Magill magazine "unreservedly" apologised to Tánaiste Mary Harney in the High Court yesterday.
It said an article in its May issue alleging that Ms Harney was requested by the Flood tribunal to produce details of her finances was "wholly untrue and without any substance or foundation".
The apology, read in court, said the article was seriously defamatory of Ms Harney and that Magill had agreed to pay a substantial sum to a charity named by Ms Harney.
It had also agreed to pay her legal costs and expenses.
When the case was before the High Court on May 2nd Mr Justice McCracken was told the magazine stood over the "essential truth" of the article.
The apology was read yesterday by Mr Eoin McCullough SC, for Grosvenor Publications Ltd, publishers of Magill; Michael Hogan and Mari Therese O'Leary.
Last week, Mr Hogan and Ms O'Leary were stated by a solicitor for Ms Harney to be directors of Hosan Publishing Ltd, a dissolved company, which appeared to own the copyright in the offending article and so, it was stated, must have endorsed its publication.
The apology said the article, "A Flood of Questions," was highly critical of Ms Harney.
The front of the magazine had a picture of her, which flagged the article, and it was also highlighted on the contents page. When the issue went on sale, a series of radio advertisements drew attention to the article.
The apology continued: "The article contains allegations against Ms Harney that are untrue, serious and damaging. Among these allegations is that Ms Harney was served with an order from the Flood tribunal, demanding that she furnish a sworn affidavit setting out, in full, details of all finances, sources of income and bank accounts dating back over the past 20 years and that the order covered all contributions, donations and payments, either directly or indirectly, made to her during the period she served as a county councillor with Dublin County Council.
"When Ms Harney issued libel proceedings and sought injunctions arising out of the article, an affidavit was sworn on Magill's behalf stating that the substance of that statement was true, in that, while no order was made by the Flood tribunal, Ms Harney had been formally requested in writing to supply the information specified in the article.
"During the court hearing, counsel on behalf of Magill stated in court that the magazine would prove the truth of that substance when the action came to be heard. It was said by Magill and the writer of the article that they were standing over the article.
"We now accept on behalf of Magill and its staff and the publishers: 1, That the article is seriously defamatory of Ms Harney; 2, That the specific allegation that Ms Harney was requested by the tribunal to produce details of her finances, sources of income or bank accounts is wholly untrue and without any substance or foundation; 3, That the publication of of the article during the election campaign is especially damaging to Ms Harney and the Progressive Democrats; and 4, That the repetition of the libel in court was offensive and likely to do further damage.
"Magill did not mean to imply any corrupt practices on Ms Harney's part.
"In the circumstances, Magill and its staff and publishers unreservedly apologise to Ms Harney and make this public statement with a view to redressing as far as possible the damage done by the article.
"Magill has agreed to pay a substantial sum to a charity named by Ms Harney. Magill has also agreed to pay Ms Harney's legal costs and expenses."
Mr Sean Ryan SC, for Ms Harney, asked for an order striking out the proceedings against all defendants.
The judge said he would strike out the proceedings.
Afterwards, Ms Harney, who was in court, said she was very pleased with the outcome. It was important, she added, that her reputation was vindicated.
The article had appeared at a very sensitive time and was done to maximise damage to her and the PDs. What mattered was her reputation and character.
She added that this had been a very difficult week for her. She had been very angry and upset that anyone would impugn her character, motives and reputation.
Ms Harney added that the money was going to St Patrick's Unit, Peamount Hospital, Dublin.
She said the case had never been about money. Those who knew her knew she was not particularly interested in money, but she would go to whatever lengths were necessary to vindicate her name and reputation. They were important to her.
People were entitled to criticise decisions she might have taken. But the one thing she would not allow was that people would question her motives, suggest she was "on the take" or corrupt.