Sir: Your curiously ill-informed profile of Joe Haines makes a
reference to me which is damagingly erroneous in its implications and which you would be prudent to allow me to correct by publication of this letter.
You refer to Robert Maxwell's liggery- pokery', later defined as his 'fraud', and state that it 'beggars belief' that I would not have informed Mr Haines that this was my reason for leaving London and Bishopsgate in July 1991. In fact this was not my reason. I did not know of anything illegal in the conduct of the pension funds. I did, as you say, object strongly to stock-lending on these funds — but for professional portfo- lio management reasons and especially because I was not being informed about it. Stock-lending, as you should be aware, is a legal and common practice in the City.
My resignation had been agreed, for a mixture of personal and business reasons, in December 1990. I reluctantly conceded to delay it because of another issue (explained in my solicitor's statement from which you partially quote).
I could not have informed Mr Haines about Maxwell's alleged illegal behaviour because when I left the Company in July (lacking the 20-20 hindsight with which so many commentators are currently blessed) I knew of none.
Donoughue
House of Lords, Westminster, London SWI
Previous page
