FIRSTRAND bank goes to court today over whether or not it is receiving a fair hearing in the contentious insolvency inquiry into Retail Apparel Group (RAG).

The banks have faced allegations that their behaviour was improper, which ultimately led to the company's failure. As the lead banker of the consortium of banks that lent money to RAG before it went bust, FirstRand has not yet had a chance to answer these allegations. It is expected to begin testifying soon.

But the question that stands to be resolved in a Kwazulu-Natal court today is whether FirstRand has had its reputation unfairly tarnished during the messy RAG case.

FirstRand will lock horns with the master of the court who commissioned the inquiry, Leon Lategan, and RAG's lead liquidator, Enver Motala, in the Durban High Court today.

The bank is asking the court to review the decision by the commissioner of the RAG inquiry, Hendrik Strydom, in which he rejected the request by two of the bank's senior officials to be provided with a list of the topics upon which they would be questioned.

This request was opposed by lawyers for the master on the grounds that the insolvency inquiry is meant to be a factfinding inquiry and the cross-examining lawyers should not be precluded from following a line of questioning that may arise during the testimony.

After this request was turned down, FirstRand hit out at the "unfair and biased" manner in which the inquiry has been conducted.

Today the bank is asking that the master order the commissioner to act fairly. The bank also says that Motala has been interfering in the process unduly, and it wants an order that the master's attorneys be told to act independently of the liquidators in general and of Motala in particular.

The actual amount of debt owed to FirstRand by RAG is R53m. This is a relatively small number and in any event, according to FirstRand chief financial officer Johan Burger, this debt has already been written off. But Burger says the unfair damage to its reputation is perhaps the most worrying thing for the bank.

The bruising accusations stem from the evidence given earlier by among others, Brand Pretorius, the CE of RAG's 96% shareholder McCarthy.

During a gruelling six days in the witness box, Pretorius was forced to concede that in his opinion, he was "morally disappointed" by the way the banks acted. He said that shortly after the banks had pledged to keep RAG's funding lines open, they had sent RAG a letter informing it that the facility would be cut.

According to Pretorius and the other witnesses, the banks knew that slashing the credit lines would have the effect of forcing the company into liquidation.

Deloitte and Touche partner Andrew Waller also testified that the banks had committed to keeping funding lines open until it provided "reasonable notice" that this would be changed.

These accusations have certainly wounded the bank's reputation, but FirstRand has not yet testified and not had a chance to answer these allegations.

When it does, it can seek to correct the imbalance.

Adding to the accusations are those made against the bank by lead liquidator Motala. Appointed to the liquidation late in the process at the instigation of Justice Minister Penuell Maduna, Motala motivated for the inquiry on the basis that he was unsure about the validity of FirstRand and McCarthy's security on the debts owed it by RAG.

The justice minister has said that he wants to use RAG as an opportunity to highlight the behaviour of banks, liquidators and management when a company goes bust so that "people think twice" about doing the same thing again.

Maduna says that when a company like RAG goes bust many jobs are lost.

FirstRand, meanwhile, believes it played entirely according to the book.