174 items, ordered by date. Displaying page 3 of 4. Show on timeline Items per page: 25 | 50 | 100 | All
101. Letter, dated 29 July 1992, from LE Linaker, IFMA and list of association members.
The comments raise the issue of compliance for smaller companies and the possibility of distinctions between executive and non-executive directors.
Comments on contracts in corporate operations, accounting techniques and disclosure.
103. Letter, dated 29 July 1992, from CA Mallin, University of Liverpool.
Comments on non-executive directors' roles and independence, board remuneration and auditing.
104. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from JD Traynor, CRH plc.
Expresses concerns about emphasis on control and monitoring, and the influence of accountants and auditors. It continues to make specific points.
The document gives detailed comment on specific paragraphs in the draft code.
106. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from Lord Toombes of Brailes with further comments.
Rolls-Royce's comments on potential differences of responsibilities between non-executive and executive directors.
107. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, and comments from NN Graham Maw, Rowe & Maw.
Comments on the Code of Best Practice and sets out the author's own code besides commenting on other issues in the report, especially enforcement of the Code.
108. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from RWD Hanson, Hardys & Hanson plc.
Comments on the cost of implementation for smaller companies.
Comments on the Terms of Reference and standards of practice in unlisted companies,in addition to specific points.
110. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from PM Elliott, English China Clays.
Comments on various committees, financial reporting, auditing and the going concern disclosure.
111. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, and comments from Anthony Williams, Hay Management Consultants.
Comments on disclosure of remuneration, performance pay and access to the Audit Committee.
112. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from Pannell Kerr Forster.
Among topics covered are: unitary boards, audit committees, financial reporting, auditing and going concern.
Welcomes the code and comments with concerns about possible two-tier board and time-limited contracts for non-executives.
These documents concentrate on auditing and its role in investment businesses. The Board supports the Auditing Practices Board, believing its primary function is to form and express an opinion.
115. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and comments on the draft report from BT O'Driscoll, ICI Group.
The main comments relate to terms of reference of the Committee, internal control and internal audit.
116. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Sir Richard Greenbury.
Letter comments on board structure, especially unitary boards, the duties of directors to shareholders and the responsibilities of the external auditors.
117. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Sir Andrew Hugh Smith, London Stock Exchange.
Comments on statements of compliance with the code of best practice as an obligation but not a requirement of listing, responsibilities of the directors and financial reporting.
118. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and comments from Stoy Hayward.
Comments on the draft report in detail on unified boards, separation of roles, board structures, non-executive directors, executive directors and directors' training. It also comments in some depth on audit committees, auditing, internal control systems and financial reporting.
119. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Clark Whitehill & Co.
The response comments on the application of the Code to smaller listed companies, the effectiveness of internal control and the Caparo case.
Comments on potential difficulties with a voluntary code and its review, for smaller companies, emphasis on non-executive directors and goes on to specific points.
121. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and detailed comments from Arthur Andersen.
Contains detailed comments on the draft report. The main recommendation relates to the supervisory function of the board.
122. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Association of Investment Trusts.
Comments on the challenges that smaller companies may have in complying with the Code.
Includes summary of CBI response (13 points) and the full response under headings such as statement of compliance, review of code, board structures, separation of roles, non-executive directors, directors' remuneration, auditing and going concern. Also includes the draft response before approval by the CBI Council.
124. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, and comments from Coopers & Lybrand.
Main comments are on auditing, quality of boards and appointment to boards, monitoring compliance with the Code, two-tier boards and audit committees.
125. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Professor Gerald Vinten, Luton College of Higher Education.
Generally supportive comments about the draft report.
Comments on internal control systems requirements, going concern, auditing, submission of questions to the AGM and who should deal with specific types of question.
Comments on the tone of the report, enforcement of the Code of Best Practice and the auditor's role in reviewing compliance with the Code. Other comments include sizeable subsidiaries, board procedures and directors' service contracts.
128. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, from Bill Morrison, Auditing Practices Board.
Comments on the practicality of auditors commenting on corporate governance compliance while proposing an alternative method and also comments on interim reporting.
Comments in the manner of a learned paper, highlighting some alternatives or where the report could have been stronger and monitoring compliance.
130. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, from Sir Alick Rankin, Scottish & Newcastle plc.
Comments on the division between executive and non-executive directors, pensions governance, shareholders and gives detailed comments on specific paragraphs.
131. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, from SAT Foster, South Western Electricity plc.
Comments on different responsibilities of directors and auditors and the section in the draft report on the Board.
132. Letter, dated 5 August 1992, from MN Karmel, British Bankers' Association.
Comments on independence of non-executive directors. This seems to be intended to be an addition to comments sent in July 1992, but not traced.
133. Letter, dated 5 August 1992, from JF O'Mahony, Ladbrooke Group plc.
Comments on the availability of high calibre non-executive directors, unitary boards, internal auditors and auditor rotation.
134. Letter, dated 5 August 1992, from Malcolm Bruce, Liberal Democrat Trade and Industry Spokesman.
Comments on the rejected statutory approach, the role of non-executive directors, separation of roles, audit committees and commends employee involvement. Quarantining auditors is advocated.
135. Letter, dated 6 August 1992, from MA Smith, SG Warburg & Co.
Comments on the timescale for implementation, making compliance with the Code of Practice an obligation to achieve Stock Exchange listing, smaller companies, separation of roles, independence of non-executive directors, the requirement for a 'going concern' statement and aspects of auditing.
136. Letter, dated 7 August 1992, from Ernst & Young.
Questions the likely effectivess of parts of the Code including subjectivity of statement of compliance. Comments on non-executives and their role vs independent directors, unitary boards, audit committees, financial reporting and various aspects of auditing.
137. Letter, dated 7 August 1992, from JE Rogers, National Association of Pension Funds.
Comments on various paragraphs in section 4 in detail and also on auditing.
138. Letter, dated 10 August 1992 from RC Grayson, British Petroleum company plc.
Comments on the perceived division of roles for executive and non-executive directors and auditors responsibility to review a company's (non)/compliance with the Code. Further comments on internal controls are included.
139. Letter, dated 10 August 1992, and comments from IL Rushton, ABI.
Comments on issues of compliance and its enforcement. It also includes detailed comments by paragraph on non-executive directors, various aspects of boards, committees, financial reporting, auditing and shareholders.
140. Comments, dated 10 August 1992, from GT Southern, Humberside County Council.
Comments on board structures and accountability, shareholder participation and auditors.
141. Briefing notes for lunch with regional city editors, 10 August 1992.
This document updates the editors about responses received, the challenges of enforcement and criticism. Also on the back are hand written notes about the role of non-executive directors, cost-benefit, small companies and directors' pay.
142. Letter, dated 11 August 1992, from David Adams, British Rail Pension Trustee Company Limited.
Includes the Company's corporate governance policy. Comments on the need to enforce compliance, accounting standards and reporting requirements, separation of roles and roles of non-executive directors.
143. Summary of responses by companies up to 12 August 1992.
Collates and summarises 70 reponses to the draft report from companies and business organisations.
144. Summary of responses by accountants up to 14 August 1992.
Collates and summarises 24 reponses to the draft report from accountants. Covers comments on the contents of the draft report and additional topics with appendices on example sections on non-executive directors, suggested action plan and the response by the Auditing Practices Board.
Comments on various aspects of auditing, duties and responsibilities of directors and their contracts.
Questions the feasibility of the timescale for compliance, while supporting voluntary compliance. Most recommendations are supported as they are already recommendations of the Institute.
147. Summary of responses by shareholders up to 14 August 1992.
Summarises reponses from 21 institutional and private shareholders.
148. Letter, dated 18 August 1992, from DF Macquaker.
Main comment relates to internal controls, based on experience in the public sector.
Asks Nigel Peace's opinion of alternative working for para 5.34. This may have been prompted by comments on the draft report from among others Ernst & Young as it is clipped to a letter saying they may have been wrong in their criticisms.
Expresses concerns about the 'Continuing Obligation' as the companies have some shares listed on the London Stock Exchange.