As far as I am aware, international accounting standards stipulate that the audited balance sheet of a company should portray a true image of a company's financial position as at balance sheet date and, whenever there is a dispute that can result in a material change to the accounts, a note to this effect in the accounts is mandatory.

Why were these notes never included in the accounts of Go and HSBC in respect of the claims that were made arising out of previous pension schemes?

Do the shareholders have any claim on the companies in view of the fact that, had they known of the potential negative effects on their profit and loss accounts, they may have invested elsewhere?

This has, in fact, already materialised in the case of Go and may materialise if the plaintiffs' appeal against HSBC is decided in their favour.

I feel alarmed at the apparent impunity with which the large companies listed on the Malta Stock Exchange, like Go and HSBC, fail to disclose material facts in their balance sheets.

Incidentally, how would HSBC react if one of their borrowing company clients failed to disclose a material fact that would substantially affect its financial position?

Even more alarming is the fact that nobody seems to have bothered about the serious omissions described above.

Does this mean that this state of affairs is acceptable even to the Malta Financial Services Authority?