Sir, – Niall O'Dowd (May 19th) is mistaken in his statement regarding new management: "This was never acceptable to the old management, who refused to countenance any of our efforts to start afresh".
John McStay, who represented the Irish-American group, telephoned me the day after these investors withdrew to apologise for the portrayal of me, Vincent Jennings and Irish Press Plc as being responsible for the withdrawal by the investors. The statement issued at this time referred to “difficulties”. Mr McStay confirmed to me that consideration of a number of unspecified difficulties had lead to the withdrawal. Prior to this I had been in friendly contact with Mr McStay and was waiting for a proposal to be made. We discussed the practicalities involved in such a project but not its management.
The examiner never made any proposals to me either in respect of the Irish-American project or an earlier proposal.
At no time did I, Mr Jennings or Irish Press Plc lay down any preconditions. Our position was simple: any proposal would be considered on its merits. We refrained from any action that might be unhelpful to the examiner.
It should be noted that the legal situation was complex and that Ingersoll Irish Publications Limited was the largest external creditor following the decision of the Supreme Court to set aside an award of damages. Ingersoll subsequently appointed a receiver to Irish Press Newspapers Limited and settled its claims against the newspaper companies for substantial sums. Unlike Irish Press Plc, Ingersoll had opposed the appointment of the examiner.
Irrespective of any decision by Irish Press Plc, there was a substantial risk, if not a probability, that Ingersoll, would oppose an arrangement proposed by the examiner and, if the arrangement were approved by the High Court, appeal it to the Supreme Court. – Yours, etc,
EAMON de VALERA ,
Irish Press Plc,
Clanwilliam Terrace,
Dublin 2.