INTERVIEW:Abridged extracts from an interview with Mr Shipsey, in which the then senior independent director of DCC Michael Buckley described the circumstances leading up to Mr Flavin's resignation.

BUCKLEY: ". . . in April the settlement was announced to the market. Pretty soon after that we issued a statement setting out in some detail the reasons why we had taken the decision about Jim Flavin.

“Then within a matter of two or three days from that I was informed by the Irish Association of Investment Managers that they had revisited the issue of Jim’s continuation and that they were now going to issue a statement to say it was inappropriate that he would continue in his position, which they did . . . we met as a board pretty well immediately. We discussed it pretty seriously. We took some more soundings through our stockbrokers as to what the feelings of investors were insofar as they were getting feedback, and out of that discussion, obviously, Jim being involved in the discussion, we said look, it is appropriate that the original three-year time horizon for Jim to step down should be shortened. In fairness, Jim was very much part of that discussion.

“In a sense this wasn’t one that took place over here in a cabal. Then pretty much immediately the ODCE announced that he was going into the High Court to look for the appointment of an inspector. We had another meeting, we were talking about two days, two meetings, one or two days after one another and having decided at the first meeting that Jim would be stepping down probably in June or July of this year, after the ODCE announced that he was going into the High Court Jim offered his resignation immediately.”

SHIPSEY: And it was accepted?

BUCKLEY: "And it was accepted . . . Because for obvious reasons we all felt at that stage with that pending there was no way that he could continue either as an executive or as director."

SHIPSEY: Was the decision that the three years would be cut back to one year – was that ever indicated?

BUCKLEY: "No, events overtook it really. We were just about designing that."

SHIPSEY: You had resigned to do it in principle?

BUCKLEY: "Before the ODCE announcement, yes, we had agreed that this was going to happen, that Jim's time would be foreshortened by that amount of time . . . So it just came back again 24 hours later literally into an offer by him to resign."

SHIPSEY: The mere fact that the ODCE was applying to appoint an inspector – was there a discussion or was this something that Jim decided on his own?

BUCKLEY: "Well, there was a discussion, but in a sense in parallel Jim decided on his own. He just told us. I arranged a meeting. The minute that we heard that the ODCE – I am trying to remember have I got it clearly on this, but we arranged a meeting which I was going to chair, and Jim then told us that he was going to resign."

SHIPSEY: OK, or was he asking you to accept his resignation or whatever way it was?

BUCKLEY: "He said I'm going to go immediately."

SHIPSEY: OK, and there was then no need for the discussion. You all accepted that there was no attempt to . . .

BUCKLEY: "We did have a discussion about it, but (a) Jim was very categorical, (b) we felt that the decision by the ODCE was a decision that materially changed the whole background, that you couldn't have a company in which you had an inspector appointed notably to look at all that that chief executive had done, and still have that person in place, so it was a pretty net decision. That one didn't take four hours."

SHIPSEY: Yes, can I just again, I don't know whether this is relevant or not, did it ever occur to you to say that for Jim Flavin to go is actually giving the head that doesn't deserve to be given merely because the Director of Corporate Enforcement decides that he wants an inspector appointed?

BUCKLEY: "Jim wanted to go in a sense – I know I'm terribly mixing a metaphor, he put his own head on the plate, if you like, at that stage."