REPLIES THE BSE

A mistake...

There are several aspects of interest in the reply we got from the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BVB) - the twisted circumstance, the bizarre logic and the overreaction.

• THE TWISTED CIRCUMSTANCE

On April's Fools Day, the journalist of BURSA addressed a question, sent by e-mail, to Mariana Ciurel, and a confirmation to Lucian Anghel and Ludwik Sobolewski:

"On what basis did Ludwik Sobolewski, the CEO of the BSE, buy shares in the company, considering art. 99 of the Operating Rules of the BSE, published on the website of the institution?"

Even though it would have been simple to answer us right away, like they did in the reply, "The legal basis is Article 100 of the same Regulation", the BSE kept quiet, like it's been doing for some time now, leaving us to assess the situation as best we could on our own.

The article which the BSE deigns to respond now is telling when it comes to our comprehension ability, given the unwillingness o the BSE to he helpful, so the BSE has no reason to complain: the twisted situation was created by the BSE, which chose to let the article appear first, and only then to give us clarification.

• THE BIZARRE LOGIC

It's strange how the people from the management of the BSE construe their own Regulation: essentially they lay out restrictions for the whole staff of the BSE, from which the CEO of the BSE is supposedly exempted, even though that is not confirmed in writing anywhere.

According to our comprehension ability, the natural relation between the area of the restrictions pertaining to the CEO of the BSE and that of the restrictions pertaining to the staff of the BSE is one of inclusion, where the restrictions that concern the CEO are more comprehensive and include the restrictions aimed at the staff of the BSE (see chart).

Once again, we believe that, had the author of the Regulation intended to have the CEO be exempt from the restrictions which concern the whole staff of the BSE, they would have mentioned it explicitly: "with the exception of the CEO".

Such a mention does not exist.

Therefore the reasoning that the restrictions of article 99 don't apply to the CEO of the BSE, like the reply of the BSE reproduced here, is wrong.

• THE OVERREACTION

The representatives of the BSE are threatening us with "legal action" to "stop us" from "further disseminating erroneous information", such as the one in the article to which they are replying now.

First of all, there was no inaccurate information published.

The information published is that Sobolewski bought shares in the BSE and that information was taken from the BSE website.

If the BSE is publishing erroneous information, then it should sue itself, not us.

Aside from the information mentioned above, we have also interpreted its implications, given the lack of cooperation of the BSE, and based on the reasoning mentioned above, we have found that Sobolewski violated his own regulations.

I repeat, this is not an information, but an interpretation thereof, which could perhaps be erroneous, (but we have not yet reached that conclusion; quite the opposite, for now).

But it is obvious, we have made every due diligence, which makes the "legal action" threat completely unjustified.

Such an exaggerated reaction can not be explained as being a result of this article, nor in relation to others that were recently published, which the Reply alludes to, but rather as an exasperation at the aspects that are worthy of criticism which the BURSA newspaper has uncovered in the activity of Ludwik Sobolewski (in the case of Lucian Anghel there is no need).

Having recently come here from Poland, perhaps Sobolewski thinks his intimidation attempts will "work".

But our readers know that this is a mistake.