However cautious Bank of Valletta is in the conduct of its business ­– as every serious bank is expected to be after all – the concern being expressed by its small shareholders over three controversial decisions is justifiable.

For reasons of confidentiality, banks may refrain from divulging information they consider sensitive to their clients. This is all very well in normal circumstances, but certain aspects of the three decisions taken involve issues that may go beyond matters covered by such confidentiality.

The issues are over an €88 million government guarantee to cover a bridging loan of €101 million to a private consortium building a gas fired power station; unsecured loans to Air Malta to cover a shortfall in fuel hedging; and a €260,000 early retirement pay-off to Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon.

On the first issue, the government says that the State guarantee is only a temporary arrangement until the EU Commission approves a security of supply agreement reached with the consortium. The Commission has to decide if the agreement amounts to State aid.

Even so, giving a private consortium a guarantee of such magnitude raises the obvious question: does the arrangement mean the consortium found it difficult to raise the necessary finance elsewhere? Another question: should the State act as a guarantor to cover a loan for a private company?

Small BoV shareholders are not happy with the situation and their representative association is now known to have had a meeting with the bank chairman who, according to reports, has answered all its questions. Should not the information given be passed on to the public as well?

It is not enough for the government to say that the bridging loan guarantee is unprecedented; it is precisely because the move is unusual that the government ought to be more forthcoming on what exactly is happening with the power plant project. Indeed, the move creates a precedent that could, over time, give rise to complications to the administration if it finds itself in similar circumstances on other projects.

If correct, the issue over the granting of unsecured loans to Air Malta also calls for clarification, more so when the airline has up to next year to meet the deadline to break even.

However, the hefty pay-off given to the planning parliamentary secretary on leaving his post at the Bank of Valletta to take up a government position created a greater controversy.

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil described the pay-off as obscene, arguing that shareholders ought to be given a decent explanation. As in the case of the State guarantee, there is also a unique aspect in the handsome pay-off the parliamentary secretary managed to get from the bank – he will be allowed to return to his job if he leaves his government post.

If and when he does so, he would have to refund to the bank part of the pay-off, pro-rata for the time he would have spent out of his post. The point is he has been given privileged treatment, a matter that has not escaped the criticism of the employees’ union.

The union said the special provision allowing Dr Falzon to return to his post if he leaves his government position defeated the object of early retirement. It also objected to a post at BoV being left vacant.

It is therefore not surprising that some employees who were given early retirement packages in recent years are challenging the concession given to the parliamentary secretary.

If, as it has been reported, none of the employees who retired over the past five years (more than 117) was given the option to return, the bank has a lot of explaining to do.