Mirfieldbull wrote:
Ok assumed it was independent - BUT, as a professional organisation, would they put their name to something fundamentally correct?
If it was a report that was put in the public domain, then you would expect it to be clear from the stated terms of reference how "independent" it was, and also for whose use it was intended and the limitations of scope of the work.
If it was a report not to be put in the public domain, other than being able to assume that nothing false or knowingly misleading was said in the public domain, we really cannot ever know the full purpose and scope of the review.
As an example, someone commissioning a review as a precursor to a takeover bid would issue rather different instructions to someone looking to defend against such a bid. Each would seek to emphasise the strengths of their own position and the weaknesses of the other party, and that would be clear in the terms of reference to the independent advisors commissioned to carry out the work.
Once an administrator is appointed, things become more clear since he is an officer of the court and has to report to creditors, and has to be seen to be objective.
I would urge people to recognise the distinction between a review carried out by external - that definition of independent - advisors, and an objective independent - i.e. impartial - review. Unless we know the terms of reference given to the external advisor, we will never know which it was. But, using a slightly different example, if you were taking legal action against someone, or mounting a takeover bid, would you want your lawyers and advisors to be impartial?
And in this case Hood made it clear he had not been consulted in the review, and did not even know who the reviewing firm was. So it is hard to see how the review can have been totally objective if key people who were responsible for the inherited position were not consulted?
Login
Register
