This would be a much bigger blow than last week’s loss of the British Airways and Mirror Group accounts.Tom Russel, the New York-based non-executive director of Saatchi & Saatchi, yesterday raised the possibility of a US inquiry into US dealings to follow the present one by the Stock Exchange in London. He said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if the SEC got involved in any way.”Millions of shares were traded, and the price fell 16p to 124p last Monday during the four hours it took before investors were formally informed of the resignations of three senior executives, who included Jeremy Sinclair, the acting chairman and chief creative director.Today’s agenda will also include a mountain of legal matters, the choice of another chairman, and the delicate subject of what to do about Charles Saatchi.Besides preparing to go to court for restrictive injunctions against Maurice Saatchi and other defectors, the company is taking legal advice on a complicated dispute with Robert Louis Dreyfus, its former chief executive, and is said to be facing a $150m (£95m) lawsuit from disgruntled US investors, particularly Arkhurst Investments in California. Mr Russel and others involved with Saatchi expressed amazement because none of them had ever heard of Arkhurst, which is said to have instructed its lawyers inLos Angeles to claim for destruction of the “economic goodwill and credibility of the business”.Saatchi’s shares have dropped from 155p to 102p since Mr Saatchi was ousted.The affair with Mr Louis-Dreyfus, who resigned at the start of the December board meeting, revolves around a estimated $40m settlement the Saatchi brothers received over a legal dispute they had with him and Adidas, the German sports shoe company he heads.A spokesman for Saatchi & Saatchi said yesterday: “Certain matters have been drawn to our attention relating to apparent payment of a significant amount of money paid to Charles and Maurice by shareholders in Adidas, when the brothers were full time employees of Saatchi & Saatchi in return for marketing skills.”Sir Tim Bell, the public relations guru and spokesman for Maurice Saatchi, said: “Maurice and Charles were completely free to make private investments.”Meanwhile, Charles, the company’s co-founder and elder brother of Maurice, has not been seen at his office this year. “We don’t even know if he is alive,” said Mr Russel.Saatchi & Saatchi wants to discuss the removal of 15 filing cabinets, containing personal and confidential client files, from Maurice Saatchi’s office over Christmas.Charles Saatchi, who is honourary president but not a director, is excluded from today’s meeting and the normal monthly gathering scheduled for 25 January.

It could cost the company at least £1.3m to sack him, because he still has four years remaining ofa five-year contract, paying £26,000 a month.Saatchi is under intense pressure to regroup, as speculation mounts that Maurice Saatchi is in talks with other agencies with the aim of establishing a global advertising network. There is a separate rumour that he wants to buy an agency outright.. The final day of the London International Boat Show was soured when one of Britain’s leading boat builders reacted angrily to a British armed services decision to buy 10 luxury sailing yachts from Sweden. Peter Poland, managing director of Hunter Boats of Hamble, Hampshire, said he was incensed the services had not “bought British”.
As the Independent revealed last month, the Army has spent an estimated £500,000 on 10 Swedish vessels. It was claimed the yachts, built by Hallberg Rassey, were needed for training in the Baltic.Mr Poland is encouraging people to write to MPs to complain about the Ministry of Defence’s decision.He said there were several British yachts on the market of similar size including one manufactured by his own company – such as the Channel 323 – which were just as good as the Swedish marque.He added that many were cheaper, and also cited a similar incident a few years ago when a regiment bought German yachts.Explaining its decision, the MoD said that British yachts are “not appropriate” for sailing in the Baltic due to different conditions.This argument was dismissed as ludicrous by Mr Poland who has written to Yachting Monthly saying: “Are these guys serious? Is the Baltic made of toffee?”.

British Gas is to meet with the Health and Safety Executive next week to discuss reductions in part of the pipeline safety budget from £9m to £1m. The cuts emerged at the end of last year in a storm of publicity. Harry Moulson, managing director of Transco, the pipeline arm, said he asked for the meeting. Mr Moulson said: “I believe all the data is in favour of our case.” He said that Transco spends £1bn a year on safety and pointed out that the cut has already been called a “pinprick” by Clare Spottiswoode, the Director General of Gas Supply.
The pipeline row exacerbated the furore surrounding British Gas since it revealed a 75 per cent increase in pay for its chief executive, Cedric Brown, along with salary cuts for some employees and a decision to end payment of bills at showrooms.The controversy is expected to come to the fore again later this month when Mr Brown is due to give evidence on his proposed pay rise to the Employment Select Committee.Separately, Transco is offering to diffuse discontent among its rivals over charges for use of the pipeline by paying for an independent audit of Transco’s assets and costs.

The asset base, said by British Gas to be £17bn, is a key factor in setting prices, which are at present capped at inflation minus five percentage points Independent gas shippers argue that £17bn is much too high.. . With markets braced for another cliffhanging week for the dollar and the peso, Mexican officials admitted that the country would have to use part of its oil reserves as security for a US-backed rescue package of up to $40bn. Warren Christopher, the US Secretary of State, confirmed there would be “tough” conditions on collateral for the loan guarantees, an admission that could stoke up opposition within Mexico to the so-far undisclosed terms of the deal.
But Mexican government officials moved quickly to deny that the rescue package amounted to mortgaging the country’s future oil wealth.Foreign ownership of oil reserves is a highly sensitive issue in Mexico, which has long feared that the US would like to reassert its influence over an industry nationalised in 1938.Mexican newspapers underlined these fears by warning that any oil guarantees backing the package would show “US ambition on Mexican oil”. Mexican oil exports are currently worth about $7bn a year.The finance ministry, confirming that Mexico would use future oil export revenues as collateral for part of the currency support package, said: “The nature of the financial operation. is equal or similar to operations carried out by our country for more than 12 years and is of common use in international financial markets.” The government would issue securities backed by future oil revenues to raise money.”These operations do not imply at any moment the granting of liens over the national patrimony. the patrimony of the subsoil is not being mortgaged, conceded or transferred,” the ministry added.Mr Christopher, on the NBC programme Meet the Press, said President Clinton’s administration was confident that Mexico would repay, and that the loan guarantees would end up costing the US nothing.”We have confidence that the fundamentals are sound here and that this is really a short-term liquidity crisis,” he said.”We want to make sure there are tough conditions to protect our interests,” he said.

“On the other hand, we don’t want to use this moment to be so overbearing that we don’t act as a good friend to Mexico.”Mr Christopher said the US had a big stake in the rescue of Mexico, citing the possibility that after-shocks could shake confidence throughout the West, and “perhaps even more broadly than that.”The issue of collateral is currently under discussion with congressional leaders and with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan.. The failed Australian business tycoon Alan Bond was arrested on Saturday and charged with fraud and conspiracy relating to an A$1bn (£500m) business transaction in the late 1980s. “These charges alleged criminality on a massive scale involving funds in excess of A$1bn,” Stephen Hall, prosecutor for the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions, told the court.
An ashen-faced Mr Bond, wearing a lightweight grey suit with no tie, arrived at the police station attached to the East Perth magistrates’ court with his lawyer, Andrew Fraser. He was formally arrested and placed in the cells before appearing before a magistrate for a bail hearing.Mr Bond was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud, three counts of failing to act honestly as a company director with intention to defraud and three counts of making improper use of his position as a company officer.Mr Hall said the charges related to use of Bell Resources Ltd funds in 1988 and 1989 following the takeover by Mr Bond’s corporate flagship, Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd, of control of Bell Group Ltd and Bell Resources from the late corporate raider, Robert Holmes a Court.Mr Bond arranged for Bell Resources to buy Bond Corporation’s ailing brewing assets, which went into receivership after Bell paid over a A$1.2bn deposit, which was lost.Mr Bond was released on bail of A$500,000 and a surety of A$250,000 until another hearing on March 13. He was also required to surrender his passport and to report to police once a week.Opposing attempts by Bond’s lawyer to soften bail conditions, Mr Hall said: “It will be alleged that Mr Bond is one of the principal offenders in the fraud.