Remember when the former CEO of RBS, British banker Sir Fred Goodwin, got a superinjunction forbidding the press from calling him a banker?He obtained the injunction because he was trying hide details of an alleged affair with a “senior colleague,” according to the Telegraph, not because of “banker-bashing,” as had been originally thought.
Goodwin is doing his best to keep the details under wraps — it’s against the law to mention the details of a super injunction — but a politician, Lord Stoneham, referred to the alleged affair this morning during a debate at the House of Lords, where “his comments are protected by parliamentary privilege.”
Lord Stoneham said, according to the Telegraph,
“Would he accept that every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland?
“So how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague. If true it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would be allowed to know about it.”
Internal RBS policy stipulates that employees have to tell management about relationships that could create a conflict of interest.
Outside the House, Lord Oakeshott explained why revelations about the alleged affair are important (viat FT):
I’m not interested in footballers’ sex lives, but Royal Bank of Scotland was the biggest collapse in corporate history. It cost taxpayers billions and thousands of people their businesses and their jobs. You could not conceive of something more in the public interest than knowing the full facts leading to that collapse.
RBS nearly imploded during the financial crisis. It was saved by a £20 billion (about $33 billion USD) bailout.