Organisation: Equitable / Ernst & Young

Click here for full-size graph

Analysis and commentary by Echo Research.

Mudslinging is not an attractive sport, much less when it involves innocent victims. The failure last week of Equitable's £700m legal claim against former auditor Ernst & Young and subsequent mudslinging disgraced both parties, disgusted media commentators and "shattered the dreams" (Scotsman, 23/9) of thousands of policyholders. Reporting of the "biggest climbdown in UK legal history" (icWales, 23/9) focused on whether Equitable Chairman Vanni Treves and CEO Charles Thomson should resign, with sympathy evident in some quarters: "Treves must stay, despite the climbdown" (thisismoney.co.uk, 25/6). But while Treves' defence of his actions was well aired in weekend interviews, his apparent intransigence - "I don't think 'apologise' is a word I'd use" (Scotsman, 23/9) - was unsavoury and did little to reconcile policyholders.

The real media opprobrium was reserved for E&Y's gleeful response to the failed legal action, which offended many. "E&Y has no right to gloat"(thisismoney.co.uk, 25/9); "E&Y's triumphant approach is unattractive to say the least" (Sunday Telegraph, 25/9); "The crass insensitivity of E&Y brought shame to the entire financial community" (Scotland on Sunday, 25/9). With both parties covered in mud but legally in the clear, the media rued how it was possible that "all the culprits in the Equitable disaster have wriggled away virtually scot-free" (thisismoney.co.uk, 25/9).