EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO SHELL INTERNATIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL, RICHARD WISEMAN
Original Message----- From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 28 August 2007 09:59
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LMAPF Cc: van der Veer, Jeroen J RDS-CEJV; Wilson, Michael D SHLOIL-LEGAL; Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC; Ollila, Jorma RDS-RDS/CH; Hofmeister, John D SHLOIL-CA; Pirret, David J SIPC-DL; 'Alfred Donovan'; Ruddock, Keith KA SI-LSEP
Subject: Predatory practices of Royal Dutch Shell: The Wexco Case
Dear Mr Wiseman
I have printed below an article we intend to publish tomorrow. It will also be published on US news websites. We will happily publish unedited any comments Shell may wish to make. If Shell states that any fact is categorically untrue, we will take the appropriate action. If you need time to discuss this matter with your colleagues in the USA that it not a problem. We are more interested in accuracy than in any deadline. I doubt that any other publisher is as fair or as accommodating as we are in such matters.
If your response is the same as indicated on 21 August... “As always, you should never assume that failure to deny your assertions is an admission on Shell's part, nor should you represent this to be so on this occasion, or ever” we will include that in the normal preamble to the article confirming that we have approached Shell high command for comment."
Or you may prefer Mr Ruddock’s standard formula... “As explained previously on a number of occasions, the lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you, whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters”.
If there is no response from Shell today, we will assume that Shell does not dispute the facts set out in the draft article.
A copy of this email is also being sent today to Wexco and the lawyers acting for them.
Regards
John Donovan
DRAFT: Predatory practices of Royal Dutch Shell: The Wexco Case
By John Donovan
We recently published an article about how the management of Shell Oil Products in the USA had for a number of years turned a blind eye to a lube chain in Illinois blending Shell’s Pennzoil oil brand with a cheaper product and selling it to consumers as Pennzoil. Apart from the consumer fraud aspect, Shell management also failed to protect Shell employees from threats of violence by the management of the lube chain, The Grease Spot, Inc. The lube chain and Shell Oil Company both had reasons to keep a lid on the scandal.
Consumer fraud involving Pennzoil and Shell Oil Products: http://www.huliq.com/31383/usa-consumer-fraud-involving-pennzoil-and-shell-oil-products
Information from a Shell insider led us to electronically search US Court files for current litigation involving Shell Oil Products, Shell Lubricants and Pennzoil seeking confirmation of further misdeeds by Shell management. The results provide evidence of predatory practices by Shell against small American companies, in line with Shell’s ruthless conduct in the UK, as revealed in a recent article authored by me. This is the first article stemming from the search. Another case involving Pennzoil will follow almost immediately.
More articles will be published as we proceed to search the US courts for current litigation cases involving Shell and/or its subsidiaries.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/25/shellnewsnet-royal-dutch-shell-predatory-business-practises/
THE WEXCO CASE: Case 2:04-cv-05244-JLL-CCC
Wexco Industries, a company located in New Jersey with 19 employees, is a supplier of windshield wiper products. It used to source them from ADM, a Korean company. Wexco in turn had a contract to supply the products to Shell. After months of Wexco negotiating in good faith to secure a new contract with Shell, the company discovered Shell had gone behind their back direct to ADM. As was stated succinctly in the complaint filed on behalf of Wexco on October 26, 2004, “the facts underlying this dispute exemplify the classic run-around scenario”.
Unfortunately for Shell, in a deposition in August 2006 a representative of ADM revealed during his examination that Shell had disclosed to ADM confidential information concerning the covert negotiations between Shell and Wexco. In doing so, Shell had acted in breach of confidence and breach of contract. It had committed these serious breaches during the period of several months when it was still in negotiation with Wexco: a blatant act of bad faith. Shell had even requested more information from Wexco while negotiating directly with ADM.
As a result of the admissions, Wexco filed an Amended Complaint on January 2, 2007. Apart from claiming breach of confidence and breach of contract it also alleged that Shell had acted fraudulently.
This is the relevant extract from the Amended Complaint (SOPUS is an abbreviation for Shell Oil Products US) : -
COMMON LAW FRAUD / FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST SOPUS
71. Wexco incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 70 of this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial as though fully set forth herein.
72. SOPUS made misrepresentations regarding its good faith in negotiating new terms and conditions, specifically its intent to maintain an exclusive supply relationship with Wexco. SOPUS communicated to Wexco on several occasions that it continued to negotiate in good faith and it wished to continue operations and negotiations with Wexco. Furthermore, SOPUS made misrepresentations regarding its intention to enter into a new agreement have a two (2) year duration.
73. SOPUS's communications regarding its good faith in negotiation new terms and conditions, specifically its intention to continue an exclusive relationship with Wexco and its intention to enter into a two (2) year agreement, were made intentionally and with the knowledge that Wexco would rely on the representation. SOPUS made these misrepresentations at a time when it was negotiating directly with ADM.
74. Wexco relied on SOPUS's fraudulent misrepresentations in order to meet and fulfill its obligations under the ADM Agreement.
75. SOPUS's fraudulent misrepresentations have caused actual damage to Wexco.
On August 17th, 2007, a Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court of New Jersey granted permission to Wexco to file a Second Amended Complaint against Pennzoil-Quaker State Co., Shell Oil Products and Shell Lubricants US.
The attorneys acting for Wexco are Mandlebaum, Salsburg, Gold. Lazris & Discenza, P.C. located in New Jersey and New York law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.
David Pirret, currently Executive Vice President of Shell Lubricants, was the senior SOPUS executive during the period the above events took place. The case continues.
LINKS TO RELEVANT COURT DOCS WILL APPEAR HERE
DRAFT ENDS
EMAIL REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN 28 AUGUST 2007: 12 Noon
Dear Mr Donovan
Thank you for your email. I should be grateful if you would include the language set out in my email of the 21st August on this and all your other publications on this topic unless we say otherwise.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
General Counsel M & A and Project Finance
Shell International Limited
Registered in England and Wales Registered Office, Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA Company number 3075807 -----