Messages from Leslie Buckley to Denis O’Brien, disclosed in court papers from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), suggest Mr O’Brien was directly involved in drafting a statement defending Independent News & Media’s (INM) handling of a controversial 2016 move to cut staff pensions.
On December 12th, 2016, one week after a stormy shareholders meeting over an INM proposal to kill off a defined-benefit pension scheme, INM released a statement purporting to rebut “inaccurate” media commentary over the deal, which had sparked a furious protest by former INM workers whose benefits had been slashed.
Mr Buckley – the then chairman of INM – sent the statement on to Mr O’Brien after it had been released, telling his ally: “Please see statement that we have just issued incorporating your suggestions. Thanks for your assistance on this.”
Mr Buckley added that it was “a good robust statement”.
The statement in question was an effective denial that INM had ever intended to 'renege' on any agreement with pension trustees
The messages are outlined in an affidavit by Ian Drennan, the head of the ODCE, submitted as part of an application to have High Court inspectors appointed to investigate a range of allegedly unlawful conduct at INM. The company wants a judicial review to halt the ODCE’s move.
‘Participated’ in drafting
In the affidavit, Mr Drennan avers that the message sent to Mr O’Brien by Mr Buckley demonstrates that “not only was [Mr O’Brien] provided with a copy of the draft statement before it was issued, but it suggests that he actually participated in the drafting of that statement”.
The statement in question was an effective denial that INM had ever intended to “renege” on any agreement with pension trustees.
It referenced speculation at the time that a resolution on the issue passed by INM shareholders had been done “with the objective of paying a dividend” to investors, which would include Mr O’Brien, who owns almost 30 per cent of INM.
“Any suggestion that there is a windfall for shareholders arising out of [the resolution] is wrong,” the statement said.
The statement that Mr O’Brien apparently helped “draft” went on to outline a series of payments to pension funds that were apparently sanctioned by shareholders.
“Other than this point, the shareholders in INM have had no involvement with or any say in the company’s pension plans or indeed any decisions in relation to pensions,” the statement said.
Mr Drennan’s affidavit also reveals an email sent the previous month by Mr Buckley’s assistant on his behalf, to Mr O’Brien, giving him sight of a stock market announcement on the pensions issue that other shareholders did not get until the following day.
“Dear Denis . . . I did want you to know in advance,” the message from Mr Buckley stated.
The move by INM to cease contributions to a defined-benefit scheme, whose beneficiaries included staff who had left but had not yet reached retirement, was controversial because unions predicted it would result in swingeing cuts to these former workers’ entitlements.
These former workers picketed outside a December 2016 shareholders’ meeting which was called at the height of the row. The issue also sparked criticism of INM from some government TDs, including Noel Rock, who called for legal changes to prevent solvent companies from cutting pensions.
In July 2017, INM reached a deal with the pension scheme trustees to make phased payments of €50 million to resolve the row.
