Professor Philip Lane:

We have said - and we fully stand behind it and it has been subject to repeated third-party reviews and so on - is that we are satisfied. I understand the reasons that Mr. Sugarman has given. That has been factored in to how we have investigated and viewed this event. Again, it is a frustration that we cannot disclose any more information. However, the ultimate point here is that we are committed to being an intrusive regulator, to actively using our enforcement powers and we do. There are certain categories of outcomes, however, which remain private and only in certain cases do we go public. We understand the account that Mr. Sugarman has given and that I think was fully factored into how this case was handled. We have tried to go as far as we can, subject to the confidentiality restrictions, in trying to explain what we did. Ultimately, what we are saying is that we have no reason to be anything but the most effective regulator we can be and we are satisfied that we handled this appropriately.