HDFC review finds no evidence backing ex-chairman's charges
MUMBAI: HDFC Bank said that claims made by former chairman Atanu Chakraborty in his resignation letter, and subsequent remarks about the bank going against his ethics and values, were not substantiated by the bank’s records.
“The minutes of the meetings Mr. Chakraborty attended were a product of a comprehensive drafting, review and approval process that afforded Mr. Chakraborty an opportunity to record any ‘happenings and practices’ that purportedly were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics. No contemporaneous support for Mr. Chakraborty’s statement was found in the Board or Board Committee minutes or materials reviewed, or in contemporaneous communications about the review and approval of the minutes of meetings he attended,” the bank said in a statement to the exchanges.
The review was conducted by law firms Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC and Wadia Ghandy & Co. After reviewing the agenda and minutes pertaining to board meetings, conducting interviews with directors and senior management, and examining documents and information, the firms concluded that if these ethical conflicts existed, Chakraborty did not record them, dissent to them, or communicate them through official board channels during the two-year reference period, even though he had the opportunity.
“The minutes of the meetings Mr. Chakraborty attended were a product of a comprehensive drafting, review and approval process that afforded Mr. Chakraborty an opportunity to record any ‘happenings and practices’ that purportedly were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics. No contemporaneous support for Mr. Chakraborty’s statement was found in the Board or Board Committee minutes or materials reviewed, or in contemporaneous communications about the review and approval of the minutes of meetings he attended,” the bank said in a statement to the exchanges.
The review was conducted by law firms Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC and Wadia Ghandy & Co. After reviewing the agenda and minutes pertaining to board meetings, conducting interviews with directors and senior management, and examining documents and information, the firms concluded that if these ethical conflicts existed, Chakraborty did not record them, dissent to them, or communicate them through official board channels during the two-year reference period, even though he had the opportunity.
Next Story