What is there to explain. Comments of wrong doing have already been made - but you will no doubt discuss the continuum upon which your view of "wrong" falls. Lets not rehash all the previous posts but to remind you of one comment by Grant Thornton, who said in the second Stat Man report "In our opinion, the accounting records and governance relating to the assets the company holds are very poor". Is that not "Wrong"?
"Wrong" is a bit of a subjective term. See, I think it is wrong to take Grannies money and say it is in a very safe place with a very good return only to lend it to some shonky dude who pays no interest and does a runner when asked to repay. But you seem to think that is legitimate and proper thing to do. I think it is wrong to take a tax payer guarantee and use that to invest in increasingly dodgy ventures, but you seem to think thats OK. I think its wrong to offer 8% interest rate over the market rates knowing your books are shonky (or in your parlance Kosher) to dimwits who are more than happy to give you their loot because you are a "decent Man" rather than considering the quality of the underlying risk.
You know as well as the rest of us that the investigations are still under way and that it would be wrong to publish information that might jeopordise a fair trial. Or perhaps you think that is the right thing to do.
I'm still at a loss to figure out why you would be keen to hunt AH down through the companies Act or Financial reporting Act or whatever legislation you are hoping to recover some cash. I can only assume the moral high ground you so rigourusly defend has a siren call luring you to the pits jurisprudence through the promise of cash.