The examiner doesn’t exonerate the top brass. He concludes they have a “colorable” case to answer. And for your information the examiner makes a fine distinction between a piss-poor business decision, gearing up the balance sheet with illiquid assets at a low point in the business cycle, and a criminal deception – hiding from interested parties the true state of the business.

I suggest you read it. The examiner can write better than you can in that he tells the story so that any idiot can follow it without ransacking a cupboard of smart-arse cliche to report what has not been said.

Who, if anyone will be named and – one hopes – shamed and who, if anyone, will be punished?