Madam, – The heading on Arthur Beesley’s article (Front page, July 6th) was seriously misleading. “EU expresses grave doubts over State’s survival plan for Anglo” loses its punch when it is made clear that the headline relates to comments made last March about a restructuring plan which has been replaced by one submitted at the end of May and which comprehensively addresses the Commission’s March comments.
Most of the body of the article concerned the March comments and not the current position. The presentation as current news of comments made in March and subsequently overtaken by events is hardly leading-edge journalism. The fact that Mr Beesley returned to the issue (“EU casts a cold eye on Government’s plans to save Anglo”, Business, July 7th) is a tacit admission of the failings of the previous article. Once again, however, the “cold eye” referred to in this heading relates to comments made last March and not to the discussions currently under way on the existing restructuring plan.
“Cantillon” (Business, July 6th) blithely ignored the facts in commenting on the bank’s dealings with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) and on its submission on the Financial Regulator’s recent consultation paper on corporate governance.
The bank’s claim to privilege in relation to certain documents was described as “prudent” by the court when it was first raised and again on Friday of last week. The bank’s proposal on that day of a limited disclosure of privileged documentation to the ODCE was seen by the court as a considered and responsible approach, a fact which “Cantillon” ignores.
His interpretation of the bank’s submission to the Financial Regulator is almost childishly mischievous, particularly in view of the fact that the bank’s board held 59 meetings in the 15-month period to the end of December 2009. – Yours, etc,