HDFC Bank's independent review finds no evidence to back ex-chairman's ethics concerns
Mumbai: HDFC Bank has said that an independent legal review conducted by two external law firms found no evidence to substantiate the concerns raised by former chairman Atanu Chakraborty in his resignation letter or subsequent public statements. The bank made the disclosure in a regulatory filing on Wednesday.
The review, announced on March 24, examined whether any of the issues flagged by Mr. Chakraborty were evident from bank records, whether he had recorded any dissent during his tenure, and whether such dissent, if any, had been addressed. The review was carried out by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. and Wadia Ghandy & Co. over a three-month period.
Mr. Chakraborty resigned as chairman of India’s second-largest private sector lender on March 17, citing ethical concerns. In his resignation letter, he said, “Certain happenings and practices within the bank, that I have observed over the last two years, are not in congruence with my personal values and ethics. This is the basis of my aforementioned decision.” His resignation marked the first time a part-time chairman of HDFC Bank had left midway through a term, sparking questions about the bank’s governance.
The external law firms repeatedly requested Mr. Chakraborty to participate in the review, but the interview did not take place, the bank said. The filing did not provide details on why the former chairman declined to participate. Mr. Chakraborty could not be reached for comment.
HDFC Bank stated that the review concluded there was no evidence to support the concerns raised. The bank’s board has accepted the findings and said it remains committed to strong governance practices. The Reserve Bank of India, which had been informed of the resignation, has not issued any public statement on the matter.
Analysts say the review’s outcome may help restore investor confidence, but questions about the specific issues raised by Mr. Chakraborty remain unanswered. The bank has not disclosed the nature of the “happenings and practices” that led to his resignation, citing confidentiality.
