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 legal review was conducted over a three-month period, and the terms of reference issued on March 24, defined the relevant time period as the two years preceding Chakraborty’s resignation. The bank also referred to the issue of AT1 bonds, which saw allegations of mis-selling, but did not elaborate on those allegations. The bank has maintained that there was no mis-selling and said that the only reason it had fallen foul of regulators was the failure to re-onboard customers from another jurisdiction within the UAE. “Although Mr. Chakraborty referred to the Dubai matter in post-resignation public statements, no contemporaneous evidence was identified reflecting that he raised any concerns about his personal values and ethics, or that he disagreed with any decisions made by the Board or relevant Board Committees in connection with the Dubai matter,” the bank said. The conclusion focuses entirely on the inconsistency between Chakraborty’s current public stance and his past official position.