Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
PRESS STATEMENT BY ALFRED DONOVAN RE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL 27 JUNE 2004
TO: MARKETING MAGAZINE; MARKETING WEEK;
SALES PROMOTION
MAGAZINE; FORECOURT TRADER
As some of your journalists may be aware, my family and I have been involved
in
a decade long feud with Shell involving our former company Don Marketing,
which
devised and supplied a host of major promotions for Shell on an international
basis. The most famous of these was the spectacularly successful Shell “Make
Money” game in 1984.
We enjoyed a mutually beneficial business relationship until new Shell
management 10 years ago decided that it could steal ideas which we had put
forward on a strictly confidential basis. We sued Shell in the High Court six
times and once in the County Court. Current score: 3 outright wins, two
withdrawn in return for a £125,000 package, and one (the SMART litigation)
withdrawn in return for a compromise settlement package. This involved Shell
paying all legal fees and funding a moderate payment to my son. In other
words,
no losses on the Donovan side and no wins by Shell.
The actual Smart settlement bears scant relationship to the “joint” press
release issued BY Shell at the time, July 1999, which as usual, was designed
by
Shell to cover-up the truth. It described the above compromise settlement as a
"stalemate". Although we did not "WIN" the case, you can judge from the
above
information whether this was an accurate description. The settlement was
personally approved by the then Group Chairman of Shell, Sir Mark
Moody-Stuart.
Shell had used every dirty trick in its extensive arsenal to undermine the
SMART
claim. Litigation against Shell is not for the faint hearted. Shell believes
in
a “no holds barred” approach. It repeatedly accused us of making bogus claims
before eventually settling. We received an unsolicited letter of apology from
a
Shell Chairman after they had settled for £200,000, two claims which they had
previously rubbished as being "bogus". I still have the original letter in
case
Shell says it is a forgery. We also faced an avalanche of threats from Shell
management and their army of lawyers. When that strategy did not work, Shell
brought in undercover agents. One was caught red handed illegally checking
mail
at our offices. He gave false information and used false documents.
Then all hell broke lose. Our key witnesses, our solicitor and my family and I
were besieged by undercover agents. Houses were burgled, documents were
examined, and threats were made. All of this activity occurred in the run up
to
the SMART trial. Because the first agent had been unmasked, we managed to
corner Shell in to admitting his activities. Shell then warned us that other
agents were involved in our case. This was presumably designed to frighten us.
However, they denied any knowledge of the burglaries and intimidation.
What Shell did not admit to the Police is that Shell had common
directors/shareholders with the sinister Hakluyt/MI6 spy firm. Two titled
directors of Shell Transport were the Chairman and President of Hakluyt, its
ultimate spymasters. Hakluyt is staffed by former MI6 senior officers. Shell
has
admitted using its agents to infiltrate and betray its perceived enemies
including Greenpeace and The Body Shop.
All of the above frightening activity was factored into my sons very reluctant
decision to accept the compromise settlement including the modest sum he
received.
During this whole period of the litigation and beyond I have repeatedly warned
about the unscrupulous conduct of Shell. For example on 27th January 1995,
Marketing Week published an article by Jon Rees entitled: “Irate Don hits
Shell
investors”. The article contained a quote from me saying that I had formed a
pressure group “because of our growing concern about the ethical conduct of
Shell…”
I have no doubt that many people thought I was a raving lunatic. However
recent
events have proven to the wider world that my warnings were well founded.
Shell’s reputation has disappeared faster than its oil reserves. Last Friday,
the London Evening Standard headline said: “Shell has lied for 10 years”.
I have printed below a copy of a letter sent by fax to the US lawyer who has
just launched a major class action law suit against Shell. The content is
self-explanatory. You obviously have my email address should you require any
further information e.g. the attachments sent with the letter.
26 June 2004
Mr William S. Lerach
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Robbins LLP
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
USA
25 PAGES BY FAX ONLY TO: 001 619 231 7423
Dear Mr Lerach
INCONTROVERTIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF
SHELL DELIBERATELY
HIDING INFORMATION
FROM ITS SHAREHOLDERS FROM 1994 ONWARDS
My family and I have over the last decade brought several High Court Actions
against Shell in the UK Courts and remain in dispute with them. I have
therefore
read with interest the news of the class action lawsuit you are bringing
against
Shell on behalf of US pension fund clients.
My son and I discovered a decade ago that Shell senior management has a deeply
ingrained corporate culture of cover-up and deceit. I have documents which
provide incontrovertible proof of the extent to which they have been prepared
to
go over the last decade to hide information from their shareholders – the
people
who actually own Shell.
I attach one such legal document which would make Shell shareholders eyes pop
out. It is a Confidentiality Agreement/Deed signed by the then Managing
Director
of Shell UK Limited Mr David Varney and by me and my son. This agreement is
probably unique in the history of litigation involving a publicly owned
corporation. It was devised and pushed through personally by Shell Transport
senior management including Group Managing Director, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart. It
has been described by Richard Wiseman, General Counsel of Shell International
and Legal Director of Shell UK Limited as being “bananas”. The then Chairman
and
CEO of Shell UK was dead set against the agreement but was overruled.
I am aware that you have considerable experience in corporate litigation but I
would hazard a guess that you have never seen anything like this agreement
before. The package was worth about $225,000 to us.
Almost exactly 10 years ago, immediately prior to the 1994 Shell Transport
AGM,
Shell agreed to our proposal to put an earlier dispute to mediation, but only
on
the basis of us entering into a confidentiality agreement. That agreement was
deliberately drafted by Shell lawyers to keep Shell shareholders completely in
the dark.
In 1999, we informed every director of Shell Transport and Trading Company
plc,
Royal Dutch Petroleum, and Shell UK Limited, that we had found in Shell
discovery documents, incontrovertible evidence of corrupt practices in respect
of a tendering process for a major contract. Companies in the tendering
process
were deliberately cheated and deceived by Shell managers. They included large
and small businesses including for example a retained promotions agency,
Senior
King, The contract was awarded in shady circumstances to a company which never
even took part in the tendering process (which involved 35 companies). We also
found an email concerning illegal activity knowingly sanctioned by one of the
same managers. Shell management subsequently gave that manager their full
support. Again I have the relevant documents.
What this all demonstrates is that during the last decade there has been a
consistent policy of cover-up by Shell senior management exactly in line with
the serious charges in your law suit. And it involves the same individuals;
Sir
Mark Moody-Stuart, Sir Philip Watts, Maarten van den Bergh, Malcolm Brinded,
Lord Oxburgh etc.
I also attach for your information a copy of a self-explanatory letter faxed
on
24 June 2004 to Mr Peter Montagnon at the Association of British Insurers the
content of which you may also find interesting. The same applies to my
website,
Shell2004.com.
I have also attached a copy of a paper authored by me at the invitation of The
National Union of Ogoni Students International. It is being presented at a
convention being held in Lincoln, Nebraska, today.
Please contact me if I can be of any assistance to your client’s case. I have
already agreed to provide testimony for one important US Class Action case.
This
was after being approached directly at a high level by one of the relevant
litigants.
Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan
Click here for ShellNews.net
HOME PAGE