EXAMPLE: Shell has been persuaded by major investors and related organisations to disclose the membership of a steering group looking at Shell governance reforms, including the possibility of merging Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport. You have of course played a role in this process. As a result, we now know that Mr Maarten van den Bergh, who is still a Shell director and one of the individuals named in the US Class Action law suits alleging fraud and misrepresentation, is a member of the steering group. Shell is also aware that Mr van den Bergh ignored irrefutable documentary evidence of corrupt/dishonest practices at Shell when he was President of Royal Dutch Petroleum. Thus, for more than one reason, his inclusion within the steering group seems entirely inappropriate.
THIRD EXAMPLE: Shell has just announced the name of its NEW Chief Financial Officer and Group Managing Director, Mr Peter Voser. In fact Mr Voser is a Shell veteran of two decades who only left the group in 2002. Consequently the Financial Times is already asking Shell if Mr Voser had any involvement in the reserves scandal. In a world of several billions humans beings, why could Shell not have chosen someone genuinely new, who could not possibility be tainted by past misdeeds? Have they still got something to hide? Is this why they needed someone already steeped in their corporate culture of deception and cover-up? Shell should have got rid of every director tainted to the least extent by the past scandals, so that Shell could have a fresh start. Instead it has retained directors deeply implicated in past misdeeds and even brought back a former senior manager potentially tainted by past scandals.
It really is like a replay of the Mad Hatters Tea Party.
It is difficult to come to terms with what has happened at Shell.
THE RESERVES SCANDAL: The flood of multi-billion dollar class action law suits against the Royal Dutch Shell Group with allegations of misrepresentation and fraud against current Shell directors including Malcolm Brinded, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart and Maarten van Den Bergh. There are of course associated official investigations underway by financial regulatory authorities in the UK, the USA, and in The Netherlands, plus a criminal investigation by the US Justice Department and possibly by the UK Serious Fraud Office, with whom I have been in contact.
OTHER CURRENT LITIGATION AGAINST SHELL: There are numerous other class action law suits against Shell. For example, in relation to Shell's admitted serious misconduct in Nigeria; the sale of tainted Shell gasoline in several US states; pollution related law suits in Port Arthur Texas, Shell’s operations in the Philippino capital Manila, and in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where Shell stands accused of contaminating drinking water and causing very serious health problems, including cancers, infertility and respiratory diseases. At the beginning of June 2004, a US Federal Appeals Court reinstated a lawsuit accusing Shell Oil Co. of operating a price-fixing conspiracy with a supposed competitor.
REMARKABLE ADMITTANCES BY SHELL: Then we have the belated admittances of arrogance, bullying, lies, and cover-up by Shell’s management. Shell Group Chairman Jeroem van der Veer confessed in a speech given in Texas in May 2004, to 400 Shell top managers, that he is "shocked, dismayed and ashamed". This confession was contained in a leaked document I supplied to the Financial Times on 16 June 2004 received from a Shell insider. The associated article entitled "How Shell changed its culture and lost its way" was published on 18 June 2004. This happened during the tenure of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart. Shell has also admitted using undercover secret agents supplied by its then associate company, the private spy firm Hakluyt, to infiltrate and betray its perceived enemies, including Greenpeace and The Body Shop. Shell has also admitted using a private army of 1400 Police spies in Nigeria.
Shell has confessed that it used undercover agents in litigation my family brought against Shell. These underhand, mafia like tactics, succeeded in intimidating witnesses and undermining the concept of a fair trial. All of this ALSO happened during the tenure of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart. Bizarrely, Lady Judy Moody-Stuart personally intervened in the dispute without the knowledge of her husband, Sir Mark. I have asked the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, to look into the circumstances of the relevant trial. For example, I have requested that the Judge should disclose whether he knew the barrister son of the Moody-Stuarts, Mr Tom Moody-Stuart, as they were and remain connected with the same law chambers.
Shell urgently needs to get rid of everyone tainted by past scandals. In other words, its entire discredited arrogant and incompetent management. It is the only way that Shell can get a fresh start at trying to restore its former proud reputation. Some of the remaining senior directors of Shell are guilty of serious misdeeds in direct contravention of Shell’s own ethical code. Other directors are letting their former good names be tainted by continuing to be associated with this disgraced company.
For more information, please visit the world’s most comprehensive independently operated news and information portal focused on the Royal Dutch Shell Group, Shell2004.com. It contains detailed information which should be read in conjunction with this letter.
I will leave you to reflect on whether Shell lawyers would have allowed me to continue to operate websites publishing damaging information about Shell (for nearly two years) unless what I am saying is true.
Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan
cc. Jeroem van der Veer, Malcolm Brinded, Richard Wiseman. (SHELL)
Click here for ShellNews.net HOME PAGE