LETTER TO MAARTEN VAN DEN BERGH, PRESIDENT ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM COMPANY, 27 Jan 1999 WITH COPY OF LETTER SENT TO MALCOLM BRINDED CONTAINING PLEA FOR SHELL TO CEASE THE UNCOVER ACTIVITY
27th January 1999
DELIVERED BY HAND
Mr Maarten van den Bergh
President, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company
The Hague
Netherlands
Dear Mr van den Bergh
I enclose for your information a self-explanatory letter that I hand delivered to Shell-Mex House on Monday 18th January 1999. Thus far, I have not even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement by Mr Brinded or Shell’s lawyers. Copies are also enclosed of the leaflets that I am distributing for the rest of this week outside your offices in The Hague.
It gives me no pleasure to campaign against Shell. All that I have sought is for Shell to stand by its avowed core principles of honesty, integrity and openness. If it did so, the remaining dispute arising from the “Don Marketing Saga” could have been quickly resolved. Unfortunately your British colleagues commitment to the principles is disingenuous.
I will give you one example. Shell UK Legal Director, Mr Richard Wiseman and Mr Colin Joseph of Shell UK Solicitors, DJ Freeman, have admitted on the record that an undercover investigator acting on behalf of Shell UK Limited, acted deceptively. Mr Wiseman can supply you with a recording of the interview with the journalist, Mr Simon Rines, when the admittance was made about the sleazy secret agent, Mr Christopher Phillips.
Can someone please explain to me how the actions of Mr Phillips, who engaged in trickery and outright deception on behalf of Shell, can be reconciled with Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles?
Deception was also used by Shell managers in relation to every one of the four relevant promotion proposals that Don Marketing put to Shell UK Limited in strictest confidence. Shell has of course already settled out of Court in respect of the first three ideas stolen from us.
Although the SMART claim is set down for trial in June, there is still no evidence of any recognisable blueprint for the SMART multi-partner scheme prior to the proposal that Don Marketing last discussed towards the end of November 1992, with Shell manager Mr Andrew Lazenby. Early in January 1993, Mr Lazenby (the same manager at fault in respect of the three previous claims) briefed another agency to produce a SMART scheme that replicated Don Marketing’s proposal.
Furthermore, there is incontrovertible evidence which shows that Mr Lazenby did not act in accordance with Shell code of business practice during his tenure as the Shell UK National Promotions Manager. The evidence is already in discovery. It will deal a further massive blow to Shell’s reputation and will probably lead to claims from other parties.
It is plain that no one at Shell has properly investigated these matters or otherwise the situation would have been resolved long ago. Instead of acting ethically, Shell management in the UK prefers to throw up the barriers by retreating behind its lawyers and hoping that we will go away. The same ruthless treatment has been dished out to other parties who have genuine grievances against Shell.
At the age of 81, I would obviously have preferred for these matters to be resolved amicably at the earliest opportunity. However, as Shell UK evidently intends to continue playing hardball, I will at least have the satisfaction of seeing the whole catalogue of cover-up, deception, intimidation, and other misdeeds by Shell, exposed in open Court, including the oppressive use of “might over right” and the shady undercover activities.
Given that your company is the majority shareholder in Shell UK Limited, these highly unethical actions have effectively been undertaken on behalf of Royal Dutch Petroleum. In view of the fact that your company uses the “Royal” prefix, I will shortly be writing to Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, to bring these matters to her attention.
Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan
Chairman,
Shell Shareholders Organisation.