BofA claims the information is untrue, though its anti-WikiLeaks aggression casts some doubt on that. On one hand you could wonder why Anonymous had to release the information, rather than WikiLeas, as Reuters and others have done.
It's actually consistent with Anonymous' policy of defending WikiLeaks when it feels WikiLeaks has been attacked, however.
It took down Visa, Mastercard and other sites during the Assange arrest debacle, and has attacked others it considers enemies of the freedom of information.
The most recent threat came directly from Bank of America, which allegedly tried to hire three security firms to attack the group, with the assistance of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- a business lobbying group based in Washington, D.C.
Why WikiLeaks never leaked is still a question.
It recently released informationimplicating Swiss bank employees in tax-evasion schemes, so it's not out of action, or even avoiding the banking sector for some reason.
WikiLeaks has become far more careful about documenting and allowing others to verify (and do the actual publishing) of its incriminating data, following criticism from the international press about whether its political positions show the kind of bias that might cast doubt on the information it releases.
There's no indication if it held back on BofA while waiting for someone else to confirm the information, or, possibly, if it was just holding it back as a way to keep some leverage over a major opponent.
It's also possible that Anonymous is taking over as a WikiLeaks proxy when a release of provocative information is likely to cause major legal or political conflicts.