Examination of Witness (Questions 220
- 228)
WEDNESDAY 15 JULY 1998
MS JANE
HENDERSON
Mr Jones
220. May I just try and clear up a conflict
which we have in our evidence? At the end of your written submission
to us, you say: "I have had no further discussion of any
substance with Dr Millar since the meeting in the pub." Dr
Millar, on the other hand, says that you called him back the following
day, which would have been 13 February, and he says that you confirmed
that shareholders could act to remove the Board and that you advised
him to contact Perpetual. Do you recall that conversation?
(Ms Henderson) No, I do not. I prepared my statement
having read Dr Millar's statement and that is the best of my recollection.
221. So if somebody called Dr Millar it was
not you?
(Ms Henderson) Correct.
Dr Turner
222. Have you been in contact at all with Dr
Millar or with the company since 12 February?
Ms Henderson) Yes, I have.
With the company, I spoke to the PR person at the company the
day after the meeting to thank them for organising the meeting
and some weeks later I spoke to the Finance Director and told
him we would not be taking up coverage of the stock. Contact with
Dr Millar; Dr Millar called me some weeks later when he was going
forward to the disciplinary hearing and I have spoken to him very
recently when he told me he had set up a business.
Dr Jones
223. You said that you had outlined some concerns
to Dr Millar and that he agreed with some of them. Can you tell
me which concerns he did not agree with?
(Ms Henderson) He had opinions on some and not on
others. I recall he had an opinion that he did not particularly
think the new building was a good idea.
224. And did he express any other concerns that
you had not raised that were his concerns?
(Ms Henderson) Not to my recollection, no.
225. You said that he sought advice as to what
you would do if you were in his position. Could you clarify exactly
how you responded to that?
(Ms Henderson) As I recall it, I said that he should
speak to the non-executive directors of the company.
226. And you did not at any time suggest that
he contact shareholders?
(Ms Henderson) No, not to my recollection.
227. May I just ask why you phoned Neil Woodford
of Perpetual to inform him that Goldman Sachs would not be initiating
research coverage and suggesting that he go and have a look at
the company's new Oxford building?
(Ms Henderson) Perpetual is a client of Goldman Sachs.
We speak to them on a frequent basis on pharmaceutical stocks.
Mr Woodford knew that we were going to visit the company and as
part of a conversation about other issues I did say that we would
not be picking up coverage of the stock.
Mrs Lait
228. May I just ask you whether in your opinion
evidence sessions such as this have had any impact at all on British
Biotech's share price?
(Ms Henderson) I do not really feel qualified to comment
because I do not research British Biotech and I am not an analyst
on British Biotech.
Chairman: Well, although we started late we
have finished very closely on time. You have been a very succinct
and very clear witness, Ms Henderson. We thank you very much for
coming and hope we have not disrupted your day too much, but your
evidence to us has been most helpful and we thank you very much.
| 
