Thursday 9 August 2012

Businesses tell lawmakers corporate scandal laws hurt U.S. competitiveness


 High-level government officials are listening, and asking the questions, this week as the campaign by business interests for a softening of the laws and rules laid down amid the 2002 corporate scandals gets a serious hearing.
An array of companies and business leaders have been making the case that the requirements spawned by the crisis of corporate malfeasance are overly onerous and costly — and hurt the competitiveness of U.S. financial markets by driving some companies away from them.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, are acting as moderators for panel discussions at an unusual conference on the issue being convened Tuesday by the Treasury Department. The panelists are a cavalcade of heavyweights: legendary billionaire investor Warren Buffett, General Electric Co. Chairman Jeffrey Immelt, brokerage founder and CEO Charles Schwab, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Treasury officials say the purpose of the gathering in Washington, with blue-ribbon participants on both sides of the issue, is to begin a discussion that could lead to policy changes.

In November, a high-profile committee of business, legal and academic figures put forward proposals in November to clip back corporate governance rules, class-action lawsuits against companies and auditors, and criminal prosecution of companies by the government.

A second group, formed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is unveiling its report and recommendations Wednesday.

It calls for "quick and decisive adjustments in the U.S. legal and regulatory framework ... to ensure that U.S. investor and business interests are best served in the global marketplace." Among its key recommendations: Public companies should stop issuing quarterly earnings guidance and policymakers should seriously consider proposals to reduce the liability of accounting firms in litigation over company audits.

Some experts, including Lynn Turner, a former SEC chief accountant, have warned against a softening of the rules, saying that would erode investor protection.

And Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs took issue with the business campaign's premise.

"The regulatory climate does matter. ... Nonetheless, we do not think this is the main problem," Goldman Sachs said in a recent research paper. "Instead we see the growth of capital markets outside the U.S. as a natural consequence of economic growth and market maturation elsewhere. The U.S. has in fact been losing market share for several decades."

Paulson, who headed Goldman Sachs before coming into the administration last summer, gave the campaign traction when he said last fall that "the right regulatory balance should marry high standards of integrity and accountability with a strong foundation for innovation, growth and competitiveness."

In December, culminating an intense months long lobbying campaign by a passel of companies, the SEC tentatively adopted a plan giving corporate managers more flexibility in assessing the strength of internal financial controls under the Sarbanes-Oxley law.

The internal-controls provision of the sweeping anti-fraud law, enacted in 2002 at the height of the scandals that engulfed Enron Corp., WorldCom Inc. and other big corporations, is a key target of the business push against regulations. Companies have complained to the SEC that the rules are overly burdensome and costly, especially for smaller businesses.

In the same week that the SEC acted, the Justice Department restricted its prosecutors' ability to crack down on companies that withhold confidential information during criminal fraud investigations, in new guidelines that tempered the aggressive legal tactics authorized after the scandals.

The private-sector Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, which issued its proposals in November, is headed by Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia University's business school and a former economic adviser in the Bush administration, and John L. Thornton, chairman of the Brookings Institution think tank and a former Wall Street executive.

Bloomberg and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., released a report in January saying that the burden of tough regulation is contributing to New York City's loss of its competitive edge in the financial services industry to cities like London and Hong Kong. Unless remedies are made, they warned, New York's — and thereby America's — leadership in global finance will be eroded, reducing jobs and chilling the U.S. economy.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

THE CHAMBER'S PLAN

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been campaigning against what it views as excessive financial regulation hurting U.S. markets' competitiveness, is issuing a report this week by its Commission on the Regulation of U.S. Capital Markets in the 21st Century.

The report urges "quick and decisive adjustments in the U.S. legal and regulatory framework ... to ensure that U.S. investor and business interests are best served in the global marketplace."

Among its key recommendations:

• Congress should enact legislation to expressly give the Securities and Exchange Commission the authority to issue rules and exemptions for various categories of public companies under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, enacted in 2002 in response to the wave of corporate scandals. In addition, the SEC should be restructured and its examiners should be required to keep confidential their communications with financial institutions.

• Public companies should stop issuing earnings guidance or, as an alternative, move away from giving quarterly earnings guidance with an earnings-per-share number toward annual guidance with a range of projected per-share numbers.

• Policymakers should seriously consider proposals to reduce the liability of accounting firms in litigation over public company audits.

• Retirement savings plans should be multiplied by connecting all businesses with 21 or more employees that lack a plan to a financial institution that will provide one.

The commission is headed by Arthur Culvahouse, the chairman of law firm O'Melveny & Myers, who was a White House counsel in the Reagan administration, and William Daley, a Commerce secretary in the Clinton administration who is now a vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase. Members include executives of major investment, accounting and law firms, and from the insurance industry, venture capital and a state employees pension fund.

PIKETON, Ohio – Three dozen 43-foot-tall centrifuges swirl quietly in a cavernous building in southern Ohio, ready to turn uranium hexafluoride into the enriched fuel that can power America's nuclear power plants.

They stand like stacks of poker chips on a table — the ante for what could be a $2 billion national gamble on nuclear energy.
Energy company USEC wants federal loan guarantees to allow it to build 11,000 centrifuges here, which would spin out enough fuel to power about three dozen nuclear power plants non-stop.
STORY: Nuclear centrifuge project to move ahead
STORY: USA TODAY review uncovers support for energy loans
But while plenty of politicians whose districts could benefit from the project support it, the Piketon plant remains stymied by a political standoff. Many Republicans who back the project — called the American Centrifuge Project — have savaged the Obama administration loan program that would pay for it, while the Obama Energy Department, burned by Republican criticism, has voiced tentative support for the plan but won't authorize federal money for it without congressional approval.
For almost a year, congressional Republicans have criticized the administration's $535 million loan guarantee to now-bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra. The administration, they say, is unfairly picking "winners and losers" in energy.

Both sides say they want the project to move forward. Both support short-term "bridge" funding to keep the project going until the financing can be worked out. Both say the other side has to make the first move.
The stakes are high: It's an election year, and Ohio is a swing state. USEC estimates the project at its peak will generate 3,158 jobs in Ohio, and 4,284 elsewhere. Pike County, home to the centrifuges, has a 13% unemployment rate — the highest in Ohio. The median household income is about $40,000. The average job at USEC pays $77,316.
Centrifuge parts are stacked up in Piketon. "It's as shovel-ready as they come," says spokeswoman Angela Duduit.
Indeed, the project has enjoyed bipartisan support. A USA TODAY review of DOE records shows that no fewer than 46 members of Congress — 32 Republicans and 14 Democrats — have pressured the Obama administration to approve the loan guarantee for USEC. "Quick action is paramount," said one bipartisan letter. "It is imperative that this application move forward now," said another.
The congressional support comes from states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina— an almost exact overlay of the states that would benefit from the 7,442 jobs the company says would be created.
USEC executives have also funneled another $461,000 through its political action committee to members of Congress from both parties. Since 2005, when Congress first authorized the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program, USEC has invested $15.6 million on lobbying, congressional records show.
Intense security
USEC's Piketon campus, situated in a lush valley at the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, is so vast that its perimeter security road is 7 miles long. The plant's operators — three-fourths of whom are recruited right off U.S. Navy nuclear warships — take golf carts or bicycles to move around the plant.
The centrifuges are surrounded by a barbed-wire fence — which sits inside an already secure building. Razor wire hangs like Christmas garland from the rafters.
What's remarkable about the American Centrifuge Project, USEC says, is that the process uses only 5% of the electricity of the old gaseous diffusion process formerly used at the site, and which USEC still uses at its sister plant in Paducah, Ky. That alone can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 million tons a year, USEC says.
But the project has had setbacks.
Last June 11, a shift supervisor overseeing a test "cascade" of a few dozen centrifuges routinely started a water pump. That action tripped a circuit breaker, which shut down a motor control center. A backup generator failed to start promptly, and USEC — not immediately realizing the severity of the incident — didn't make a formal incident report to federal regulators until three weeks later.
That account of events was contained in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report released April 12. The report found five violations, which it described as "less serious" issues with "relatively inappreciable potential safety or security consequences."
The immediate cost to USEC was $9 million, the cost of six centrifuges that had to be scrapped when they crashed during the power outage. The remaining centrifuges have been operating without uranium ever since.
USEC, which is spending $15 million a month just to keep the test project running, lost $540 million overall last year. Its stock price closed Thursday at 83 cents a share and near an all-time low, down from a high of $23.91 five years ago.
That means a company worth less than $120 million is seeking $2 billion in financing.
DOE has kept the door open for the loan guarantee, but has questioned the company's capacity to complete the project and repay the loan. It is sensitive to the criticism brought on by the debacle with Solyndra, a California solar power maker that received $535 million in loan guarantees before going bankrupt.
The concern is echoed by at least one USEC investor.
Robert Clutterbuck, a Cleveland hedge fund manager who owns part of USEC's debt, said he doesn't doubt the political support. "The bad news is, we believe over the last seven months that it has become abundantly clear that the huge stumbling block to that is the size … or the lack thereof, of USEC," he told company executives in a conference call last month.
The DOE has supported other centrifuges. In 2010, it gave a conditional $2 billion loan guarantee to Areva, a conglomerate whose majority shareholder is the French government, to build centrifuges in Idaho. But that project is temporarily stalled because of a cash situation one executive called "growing pains."
"Basically, we went in with an application that was based on a proven technology that's been in use in Europe for nearly three decades," said Sam Shakir, president of Areva Enrichment Services. "There was no question about the technology, its viability or its economics."
That helped Areva sell $5 billion in preliminary orders for uranium, he said. Still, "The size of the market is large enough for multiple suppliers to be playing in."
But to critics, the USEC project doesn't make economic sense no matter who's running it.
Autumn Hanna of the Taxpayers for Common Sense calls it "another Solyndra" that "keeps getting handouts from the Hill."
Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who now teaches energy policy at Vermont Law School, said the project is unnecessary and expensive.
"It's not as though the world's uranium market is in scarcity, and it's not as though we're building new nuclear units at such pace that there's any conceivable possibility of a shortage," he said. He estimates global demand for uranium is down 5% to 15% since the March 2011 tsunami and partial meltdown at the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan.
USEC executives say the Japanese incident may depress uranium demand for two to four years. "That's been the trigger for a lot of weak-kneed people in Europe — and Japan, frankly — to say we don't need nuclear," Chairman James Mellor told shareholders at USEC's annual meeting Thursday.
But with 60 nuclear plants under construction worldwide, the long term outlook is positive, he said. "People aren't going to be able to maintain their lifestyles — their two TVs, their microwave ovens — without nuclear energy."

By Jay LaPrete for USA TODAY
Jeff Albrecht, owner of a Holiday Inn, invested $3 million to upgrade his hotel after President Obama's promise to support the USEC project.
The company controls 25% of the $8 billion global enriched uranium market, through its Paducah plant and an exclusive arrangement with DOE to recycle weapons-grade Russian uranium through the "Megatons to Megawatts" program.
Indeed, the Bethesda, Md.-based company and the federal government enjoy a close working relationship: USEC was once a part of the DOE until Congress privatized it in 1998, and the centrifuge technology is owned by the DOE and leased to USEC.
Rising hopes
Jeff Albrecht got the call at 5 a.m.: Sen. Barack Obama was hungry. The Ramada didn't offer a hot breakfast, but Albrecht, the owner of the Portsmouth, Ohio, hotel where Obama was staying on a campaign swing through southern Ohio, whipped up something special.
"He had six eggs, a big, big, huge helping of home-fried potatoes, six strips of bacon, a bowl of oatmeal and two slices of wheat toast," Albrecht recalled. So he took the opportunity to bend the senator's ear.
"He looked me in the eye and said, 'I'm familiar with that project, and I support it,' " Albrecht recounted.
After Obama was elected president, Albrecht obtained a $3.5 million bank loan to renovate his hotel and convert it to a Holiday Inn.
Obama's 2013 budget proposes $150 million for the project, but Albrecht thinks that's not enough. "We don't want anymore welfare. We don't want unemployment subsidies. We want jobs."
Stopgap funding
With the loan guarantee in limbo, USEC has kept the test project running with stopgap funding. Last year, with support from key members of Congress, the DOE agreed to take title of the depleted uranium — a complicated transaction that freed up $44 million for the company.
USEC says it can't continue to keep the project operating after May 31 without more government money. "We've pulled rabbits out of the hat, but the hat's only so deep and there are only so many rabbits," said Paul Jacobson, a USEC vice president.
To keep the company afloat while it considers the loan guarantee, the Obama administration supports another $256 million in research grants over two years. That would help USEC move up to 120 centrifuges, a large enough test cascade that the company hopes will allow it to get either the loan guarantee or private financing.
The Democratic-controlled Senate approved that funding last year, but the Republican House rejected it. Obama has proposed $150 million in his 2013 budget, but that money won't be available until October. USEC says it will have to shut down the project by June without more money.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu has all the authority he needs to make that immediate grant, Republicans say. Chu has said he wants a strong signal from Congress before releasing the money.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner, who as a member of the Ohio delegation has personally pleaded with Obama to green-light the project, hasn't given that signal. "The speaker believes the president should keep his word to the people of Ohio," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
The fallout from Solyndra has some in Congress doing some soul searching about their involvement in those decisions.
"A cloud, a big black cloud came over after Solyndra," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, at a recent congressional hearing. He admitted that he put "undue influence" on DOE to approve a $2 billion conditional loan guarantee for Areva and said members of the Ohio delegation were doing the same thing.
The Solyndra question has put some USEC supporters in a pickle. Facing congressional scrutiny over Solyndra, Chu pointed out that many in Congress had supported loan guarantees for projects benefiting their districts.
Among them is Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., whose district abuts USEC's Oak Ridge operations. DesJarlais had written Chu to support the USEC loan guarantees but has now withdrawn that support, saying USEC should seek alternative funding.
USEC's biggest champion in Congress, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, was defeated in a primary election last month. Her likely successor in the heavily Republican district, Brad Wenstrup, hasn't made up his mind. "Certainly there's short-term value, but he wants to make sure there's long-term value as well," said Matt Dole, a Wenstrup consultant.

















Thursday 26 April 2012


Legal Actions Against Cybersquatters and Domain Names - Domain Name Law & Domain Name Disputes


Victims of cybersquatting have several options they can choose from to stop a cybersquatter’s misconduct and recover their domain names. Initially, a trademark holder may simply wish to send a cease-and-desist letter to the cybersquatter, demanding that the cybersquatter return the domain name immediately. Such a cease-and-desist letter may state that if the cybersquatter does not comply with the letter, the trademark holder will file a lawsuit, which could result in serious consequences to the cybersquatter. The cease-and-desist letter is an inexpensive approach, which can often bring positive results.

Once a cybersquatting victim decides that he or she needs to adopt a more aggressive approach, there are two primary domain name rules providing legal channels for recovering a domain name: the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) and ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”).

The ACPA allows trademark holders to file lawsuits against cybersquatters in the United States federal courts, and allows for the recovery of up to $100,000 per domain name in damages from the cybersquatter, plus costs and fees. The ACPA also addresses situations where the cybersquatter is located in a foreign country, or where the cybersquatter cannot be identified at all. In such situations, the ACPA enables the cybersquatting victim to recover his or her domain name, but does not allow for the recovery of damages. This process is referred to as an in rem action. The ACPA is set forth in the United States Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(d)), which is the comprehensive federal law on the topic of trademark infringement.

ICANN, the nonprofit organization that oversees the domain name registration system, has also promulgated rules governing domain name disputes. When anyone registers a domain name, that person is required to submit to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute concerning that domain name, including an allegation of cybersquatting. This binding arbitration is conducted according to ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). UDRP proceedings are intended to offer an efficient process, where the issues are decided without a trial or oral hearing. Unlike a lawsuit brought under ACPA, however, UDRP does not allow for the recovery of damages, costs, or fees.

What Is Cybersquatting?
Cybersquatting refers to the bad faith registration of a domain name containing another person’s brand or trademark in a domain name. In one variation of cybersquatting, called typosquatting, a cybersquatter registers domain names containing variants of popular trademarks.  Typosquatters rely on the fact that Internet users will make typographical errors when entering domain names into their web browsers. Once a cybersquatter has registered such a domain name, the cybersquatter can place advertisements on a website linked to that domain name, and collect income any time an Internet user clicks on one of those advertisements. Alternatively, the cybersquatter may seek to sell the domain name to the legitimate trademark holder at a price many times what the cybersquatter paid for it.

Some common examples of cybersquatting include:

The omission of the “dot” in the domain name: wwwexample.com;
A common misspelling of the intended site: exemple.com
A differently phrased domain name: examples.com
A different top-level domain: example.org
In addition to registering variants of trademarks, cybersquatters also rely on the fact that trademark holders often forget to re-register their domain names. Because domain name registrations last for a fixed period of time, if the owner of a domain name does not re-register the domain name prior to expiration, then the domain name can be purchased by anybody. Cybersquatters will snatch up a domain name as it becomes available. This process is often referred to as “renewal snatching.”

Victims of cybersquatting have several options to combat cybersquatting. These options include: sending cease-and-desist letters to the cybersquatter, bringing an arbitration proceeding under ICANN’s rules (ICANN is the nonprofit organization that oversees the domain name registration system), or bringing a lawsuit in state or federal court. Whatever strategy a victim of cybersquatting elects to use, that person should not dismiss the serious effects that cybersquatting can have if left unchecked.


Suing A Cybersquatter Personally (In Personam Claims Under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)




Where a trademark owner has identified the cybersquatter, and that cybersquatter is located in the United States—or has significant contacts with the United States—the trademark owner can bring an in personam claim under the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). As contrasted with an in rem claim under the ACPA, an in personam claim enables a cybersquatting victim to recover damages, costs, and fees, in addition to recovering the domain name at issue. For a trademark owner to bring an in personam claim under the ACPA, the trademark owner must show:
  • Ownership of the trademark;
    • Ownership of a trademark may be demonstrated through a federal, state, or foreign registration trademark registration. Where no registration exists, common-law trademark rights can be demonstrated through the continuous use of the trademark in commerce.
  • The trademark is distinctive or famous;
    • A trademark is distinctive if it identifies the trademark owner’s goods or services. Courts consider several factors when determining whether a trademark is distinctive or famous, including but not limited to: the length of time the mark has been in use; the amount of investment made in promoting the mark; the geographic region where the mark is used; and whether there are similar trademarks in use.
  • The domain name and trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous trademarks); and
  • The domain name registrant acted in bath faith to profit from the trademark.
Courts consider several factors when determining whether a domain name registrant acted in bad faith, including but not limited to: the registrant’s trademark or other intellectual property rights (if any) in the domain name; the registrant’s prior use (if any) of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services; the registrant’s intent to divert consumers from the trademark owner’s website to a website accessible under the domain name, creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the website; and the registrant’s offer to sell the domain name for financial gain without having used the domain name in for the bona fide offering of any goods or services.


Sue The Domain Name And Not The Cybersquatter (In Rem Claims Under ACPA)



The federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) enables cybersquatting victims to recover their domain names even when the cybersquatter is located in another country, or where the cybersquatter cannot be identified at all. Such actions are referred to as in rem actions. While cybersquatting victims cannot recover damages, costs, or fees with an in rem action, they can recover their domain names. To succeed with an in rem action under the ACPA, the trademark owner must show:
  • Ownership of the trademark;
  • The trademark is distinctive or famous;
  • The domain name and trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous marks);
  • The plaintiff has tried to inform the registrant of the domain name of the violation and the plaintiff’s intent to file an in rem action; and
  • The court does not have jurisdiction over the registrant, or the plaintiff was unable to find the registrant, despite a good faith effort to do so.
To date, it is unclear whether the definition of cybersquatting is narrower for in rem claims under ACPA, as compared with in personam actions. Specifically, ambiguity continues to exist as to whether a plaintiff in an in rem action must demonstrate the registrant's “bad faith.”


Actions Under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy



When a domain is registered, the person registering that domain name is required to submit to mandatory arbitration in the event of a future dispute concerning the domain, including an allegation of cybersquatting. ICANN—the nonprofit organization that oversees the domain name registration system—has implemented a streamlined process for resolving cybersquatting disputes, which tends to be quicker and less expensive than federal litigation. While ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy does not permit cybersquatting victims to recover damages, costs, or fees, it does enable them to recover a cybersquatted domain name. A petitioner seeking to use ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), must demonstrate the following elements to recover a domain name:
  • Ownership of a trademark;
  • A domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark owned;
  • The registrant has no legitimate interest or rights in the domain name, which may be demonstrated through: showing a lack of a bona fide intent to use the disputed domain to offer goods or services, and showing common knowledge of the trademark owner’s ownership of the mark; and
  • The registrant’s registration and use has been conducted in bad faith, which may include evidence that: a) that the domain was acquired primarily to sell to the trademark owner, c) the domain name was acquired to disrupt business of a competitor, d) the domain name was acquired to make money through consumer confusion.
An administrative panel of one or three people selected from an international body of Internet law practitioners serves as both the judge and the jury in a UDRP proceeding. A UDRP proceeding is relatively quick: A decision is typically issued less than 45 days after the complaint is filed. Notably, a party that files a UDRP complaint and loses may bring another legal action against a cybersquatter, including an action under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

Notable Arbitration Decisions

AnthonyQuinn.com
  • The estate of Anthony Quinn, the renowned artist and two-time Oscar-winning actor, filed a UDRP complaint against the registrant of AnthonyQuinn.com. The Quinn estate claimed that Anthony Quinn’s fame and success as both an artist and actor made his name internationally known in multiple categories of goods and services, including entertainment services, jewelry, watches, award statuettes, and entertainment awards.
  • The UDRP panel found that the registrant was not using the domain in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain, because the registrant used the disputed domain to operate a website featuring links to various competing and non-competing commercial websites for the registrant’s own commercial gain, which was evidence of the registrant’s bad faith registration and use.

CarmenElectra.com
  • The actress Carmen Electra brought a UDRP arbitration action against the registrant of CarmenElectra.com. The registrant used the disputed domain to divert traffic to a website located at www.celebrity1000.com, a commercial website providing biographical information on some actors but not Carmen Electra.
  • The UDRP panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain to Ms. Electra, finding that the public associates the name Carmen Electra with Ms. Electra’s performance services. The panel also found that the registrant had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, and the registrant registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith.

RoyalCaribbeanCruiseLine.com
  • Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. brought a UDRP arbitration against the registrant of royalcaribbeancruiseline.com, royalcaribbeancruiseline.com, and royalcaribbeancruiselines.com.
  • The UDRP panel denied the relief sought by Royal Caribbean because the registrant of the disputed domains presented evidence that he was a contractually authorized distributor of Royal Caribbean’s product. As such, the arbitrator found that there was no evidence of bad faith in the registrant’s registration and use of the disputed domains.


Class Actions Against Cybersquatters



While the idea of a class action against cybersquatters has not been tested, legal authorities indicate that such an action may prove viable. A class action is a lawsuit that is brought by a small number of plaintiffs (“representative plaintiffs”) on behalf of larger group (the “class”). Thus, for example, a single trademark holder could theoretically bring a lawsuit against a cybersquatter on behalf of both itself and other trademark holders who have been injured by the cybersquatter’s misconduct. A class action may be an effective tool against a cybersquatter because it threatens the cybersquatter with liability for numerous lawsuits within a single legal proceeding. 

Class actions are possible where: 1) the class is so numerous as to make separate lawsuits impractical, 2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, 3) the claims and defenses of the representative plaintiff is typical of the claims and defenses of the class, and 4) the representative plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In the context of cybersquatting, it is quite possible that trademark holders would satisfy these standards. Specifically, a cybersquatter may have infringed upon the rights of a class of trademark holders by registering numerous domain names infringing on their trademarks. Unlike a traditional anti-cybersquatting action, with a class action, the cybersquatter could be forced to turn over a major portion of its domain portfolio, as well as potentially pay significant damages. 

In the same vein, legal authorities have postulated that a class action may be possible where the class is composed of consumers rather than trademark holders. Under this conception of the class action, a single consumer could bring a lawsuit on behalf of other consumers who have been mistakenly led to the cybersquatted website. Again, the benefit of such a class action is that the cybersquatter will face potential liability for its misconduct as to all consumers, and not merely to the representative plaintiff. 

While the cybersquatting class action remains a new concept, attorneys who are experienced in anti-cybersquatting law have expressed a vigorous interest in pursuing these claims.


The Big Business Of Selling Domain Names



Domain names are big business. For the past several years, domain names, the “real estate of the Internet,” have generated substantial returns for savvy investors, who often refer to themselves as “domainers.”Prior to the rise of pay-per-click advertising, domain name speculators would acquire desirable or trademarked domain names and then simply sit on them, hoping that they could sell them later on for a profit. 

Today, a domain name holder can display pay-per-click advertising on a website, and sit-back and let the money roll in while Internet users click on those ads. A single domain name can bring in hundreds of dollars a day, and many domain name holders have thousands or even millions of domain names. 

The ability of a domain name to generate money through pay-per-click advertising depends on the likelihood that users will type in that domain name. As such, a domain that is a common word or phrase, or which incorporates a well known trademark, can draw in a constant stream of Internet users. In order to make money from a domain name, only a fraction of the Internet users who type in a domain name need to click on an ad. Each click can bring in anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars. 

As a result of this business model, the value of desirable domain names has skyrocketed. Domain names can routinely fetch five or six figures. And in 2007, the domain name porn.com, reportedly sold for $9.5 million. The following domain names also reportedly fetched over a million dollars: business.com, asseenontv.com, altavista.com, wine.com, creditcards.com, and autos.com. 

An entire secondary industry has developed around the buying and selling of domain names, including a vibrant online auction process for domain names. Several companies now offer appraisal services for domain names; the appraisal can cost anywhere from $10 to $100. Companies like Sedo and SnapNames hold domain name auctions, and serve as conduits for the sale of domain names, and enjoy a hefty commission for their assistance. 

“Domaining” is big business, and cybersquatting is not a petty crime. Rather, cybersquatting can involve substantial money and serious legal claims. Accordingly, trademark owners must be proactive in policing the misuse of their trademarks by cybersquatters. The failure to do so could result in substantial losses, as the above numbers reveal. 


CYBER CRIMES TRIALED IN U.S COURTS





Young businesses have died on the vine while waiting for legal disputes to crawl through the courts. "Information technology companies, especially, could be out of business by the time something reaches a jury," said David Zurvalec, an attorney and vice president of industrial relations at the Michigan Manufacturers Association in Lansing, Mich.

Hoping to solve this problem, Michigan lawmakers have proposed a new legal institution that operates at Internet speed -- a "cyber court" that harnesses technology to propel lawsuits to resolution. Michigans Gov. John Engler unveiled the idea in his State of the State address last January. A bill to establish the court is now moving through the state legislature.

If the bill becomes law, a software firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a subcontractor in Dallas will be able to argue a case before a judge in Lansing without climbing on a plane. Disputants, their attorneys and the judge will meet through videoconferences; theyll share evidence over the Internet; and suits that currently take 18 months should become a thing of the past.

"Our intent would be to create a rocket docket that can move these cases, depending on their complexity, within 90 to 180 days," said Rep. Marc Shulman of West Bloomfield, who introduced the cyber court bill in Michigans House of Representatives earlier this year.

According to the legislation, the cyber court will be available for business disputes involving more than $25,000. The presiding judge will render a decision without a jury. Cases will be argued in the cyber court only if both parties agree to use it rather than the traditional circuit court system.

The bill calls for cyber court cases to be heard via video or audio conferencing, the Internet and possibly other means. When feasible, the court will broadcast its proceedings over the Internet.

"The parties would appear from their own remote, camera-equipped computers, or potentially from a public terminal that could be located in a Kinkos or somewhere else," Shulman said. They would use teleconferencing for the initial hearing, any meetings required during the discovery phase, settlement conferences and, if the case went that far, for the trial and to hear the judges decision. Attorneys could distribute pleadings, exhibits and other documents via e-mail, and witnesses could testify over a video link.

Cases would move quickly because judges wouldnt need to set court dates far in advance to accommodate out-of-town participants with busy schedules. Participants wouldnt have to cool their heels while the judge heard other cases scheduled on the same day. Also, Shulman said, since participation would be voluntary, parties would abide by the rules of the cyber court rather than drag out the proceedings to gain some sort of advantage.

Business Magnet
Besides making it easier for companies to settle lawsuits in Michigan, supporters hope the cyber court will send an encouraging message to businesses, especially technology firms, shopping for a home. "We see ourselves as a high-tech state and we want others to see us that way as well. The cyber court shows how seriously Michigan takes its technological infrastructure," said Joan Trusty, regional director of government affairs at EDS in Troy, Mich. Trusty is president of Automation Alley, a consortium of more than 300 high-tech businesses in Michigans Oakland County.

"Weve reached the point where signatures are done online, contracts are done online -- theres an awful lot of commerce done online," said Barry Cargill, vice president for government relations at the Small Business Association of Michigan, based in Lansing. Companies that are comfortable using advanced technologies in business transactions might see the cyber court as a good reason to locate in Michigan, he said.

Caddy or Chevy?
While the cyber court bill makes its way through the legislature, many details remain to be worked out. Members of the states bar association and representatives of its Supreme Court have formed a group to work on some of those details before the legislation comes before the full House. Subjects theyre tackling include how judges will be chosen, how the court will be administered and what issues of security and privacy need to be addressed, Shulman said.

The state also needs to decide exactly what technologies to deploy. "The question at this point is how much money do we want to spend?" Shulman said. "Do you want the Cadillac right now, or the Chevy?"

The legislation does not spell out a budget for the new court.

The cyber court will likely open for business in a room designed for that purpose in the states new Hall of Justice, due to open in Lansing in late 2002. Michigan could eventually add other high-tech courtrooms elsewhere in the state. "Were going to begin with one locale right now and see how that works, because this is a model that hasnt been tested anywhere yet," Shulman said.

Talking Heads
Michigan may become one of the first states to settle real legal disputes in cyberspace, but the model has already been tested in a laboratory setting -- Courtroom 21, operated by the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

Courtroom 21 is a showcase for courtroom technologies and a center for experimental work in that field. "Our expertise is in the use of remote participants," said Fredric Lederer, chancellor professor of law at the college and director of Courtroom 21. "In the last few months - weve been doing some work in that area, with [Michigans] cyber court in mind."

A mock criminal trial conducted in Courtroom 21 last April employed the same kinds of technologies Michigan hopes to employ. The case involved an international terrorist conspiracy, and one of the attorneys on the prosecution team took part in the trial from the United Kingdom. "He was in a 40-inch plasma screen installed in the courtroom at the counsel table, right next to co-counsel," Lederer said. At one point, the onscreen British barrister questioned the government’s chief witness, who appeared live from Canberra, Australia, in a 50-inch plasma display set up behind the witness stand.

One question Courtroom 21 has yet to resolve is how to share physical evidence, since scientists have not yet learned how to beam up three-dimensional objects through the Internet. The court recently dealt with that issue in a fictional dispute in which a U.K.-based mineral water company claimed a U.S. firm had copied its bottle and label.

Disputants on both sides of the Atlantic received samples of both bottles, Lederer said. Although this is a low-tech solution, the mock trial also took advantage of images transmitted from a graphics program at the University of Leeds in the U.K. "At one point we actually sank one bottle into the other electronically, so you could see one bottle inside the other," making similarities and differences immediately clear, he said.

Surprising Pioneers
Though they have a pretty clear picture of how the cyber court would work, proponents say they can’t yet predict how much traffic it would draw. "Only time will tell how much this will be used. But if you dont try to set up a structure, youll never know," said Zurvalec.

Another key question is how well the cyber court would go over with lawyers. Attorneys, as a group, have generally been slow to embrace new technologies.

Lederer pointed out that as more students graduate from law programs like William and Marys, the pool of tech-savvy lawyers will gradually increase. Also, attorneys who handle cases in the cyber court will have no choice but to use its equipment.

"Some lawyers are indeed very cautious," Lederer observed. "But many lawyers are surprising pioneers in the area of technology. And others are guided by the duty to the client and the nature of the adversary system. No one likes to lose. If theres a possibility that technology will be a significant factor on the other side, people tend to look at it."

The US Supreme Court is taking a pass on a set of cyber bullying cases; it's a big disappointment for those trying to fight off the online attacks.
The Court decided not to take up one case out of West Virginia; it involved a web page that alleged another student had a sexually transmitted disease. The court decided to let the suspension of the student who created it—stand.
Another case came out of Pennsylvania; two students wrote parodies about their principals on MySpace. The court stayed out of the rulings that said schools couldn’t discipline the two students.
As the courts step away, the problem of cyber bullying is continuing to plague students all across the nation.
It’s a social media virus that's infecting our youth. “We asked kids how many people have been bullied online through text and the majority raised their hands,” says Hanford Chief Investigator Karl Anderson. “Then we asked how many told and adult—there were very few.”
It's a problem the Supreme Court is leaving to the schools and a decision that is disappointing the National School Board Association who says, “We've missed the opportunity to really clarify for school districts what their responsibility and authority is," said Francisco Negron, general counsel of the National School Boards Association. "This is one of those cases where the law is simply lagging behind the times."
The law might be lagging but cyber bullying is growing. “Every case is different from the minute 'I don't like you, you're ugly' to trying to destroy someone's reputation,” says Anderson. He gives cyber bullying classes at Pioneer Middle School. It's just one of thousands of schools trying to prevent the painful scars words can leave behind. “Traditional bullying happened on a playground, someone pushed someone down; it stayed at school two or three people saw it,” says Anderson. Now, it's become a phenomenon—texts, posts—it’s a virus that's spreading and schools can only do so much. “We can't look at students cell phones and we can’t get on their Facebook page or twitter page,” says Pioneer’s Principal Greg Henry.
If bullying happens on kid’s route to campus, the school could step in; if it happens outside of school, parents or students have to report it. The situation has to disrupt the education process. “It’s also a grey area,” says Henry.
It's a fine line the Supreme Court—at this point—won't define. “I do think the Supreme Court might have taken the easy way out but it’s a grey area and it’s going to grow from here,” says Henry.
Many parents may monitor their children's social media activity but do you have the right page? During cyber bullying presentations investigators say numerous kids admit to having a fake profile for their parents and a real one for themselves.
Christina Lusby Reporting.

CYBER SQUATING
The importance of cyber-squatting to corporations has been growing since the creation of the ACPA and will continue to grow as time goes on.  We predict that cyber squatting will be an issue involved in e-commerce law in the future although the complainant may shift from big businesses to smaller businesses based on recent court decisions.  In addition, there are various amendments that could be made to the current cyber squatting acts in order to increase their effectiveness as well as fairness.  These changes will need to occur as the Internet expands and online businesses continue to flourish.

There are many current cases which challenge both the powerful individuals’ and businesses’ right to a domain name, as well as challenging the individual’s right to hold the domain for personal use.  Earlier this month, a case was tried in the U.S. Court of Appeals in regards to the use of the domain “fallwell.com” as a critical site to the preaching of televangelist Jerry Falwell.  Jerry Falwell accused the owner of this site of infringing on trademarks and cyber squatting but his claims were rejected when the courts decided that the site could not be confused with Jerry Falwell’s official domain “falwell.com” due to differences in both appearance and content [20].

This case is a major victory for individuals who wish to criticize public figures or organizations through the use of the Internet.  In the future, granted that the individuals who own and operate the domain have no intent to profit from its use, there is very slim chance that a court could find in favor of either a powerful individual or a large corporation.  This lack of “bad faith” intent involved with the operation of a site is used to protect individuals from being bullied out of cyberspace by large businesses.


Bad Faith in the Future

“Bad faith” has been used as a defense for many small businesses and has provided them with a layer of security when their use of the domain does not infringe upon the larger company’s trademark.  Non-profit use is one of the strongest defenses and its inclusion in the ACPA is one of the greatest strengths of the act.  Many other aspects of the ACPA allow big businesses to push smaller ones out of the Internet market and simply having larger exposure and a larger name has allowed them to bully others out of the e-commerce market [19].

The ability of large companies to force smaller ones to give up domain rights is being challenged by many court cases and the victories of some of these small businesses is paving the way for others in the future.  These results are also being looked at in many states as they look to clarify and improve the cyber squatting laws.  This is because as we stand now, the Internet may not be able to survive only on the acts which have been passed in the last few years.  With the Internet rapidly expanding into new domains, such as “.biz”, “.edu”, “.in”, and many others, the chances of registering common domains increases greatly.  Along with this, many individuals and companies are becoming more educated on the technical aspects of cyber squatting.  This is only increasing the complicated nature of cases and making it harder for courts to come to a decision regarding the rightful ownership of a domain name.


Changes

Problems can be dealt with through the expansion of the acts that currently deal with cyber squatting.  The ACPA, in conjunction with the ICANN, has power over the domain names that are registered and can influence the decisions made in regards to them.  By enhancing the ACPA with more individual-friendly sanctions, the government can help to protect the rights of an individual to own and operate a site that may be common to a corporation’s trademark.  In addition to this, the ICANN and other such organizations have the authority to sell the rights to a domain to anyone who pays for it, but also have gained the power to transfer these rights to another party if they deem fit.  These decisions can be appealed and taken to court; however, a failure to promptly file an appeal with the domain registrar can lead to a loss in court no matter what arguments are brought about [20].

In order to prevent these organizations from unfairly dictating the law of the Internet, legislation must be passed in order to amend the ACPA in order to correct the flaws that have been found in recent court hearings.  This will undoubtedly gather much opposition from large businesses and influential individuals who wish to protect their own rights without concerning the right of the common individual.  These laws in the United States act to override the laws of foreign nations and also act to undermine the authority of international efforts such as ICANN in order to avoid complex and costly international lawsuits.  The ACPA has received much opposition and typically gains complaints including such grounds as legislative overkill, free speech concerns, and reverse domain hijacking.  The future of the ACPA holds legal ramifications that will affect not only U.S.  citizens, but also foreign citizens and businesses.  This holds true in the case of the International Olympic Committee which has used the ACPA as a weapon in order to prevent the use of domains remotely associated with the Olympics [21].
Cyber squatting has been an active threat since the early 1990’s and has increased in severity ever since.  The prevention of cyber squatting revolves mainly around two acts, the UDRP and the ACPA.  The UDRP was adopted by ICANN in order to provide a mechanism for trademark holders to obtain domain names from cyber squatters.  The UDRP states that before a domain name registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name that is the subject of a trademark-based dispute, it must have an agreement signed by the parties, a court order, or an arbitration award.  The development of the UDRP created a "cyber arbitration" procedure to quickly resolve domain name ownership disputes that involve trademarks.  All owners of “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” domain names are subject to the UDRP by virtue of the registration agreements at the time of acquiring their domain names.
The ACPA is a valuable tool intended to protect the infringement of trademarks online and to protect the credibility of a company through the protection of their name as a domain.  However, it is also a weapon used by corporations in order to force smaller businesses out of the e-commerce market.  For this reason, the ACPA must be modified in order to account for some of the unfair court cases which have been decided in the past years.  The rights of the individual must be protected and as it currently stands, courts have been favoring the businesses with the largest name and largest pockets regardless of the intent of the individual who owns the domain.

Both of these systems have their advantages, but they must be used properly in order to achieve the desired result.  The UDRP provides a method for quick resolution of a dispute whereas the ACPA allows for an extended legal battle with the potential of large monetary settlements being awarded.  However, both systems help to provide security and structure to the complicated and widespread problem of cyber squatting.  These acts, along with the legal system, are the only protection  available to those who wish to defend themselves from cyber squatters.

Since cyber squatting is going to shift from larger businesses to small businesses in the future, modifications to the cyber squatting acts will need to be made in order to   increase protection.  The ACPA will need to be modified to protect individuals who own a cite similar to a corporation's trademark because currently the act favors big businesses.  Cyber squatting problems are going to continue to develop because of the rapid growth and expansion of the Internet.  The issue cannot simply be ignored or else it may hurt the economy.  Its important to learn from the victims of cyber squatting so we can prepare ahead of time for the issues to come.






References

[1]  “Trademarks.” Nolo.  <www.nolo.com>.

[2]  e-Commerce Law.  Issues for Business.  John Bagby.  West Legal Studies in Business, Canada (2003)

[3]  "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act." Wikipedia. 4 Nov. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act>.

[4]  "Cybersquatting." Wikipedia. 4 Nov. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting>.

 [5] "Domain Name Disputes." Business, Internet, e-Commerce, & Domain Name Law. KEYT Law. 5 Nov. 2005 <http://www.keytlaw.com/urls/acpa.htm#What%20Must%20a%20Mark%20O wner%20Prove>.

 [6]  "Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. v. Zuccarini." Business, Internet, e-Commerce, & Domain Name Law. KEYT Law. 5 Nov. 2005 <http://www.keytlaw.com/Cases/electronic.htm>.

[7]  "ICANN." Wikipedia. 4 Nov. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN>.

[8] "Evaluating the Uniform Domain Name." Harvard Law. 05 Nov. 2005 <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/udrp-review.html>.

[9]  General Information.  World Intellectual Property Organization.  30 Oct.  2005 <http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/gib.htm#P152_21309>.

[10]  "Cybersquatting cases increase again." Legal Media Group (2005). 30 Oct. 2005 <http://www.legalmediagroup.com/news/print.asp?SID=15124&CH>.

[11]  Sporty's Farm, L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Mkt., Inc. 202 F.3d 489. No. 98-7452.  US Court of Appeals Second Circuit.  2000. Online.  LexisNexis Academic.  (30 October 2005).

[12]  Virtual Works, Inc.  v.  Volkswagen of Am., Inc.  238 F.3d 264.  No. 00-1356.  US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.  2001. Online.  LexisNexis Academic.  (30 October 2005).

[13]  Chatam Int'l Inc.v. Bodum, Inc. 40 Fed. Appx.  685. No: 01-3422.  US Court of Appeals Third Circuit. 2002. Online. LexisNexis Academic. (30 October 2005).

[14]  Mattel, Inc. v. Adventure Apparel. 00 Civ. 4085. US Court for the Southern District of New York.  2001. Online. LexisNexis Academic.  (30 October 2005).

[15]  Shields v.  Zuccarini. 254 F.3d 476. No.00-2236. US Court of Appeals Third Circuit. 2001. Online.  LexisNexis Academic. (30 October 2005).

[16]  “Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act vs. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.”  Asmus, Scott J. and Kaji, Reiko. Copyright 2004, Maine and Asmus.  <http://www.maineandasmus.com/publications/trademark-articles/acpa-udrp.htm>.

[17]  “Domain-Name Registrations and Online Trademark Infringement.”  Kitts, Kristina Tung and Caditz, Cindy L.  September 2002.  <http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/barnews/archives/2002/sep-02-domain.htm>.

[18]  Domain Names and Cybersquatting.  “Cybersquatting Cases.”  Mitchell, Karyn and Stover, Chad.  March 2003. <http://www.unc.edu/courses/2003spring /law/357c/001/projects/karyn/domainnames/ cybersquatting_cases.htm>.

[19]  Ramlall, Vishva V.  “U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.”  29 Oct. 2005.  <http://users.ox.ac.uk/~edip/ramlall.shtml>

[20]  “The death of cyber squatting?”  CIO Magazine.  30 Oct. 2005
<http://www.cio.com/archive/041500/fine.html>

[21]  “Cyber squatting: What is it and what can be done about it?”  Nolo.    <http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/60EC3491-B4B5-4A98BB6E6632A2FA0CB2/111/228/195/ART>.













Wednesday 25 April 2012


THE ROLE OF THE NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN MODERN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Margarita Sweeney-Baird.

Copyright (c) 2006 Sweet & Maxwell Limited and Contributors

Legislation: Commission Recommendation 2005/162 on the role of non executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees of the (supervisory) board
Company Law Reform Bill (Draft)
Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1011)
Companies Act 1985 s.257
Subject: COMPANY LAW
Keywords: Corporate governance; Directors powers and duties; EC law; Non executive directors; Operating and financial review
Abstract: Discusses the historical role of non executive directors and their role in the contemporary corporate governance regime. Reviews pre war academic theories concerning the nature of the company, the changing responsibilities of non executive directors and their legal and regulatory context since the 2002 Higgs report, highlighting the recommendations put forward by the European Commission in February 2005 and by the Operating and Financial Review (OFR). Considers their liability under existing UK and EC law, the proposed reforms in the draft Company Law Reform Bill and the arguments in favour of creating a specific professional institution to regulate non executive directors, including the ways in which such a body could be supervised.


*67 Introduction
The role of the non-executive director is part of a much wider academic debate concerning corporate governance in company law. There have been many developments recently in corporate governance which impact upon the role of non-executive directors, most notably the Higgs Report, [FN1] the Tyson Report, [FN2] the Operating and Financial Review and its recently proposed abolition, [FN3] the recommendations put forward by the European Commission on February 15, 2005 [FN4] and the Company Law Reform Bill and its attendant consultant and research processes. [FN5]
The purpose of this article is to consider the role of the non-executive director and its justification as a regulatory mechanism by placing the role of the non-executive director within its historical context and its development within the current commercial environment. The author also wishes to consider whether, given these developments, the time is now ripe to consider the development of a professional body regulating non-executive directors, possibly under the aegis of one of the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Reporting Council or the Institute of Directors ("IOD"). A completely new institution should not be ruled out either.

Historical and theoretical context
The debate over for whose benefit the company is run is one that surfaces regularly throughout the history of company law. The view of both Berle [FN6] and Dodd [FN7] was in line with the fundamentals of the "legal" model:
"The directors and other agents are fiduciaries carrying on the business in the sole interest of the stockholders ... The sole function of the corporation is, however, conceived to be the making of profit for its stock-holder-members, so that they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the business and of the activities of the persons by whom it is carried on ... A corporation is an association of stockholders formed for their private gain and to be managed by its board of directors solely with that end in view." [FN8]
This view still holds sway and Cheffins is of the view that the shareholders are the legal owners of the company and they are the "ultimate beneficiaries of whatever success it enjoys since they are entitled to what is left over after other claims the company is obliged to meet have been satisfied". [FN9] Given that they are the owners, they have according to Pollock's definition of ownership "the entirety of the powers of use and disposal allowed by the law" [FN10]; it is to be expected on the legal view that the company would be run for their benefit: to reduce the potential other claims on the company's profits and thereby increase the pot available for distribution to the shareholders as the ultimate beneficiaries.
Berle was of the view, with which Dodd was very much in sympathy, that it was necessary to establish a legal control which will more effectively prevent corporate managers from diverting profit into their own pockets (a real concern at that time) from those of the stockholders because of the recognised legal rights held by the shareholders in those profits and the problems resulting from the doctrine of the separation of power and control. [FN11] The directors are
"free from any substantial supervision by stockholders by reason of the difficulty which the modern stockholder *68 has in discovering what is going on and taking effective measures even if he has discovered it". [FN12]
Ensuring that the shareholders as the legal owners received full protection of their legal rights defined the nature of the company and rooted the model of the company within the legal context. It also placed the role of the non-executive director as a watch-dog that was generally without use if the company was well run. It is only in the event of mismanagement that is causing loss to the shareholders that the non-executive director is expected to act within the legal model of the company.
Yet Dodd, who wrote this in the 1930s, was of the view that
"it is undesirable, even with the laudable purpose of giving stockholders much-needed protection against selfseeking managers, to give increased emphasis at the present time to the view that business corporations exist for the sole purpose of making profits for their stockholders. [Dodd] believes that public opinion, which ultimately makes law, has made and is today making substantial strides in the direction of the view of the business corporation as an economic institution which has a social service as well as a profit-making function, that this view has already had some effect upon legal theory, and that it is likely to have a greatly increased effect upon the latter in the future".
In Dodd's analysis the legal model of the company assumed by lawyers was based on a view "of the nature of business as a purely private enterprise" [FN13] that could be changed and in Dodd's view should be changed so that the company could take into account a community of interests. Consequently, the directors should balance these interests and not automatically prioritise the interests of shareholders. This view is essentially the "pluralist" model of the company. This model of the company requires the directors, and in particular the non-executive directors, to consider this wider community of interests and places the role of the non-executive director firmly within a wider social context.
In the event of a conflict between competing interests Berle thought that the shareholder's interests should retain primacy, and his principal objection to the pluralist model advocated by Dodds was that the community standard was unenforceable. Interests external to the operation of the company have no legal standing to sue the company for the enforcement of their rights and therefore they are not a valid claim on the company. If those wider social interests become a valid claim on the company then they would become part of the legal model. As the directors are the persons responsible for acting on behalf of the company it is the directors who are responsible for enforcement. As part of the inclusive model wider social and community interests are to be included as part of the factors that the directors must consider when they decide what is in the best interests of the company but they are not direct claims against the company. Thus they are not truly part of the legal model but they may arguably be part of the pluralist model envisaged by Dodds. This can be seen in the new s.156 of the Company Law Reform Bill [FN14] which provides that
"(1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole",
and
"(3) In fulfilling the duty imposed by this section a director must (so far as reasonably practicable) have regard to--
(a) the likely consequences of any decision in both the long term,
(b) the interests of the company's employees,
(c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
(e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company."
Like Berle and Dodds the CLRSG [FN15] has expressed dissatisfaction with corporate governance and in response to public opinion is seeking to bring the legal model of the company in line with public expectations of the appropriate role for the company. They seek to adopt the inclusive model and this can be seen both in what is now s.156 of the Company Law Reform Bill and the Operating and Financial Review ("OFR"). The Government have stated that they are seeking to
"embed in statute the concept of Enlightened Shareholder Value by making clear that directors must promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders, and this can only be achieved by taking due account of both the long-term and short-term, and wider factors such as employees, effects on the environment, suppliers and customers". [FN16]
The inclusive model seeks to portray itself as being similar to the legal model but there are significant differences. It seeks to recognise wider constituents that have no direct legal claim against the company. The inclusive model argues that wider constituents and their relationships can have a positive impact on the company's profits and because they would benefit the company and its profits they are therefore justifiable, presumably because they would be acceptable to the shareholders and thereby become justifiable and *69 enforceable by the objective rational shareholder even if an individual shareholder were to disagree. By including these wider social duties as part of the directors' duties an indirect enforcement mechanism is created that negates some of Berle's criticism of the pluralist model of the company and brings the law much closer to Dodd's vision of a wider social context for the company. By so doing it also places responsibility for the enforcement of these wider social interests with the directors as was expected by Dodds. [FN17]
The academic debate between Berle and Dodds in the Harvard Law Review was won by the pluralist view of Dodd, whose analysis on the nature of the model of the company was far more developed. [FN18] Berle was much more concerned about particular issues relating to the application of trust and equitable principles to the company and did not follow his stark comment at the outset through to an in-depth analysis of the legal model of the company. But historically, as demonstrated by the actual law in the United Kingdom and the United States, it is Berle's view of the supremacy of the shareholder and the stark nature of the legal model of the company that dominated throughout most of the 20th century, when the company was a going concern (although the interests of creditors alter that position when the company is on the brink of insolvency). Traditionally the legal model of the company is often assumed in much of the academic debate on corporate governance. Indeed, Cheffins in his seminal work makes it explicit that he is making this assumption in his chapter on non-executive directors and the company board.He adopts the proposition that "directors, in carrying out their duties on behalf of the company, should think ultimately about the company's members". [FN19] Cheffins does so in the full knowledge of the consequences of this approach for he acknowledges that in considering the social model of the company,
"It would be necessary to consider on a basic level whether the law should compel companies to sacrifice profits in order to operate in a 'socially responsible' manner and to evaluate whether restructuring the board of directors would be the most appropriate way of implementing policies designed to foster such conduct".
Since the law is now, some 75 years later than Dodd expected, clearly moving in the direction of requiring the directors to consider these wider social issues as part of their duties and report on these wider social issues in the OFR or in the near future in the business review, it is now necessary to consider the role of the director, and in particular the non-executive director, in this modern commercial context. By so adopting a more social approach to the law should the directors be required to foster more socially responsible conduct, and should the role of the non-executive director become a more recognised professionalism and be regulated accordingly to take account of the wider responsibilities of the non-executive directors in the inclusive model of the company that is now developing? Much of the academic debate on the role of the non-executive director assumes that the law operates on a purely legal model of the company, but given the development of the OFR or in the future the business review and the likely implementation of s.156, that debate should be reviewed and the role of the non-executive director further analysed in its developing context.

The role of the non-executive director
The particular nature of the role of the non-executive director can be anything that the company wishes it to be because it is governed primarily by the employment contract between the company and the non-executive director and the role is not defined by legislation. Technically there is no difference in law between the executive director and the non-executive director. Beyond that, the historical nature of the role of the non-executive director and its relevance can be gleaned as much from the omissions as it can from the positive statements about the role. As recently as the sixth edition of Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law by Paul L. Davies in 1997 [FN20] there is a statement to the effect that
"(non-executive) directors are expected to do little or nothing other than to attend a reasonable number of board meetings and, perhaps, some of the committees that the board may establish. As such they will be modestly rewarded by directors' fees resolved upon by the company in general meeting". Although it was later acknowledged on the same page that "one of the central aims of the Cadbury Committee was to strengthen the influence of non-executive directors on the boards of listed companies", the lack of analysis of the role of the non-executive director is quite remarkable and yet completely consistent with the general philosophical underpinnings of the text. Gower/Davies are most certainly of the view that the legal view of the company has held sway. Gower/Davies in the same text state that
"so far as concerns the wider social duties of public companies, English company law has made no movement at all. Whatever directors themselves may say the law states that their duties are owed to the company which for this purpose and so long as the company is a going concern means the long-term interests of its members and, as a result of the recent grudging admissions, its employees". [FN21]
Similarly, Harry Rajak [FN22] has made an important observation on the very same omission and provides an excellent summary of the commercial and theoretical position as it stood in 1989:
"A study of a sample of widely read books on 'management in big business' (published or republished in the 1960s) reveals a surprising omission (like the dog that *70 failed to bark in the night!). There is no discussion of the board of directors or of the role of the non-executive directors. Moreover, these terms do not even rate an entry in any index. I am referring to books as profound at the level of theory as Theo Nichols, Ownership, Control and Ideology, as slick and well turned as Anthony Jay's Management and Machiavelli, and as well known as James Burnham's the Managerial Revolution, or as informative as Christopher Tugendhat's, The Multinationals. There is, of course, much talk of managers and management, shareholders and entrepreneurs, capitalist, corporate bureaucrats and investors, but none, or very little, of the functioning of the boardroom and the differing roles of executive and non-executive directors. These works are written not by lawyers and accountants, but by economists, politicians, specialists in management and social scientists interested in business organisations. Not for them the complexities of group structures or the legal niceties as to responsibility of the 'main board' of the holding company. Such questions are left to the company lawyer and the accountant as the technicians--or maintenance engineers--of the corporate machine. These writers have learnt Berle and Means' lesson (as to the divorce of ownership from control) all too well; for them only the managers count. Their autonomy is taken for granted."
Alex Rubner in The Ensnared Shareholder makes a telling observation that further reveals the "uselessness" of the traditional role of the non-executive director to the practical operation of the well-run company. Their role was symbolic and to provide an air of respectability to the management:
"Nobles, drawing fees in guineas, lent their names to corporations; in order to dupe the public, to whom the presence on the board of a member of the aristocracy symbolized business acumen and/or respectable management. The credulity of the public has declined, and aristocrats only have limited publicity value nowadays. Television personalities and sportsmen ... and ... some well known politicians are now grilled for director-tasks, for which they have no competence." [FN23]
Similarly, Rubner refers to professional men and executive directors who for reasons of expediency play a passive role in the face of a dominant and undisputed power on the board: "They are expected to speak only on their subject and to listen on the boss expounding policy". [FN24]
Other non-executive directors were courtesy appointments to represent large clients. Banks are frequently appointed, Rubner says, as directors "to endow the client firms with prestige and to act as silent watch dogs; they are not meant to bark". [FN25] This may be a reason why the non-executive directors have been described as a "self-perpetuating oligarchy". [FN26]
Given the lack of a useful role for the non-executive director in the well-run company it is not so surprising that the management theorists traditionally ignored them: indeed, it seems to have been beneath their dignity to waste time on such a useless role. Rubner noted that some non-executive directors were appointed to get rid of them from the real executive business of running and managing the company:
"Some people are appointed to boards because they are being kicked upstairs for incompetence in the lower managerial echelons. As a sop to their pride deposed managers of companies, which have been taken over, are not infrequently offered a guinea-pig membership." [FN27]
This is all very different from what is now expected of the non-executive director.
The important or really useful role of the non-executive director in recent modern corporate governance is that of oversight. The monitoring function of the non-executive director [FN28] is, however, time-consuming and creates an essential conflict. If non-executive directors are part-time they have limited time to perform all the tasks of ensuring that the company is properly managed, and thus avoiding liability. If non-executive directors are full time or gain real experience over time [FN29] and are therefore able to do the job properly, they may avoid liability but they may not be independent and their role may conflict with the executive functions of the chairman and the chief executive officer. It has been suggested that non-executive directors contact regulators or the company's auditors if they have concerns. Acting as a whistleblower will surely destroy any working relationship that the non-executive director has with the executive management. [FN30] The potential for conflict is heightened if there is a senior non-executive director. Another area of potential conflict is in meeting institutional shareholders and shareholders generally. Non- executive directors may unwittingly pass on inside information and taking on executive functions may cause conflict with the executive directors. [FN31] Managing these inherent conflicts in the role will require the non-executive director to possess strong interpersonal skills as well as a sound knowledge and information base and good communication skills. [FN32] The company secretary is now responsible for the quality of information flowing to the non-executive directors and this does go some way to improving the effectiveness of the non-executive director for monitoring purposes in the context of the public company. [FN33]
*71 In the legal model it is acknowledged that the role of the non-executive director is largely useless in the wellrun company. Some economists would even argue that the market should regulate and monitor the company and that the non-executive director is an unnecessary burden. There is certainly a cost attached to having non-executive directors present in the well-run company, as most are. Why then did the role of the non-executive director become so important? What was it in the modern commercial environment that has created the impetus to so much change in commercial practice, management theory, legal rules, legal decisions and the political agenda so quickly? The non-executive director has gone from a useless nonentity scarcely worthy of mention to a pivotal role at the centre of the debate on corporate governance. This can be seen in the way that the Cadbury Report went from a small-scale institution to a major cornerstone in the development of corporate governance. The Cadbury Report was set up by accountants concerned as to their potential liabilities. Self-interest was to the fore, not unsurprisingly given the potential liabilities of the accountants and the auditors in the event of corporate failure. The Cadbury Committee despite its government support only had one full-time member and it did not seek to address wider social issues and was quite happy to remain within the existing corporate paradigm. Not for them invention of new corporate structures. [FN34] Corporate mismanagement has been a recognised problem since the time of Adam Smith and concerns over the control of the management are present in the debate between Berle and Dodds in the 1930s. So, corporate scandals and mismanagement are unlikely to give a full explanation for this sudden turn of events. Although Cadbury was certainly important its timing was fortunate. It was the spark that caught the growing flame of the dissatisfaction with the legal model of the company. So, perhaps the answer lies with Dodds. The non-executive director is part of a social process governed by public opinion. The non-executive director is there because public opinion wishes the non-executive director to become the custodian of corporate social responsibility. For example, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants has expressed the view that non-executive directors should act as the "corporate conscience" in respect of corporate social responsibility. [FN35] This flame of public opinion is now burning bright in the development of the OFR at the behest of the CLSRG and the Government and a wider political agenda that is considering the wider social purpose of the company. [FN36] By recasting the company within the legal model the wider social purposes of the company are recognised. But the same issue identified by Berle to criticise the pluralist view is still present in the inclusive model--enforceability, or the lack of it. The difference between the modern expression of the model of the company in the inclusive view and the pluralist view expressed by Dodds is that legal theory is seeking to enforce the wider social purpose of the company through the agency of the directors, and in particular, the non-executive directors, by defining directors' duties more broadly and by using the disclosure philosophy expressed through the publication of the OFR (and possibly, in the future, the business review) to make known what actions have been taken by the company on these wider issues. Directors are the agents for the enforcement of this wider social purpose and in this process non-executive directors are of great importance as their background, experience and maturity are of great value to the company in the fulfilment of this role. The recognised management experience and knowledge possessed by the executive directors does not place the executive directors at an advantage for this purpose. In fact the position is quite the reverse. By being so involved with the commercial management of the company the executive directors' interests are more closely aligned with profit maximisation and the shareholders rather than broader social issues. Consequently, the non-executive director's role becomes much more involved with these wider issues and their independence and wider social skills valuable to the company on a more regular basis. [FN37] This author is of the view that non-executive directors with their likely responsibility for this task can only provide an effective enforcement mechanism for this role if they in particular are of the highest calibre. Since a public non-executive director as suggested by Sheikh and Rees [FN38] is unlikely to be acceptable, the creation of a recognised profession of "non-executive directors" with its own independent professional institution to monitor standards and qualifications, albeit within a statutory framework, to use Gower's terminology, should now be considered.
Given the importance of the current legal context to the developing role of the non-executive director it is necessary to consider that legal context in more detail before we move on to further consider the development of a professional institution for non-executive directors.

The current legal context: corporate governance post-Higgs
One of the most important current developments is the amendment to the listing rules, contained in r.12.43A. With this coming into force on March 1, 2004, listed companies are now expected to apply the Combined Code on Corporate Governance for reporting periods starting on or after November 1, 2004. The Combined Code [FN39] was published *72 by the Financial Reporting Council and can be found at the end of the listing rules. This means that companies must now comply or explain why they have not complied with the Combined Code in a statement in the annual report and accounts. This statement must be reviewed by the company's auditors.
The Combined Code applies to non-executive directors in the following manner. It acknowledges the role and the responsibilities of the non-executive director, including the need for board balance and independent non-executives [FN40] and the importance of the non-executive directors on the audit, [FN41] nomination and remuneration committees. To facilitate this process there must be a formal, rigorous and transparent procedure for the appointment of new directors to the board. [FN42] The code identifies the support systems that can be put in place to enable them to perform their role most effectively. It suggests training and induction for non-executive directors. It advises the courts that when determining liability of directors [FN43] they should take note of the steps taken by the non-executive directors to educate themselves and the instructions that they have received from the executive board. Whether this will be considered relevant by a court when considering non-executive director liability is quite another matter. The importance of the role of the non-executive director is highlighted by the prominence of the statement in s.1A.1 of the supporting principles to the first and main principle of the code:
"As part of their role as members of a unitary board, non-executive directors should constructively challenge and help develop proposals on strategy. Non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitor the reporting of performance. They should satisfy themselves on the integrity of financial information and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible. They are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors and have a prime role in appointing, and where necessary removing, executive directors, and in succession planning." [FN44]
The strategic and ethical importance of the role of the non-executive director is further highlighted by the wide-ranging guidance on the role of the non-executive director provided in Higgs's suggestions for Good Practice. [FN45] The sheer scale of the expectations of the non-executive director is a concern.
The European Commission in its recommendation of February 15, 2005 on the role of non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees of the (supervisory) board [FN46] has sanctioned the comply or explain approach of the Combined Code and has recognised that detailed binding rules are not always the most efficient way of achieving the objectives pursued. Instead, designated best practice recommendations can be developed by market participants. In order to protect investors it is recommended that there should be a sufficient number of committed non-executive directors to ensure that the management function is subject to an effective and sufficiently independent supervisory function. The three crucial areas where potential conflicts of interest arise for the management when such matters are not a direct responsibility for shareholders are in relation to nomination of directors, remuneration of directors and audit, and it is therefore recommended that the role of non-executives directors be "fostered" and that separate committees comprising mainly independent non-executive directors be created to take responsibility for nomination, remuneration and audit. Essentially it is envisaged that these committees will make recommendations to the board, which remains responsible for the decisions taken. For non-executive directors to be effective they are required to be appointed for a specific term and to have the "right background" and have sufficient time to fulfil the role. Particular finance and accounting competence in the audit committee is also regarded as indispensable. Independence is also essential and is to be a matter of substance rather than form, meaning that any material conflict of interest involving directors will be properly dealt with. All new members of the board, and this must therefore include the non-executive directors, must have a tailored induction programme covering their responsibilities and the company's organisation and structure. Evaluation of the board's own performance should be carried out annually, as should a review to identify areas where directors need to update their skills and knowledge. Any changes resulting from this self-evaluation, a profile of the board's composition, the relevant particular competencies of individual directors, the independence or otherwise of a director, other significant professional commitments held by the directors and the internal organisation and procedures within the company should be made public at least once a year. Shareholders should be properly informed of "the affairs of the company, its strategic approach, and the management of risks and con-flicts of interest". Annex 1 provide more detailed criteria for the committee structures and Annex II gives a profile of the independent non-executive directors with criteria for determining the independence or otherwise of the non-executive director. In the original version these criteria were included in the main body of the recommendations but owing to protests from both the European Union members and companies these proposals were toned down. Now the criteria are merely annexed to the recommendations as "additional guidance". Implementation of sound corporate governance practices is to be monitored closely in Member States. The Member States are invited to take the necessary steps to implement these recommendations by June 30, 2006 and to inform the Commission of the measures taken to enable the Commission to monitor the situation and assess whether further measures are needed. The European Commission are clearly keeping the matter under review and avoiding legislation on this issue will depend on the success of the current regime. Gaps and weaknesses must therefore be dealt with as a matter of urgency despite Commission officials insisting that the Commission has no intention of establishing a European corporate governance code.
These requirements emanating from the European Commission are broadly in line with the Combined Code and *73 there should be no need to make further major amendments to the Combined Code to take account of these recommendations. It is assumed that the United Kingdom will, given the various government pronouncements on corporate governance, continue with the "comply or explain" approach permitted by the European Commission Recommendations rather than adopt the legislative option also permitted in the recommendations. One area that is very specific is that of Recommendation 9.2, "The roles of directors regarding communication and engagement with shareholders should be clearly delineated." What is meant by "engagement"? The Companies Acts make no mention of this and the listing rules do not require any "engagement" with the general shareholders. The Combined Code does make reference to "dialogue with institutional shareholders" [FN47] and the OFR is prepared for and directed at shareholders in accordance with normal company law principles. The Government clearly intends the information in the OFR to be used by institutional shareholders to engage with management: [FN48]
"The Government believes increased shareholder engagement is a key driver of good corporate governance, deliverable through access to clear and meaningful information about the main drivers of a company's performance." [FN49]
In its response to the public consultation the Government said that the OFR regulations are designed to result in useful and relevant reporting that will assist shareholders to assess companies' strategies and their potential to succeed. [FN50] Since the OFR itself is to be abolished the position on this is now even more unclear. How is engagement to be satisfied, if engagement implies a two-way dialogue for all shareholders? It is likely that the larger institutional shareholders will be able to enter into meaningful dialogue upon request since the code itself advises it [FN51]: the same is not true for the shareholder with a small holding. An engagement inequality could result. Improved systems of communication beyond the AGM and the development of e-enfranchisement [FN52] to enhance shareholder democracy may improve the position of the small shareholder but two-way dialogue for all shareholders will be difficult to achieve. Some may also question whether any form of shareholder engagement can deal with the worst excesses of management deriving from the agency problems caused by the separation of power and control inherent within the company structure. [FN53]
As the Combined Code applies directly to non-executive directors and corporate governance, on the face of it the Combined Code would appear to be of greater importance to the role of the non-executive director. In terms of compliance with specific details this is certainly true but the Operating and Financial Review ("OFR") is, in this author's view, a more significant development in company reporting for non-executive directors and the model of the company. The OFR is a narrative on a company's past and future performance and must include details of any potential social and environmental risks. It was to be a criminal offence to recklessly approve an OFR [FN54] and auditors were to check the consistency of the OFR with company accounts. The OFR was a key recommendation of the independent Company Law Review [FN55] and in July 2002 the Government consulted on the underlying principles of the OFR in its White Paper Modernising Company Law. [FN56] The draft regulations on the OFR and Directors' Report were published on May 5, 2004 in the form of secondary legislation under existing law, [FN57] with a further draft published on January 21, 2005 that has now been implemented and has become the Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005. [FN58] The changes necessary to comply with the Accounts Modernisation Directive [FN59] are included in the statutory OFR to avoid duplication of effort. The new reporting standard (termed a "Reporting Exposure draft" or "RED") for the OFR has now been issued by the Accounting Standards Board ("ASB") [FN60] and *74 was to commence for financial years beginning on or after April 1, 2005 [FN61] and the Financial Reporting Review Panel's ("FRRP") [FN62] administrative enforcement role, which extends to cover defectiveOFRs and Directors' Reports, was to begin one year after the regulations come into effect and apply to OFRs and Directors' Reports for financial years beginning on or after April 1, 2006; thus delaying the enforcement mechanism by one year. [FN63]
The past tense is used in relation to the enforcement mechanism for the OFR because the statutory story does not end with the development of the OFR. Despite all the preliminary work undertaken in the Company Law Review by the CLRSG, the consultation processes that were involved in the development of the White Paper issued by the Government on Modernising Company Law and the rush to implement the OFR by s.13 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 making an amendment to s.257 of the Companies Act 1985 to make the Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Director's Report etc.) Regulations 2005, which were only made on March 21, 2005 and came into force the following day, and the detailed work on the development of the Company Law Reform Bill that the Government only sent to the House of Lords on November 1, 2005, the Government has suddenly done a complete u-turn on policy. On Monday November 28, 2005 the chancellor announced at the CBI conference that as part of his plans to cut the burden of red tape on business [FN64] he would abolish the need for an OFR, which was to come into effect this year. Further to this the DTI issued a statement [FN65] that they intended to bring forward regulations before the recess of Parliament, under s.257 of the Companies Act to repeal those provisions of that Act which impose obligations on companies in relation to the preparation of the OFR. The regulations will leave in place those provisions of the Companies Act 1985 relating to the requirements to prepare a business review which are necessary to implement the Accounts Modernisation Directive (2003/51). The Government also intend to bring forward amendments in due course to amend the Company Law Reform Bill. If this is the case the enforcement mechanism for the OFR is unlikely to ever come into force. This also leaves the future development of legal regulation on company reporting on this issue clearly within the hands of Europe and the development of policy at a European level will determine how far the law and regulations move towards a more social model of the company. In the future it will be a document known as a business review that will operate in place of the present OFR. The fact that the chancellor's statement is out of step with the development of public opinion on this can be seen in the response of the business community to his proposal to abolish the OFR. Major city investors, the Financial Reporting Council ("FRC") and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants all expressed dismay at the proposals. [FN66] The Association of British Investors is even to discuss the possibility of including the OFR standards into the Combined Code on Corporate Governance. At the moment, moreover, several companies are preparing an OFR on a voluntary basis, reflecting as it does best practice in corporate governance.
For the present, the OFR provides a focus for stakeholders who are interested in wider social and community purposes of the company. It requires the directors to consider these issues and provide information on the company's approach to these matters. The regulations also make it clear that the OFR is prepared to "assist the members to assess the strategies adopted by the company and the potential for those strategies to succeed". [FN67] The Government's position was clearly that the members' interest must drive the content of the OFR [FN68] despite the fact that the CLRSG had referred to "users" and the Radcliffe Report clearly recognises that "the OFR ... will also provide information that will inform the decisions of other users--employees, customers, suppliers, society more widely". [FN69] Since the regulations specifically require the directors to include details on wider social issues, the movement towards the social model of the company as envisaged by Dodds is apparent. Paragraph 4(1) of Sch.7ZA provides that the review must include:
"(a) information about environmental matters (including the impact of the business of the company on the environment),
(b) information about the company's employees, and
(c) information about social and community issues".
Those wider interests may not have had direct standing to sue on the basis of the OFR, since the OFR has clearly been directed towards the members, but the existence of other enforcement mechanisms that may be just as effective in driving forward a wider social/inclusive model of the company is clear. There is public opinion which will be galvanised by the disclosure philosophy and the real *75 knowledge available to the various interest groups from the OFR. The Radcliffe Report was set up to give directors more guidance on what was to be included in the OFR. [FN70] The Government is of the view that the business review will still require reporting on material information relating to employee, social and environmental matters, etc. So it will still further the movement towards a more social model of the company using only it seems the enforcement mechanism provided by disclosure. [FN71]
The interrelationship between the OFR and its future embodiment in the business review, the Combined Code and the role of non-executive directors becomes apparent for human capital management and the composition of the board in terms of its ethnic and gender diversity. The OFR reflects the ideas developed by the Company Law Review, the Kingsmill Report [FN72] and the Radcliffe working report. The 2001 Kingsmill review on women's pay and employment recommends that human capital management ("HCM") be properly evaluated in companies' annual reports. That review resulted in the creation of the Accounting for People independent task force in January 2003 by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Accounting for People's report. [FN73] Dr Val Singh has highlighted the importance of gender and ethnicity for the operation of the company. [FN74] The Higgs Review of 2002 looked at the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors generally and made several recommendations to create more diverse and effective boardrooms. The nomination committee should evaluate the balance of skills, knowledge and experience on the board and prepare a description of the role and capabilities required for a particular appointment. Given that the nomination committee should, according to Higgs, provide support to the board on succession planning, this evaluation of future needs must be actively considered on an ongoing basis. To widen the number of non-executive directors, nomination committees should consider a wider range of backgrounds: lawyers, accountants and consultants, private companies, charitable or public sector bodies and more candidates from layers below board level and groups not traditionally represented on the board such as human resources, change management and customer care executives. Many of these recommendations have been incorporated into the Combined Code and now appointments to the board are more transparent and can be judged against objective criteria. In December 2004 the DTI issued a booklet entitled "Building better boards", which reviews the existing corporate governance arrangements to ensure diversity in the boardroom and outlines a range of initiatives to develop what Lord Wedderburn would describe as the "gene pool" of directors and non-executive directors. It is clear from this document that the Government has accepted the findings of the Tyson Report and has concluded that, despite the good work of the Higgs Report and the Combined Code, women are still substantially under-represented on company boards. Tyson recommended that the selection processes for non-executive directors should be rigorous and transparent, boards should have more and better evaluation and training, and research and measurement should be implemented to encourage greater board diversity. The government initiative in response to this is for the moment to place responsibility for action primarily with companies and individuals. [FN75] Yet the Government is clearly not happy with the current situation and statistics that reveal that there are as few as 4 to 6 per cent of female non-executive directors, so the current system is still under review. [FN76] Patricia Hewitt has stated that the Government will "review how effectively the OFR is working--including HCM reporting--in 5 years time after the new system has bedded down", [FN77] and the DTI has included a HCM report in its 2004-2007 business plan as a good example. If the government initiative facilitated the creation of a professional institution charged with responsibility to take forward the monitoring and development of non-executive directors then those companies and individuals that the Government refers to would have a substantive institution to facilitate the process. As the development of the Financial Services Authority and the self-regulatory organisations, or even the ASB and the FRRP referred to above, evidences, there are precedents for this already. A professional institution could facilitate the creation of a meritocracy for non-executive directors that truly represents the United Kingdom.
The stated purpose of the current OFR, and presumably the business review will follow a similar path, is to help investors make better-informed decisions and encourage an open dialogue between shareholders and business to stimulate long-term wealth creation. By providing reliable information about the value of the company the OFR is designed to encourage shareholders to exercise effective and responsible control over the company management. [FN78] This control, it is hoped, should motivate directors and *76 managers to maximise company value over personal objectives. Such control has been notably lacking, deriving as it does from the separation of ownership and control first identified by Berle and Means. [FN79] The OFR essentially seeks to empower shareholders with information to address their lack of control over the company. By contrast, the role of the non-executive director seeks to create an internal control system within the company's own board to address the lack of control by shareholders over the company. The non-executive director must with the rest of the board take responsibility for the information that is given to the shareholders. This includes the OFR. [FN80] Thus the OFR provides a further source of liability for the non-executive director [FN81] and with the provisions of the Combined Code considerably extends the responsibilities of, and consequently the liabilities of, the non-executive director. It was the enforcement capability through the agency of the FRRP that reduced the objection made by Berle to the pluralist model of the company. If breaches of the relevant OFR standards could be enforced then so could a wider view of the social purpose of the company. By the same token the possible lack of direct enforcement capability for the business review gives substance to the objections to the pluralist model of the company made by Berle and may bring the model of the company closer to its roots in the legal tradition while also reducing the scope of liability for the non-executive director.

The potential for liability
It is important to emphasise that non-executive directors are still subject to the general common law imposing fiduciary duties and a duty of care and skill on directors, classically described in Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co Ltd. [FN82] These duties are owed directly to the company and require the directors to act honestly and in good faith in the best interests of the company, to use the powers granted to them for the purposes for which they were conferred, to take proper care of the assets of the company, not to make personal profit unless permitted in the articles or approved or ratified by the company in general meeting by an independent majority of shareholders, to avoid conflicts with the company and not to compete with the company. These fiduciary duties have traditionally been viewed strictly by the courts. By contrast the traditionally lax [FN83] duties of skill and care have changed as the law seems to be moving [FN84] towards a more objective and demanding standard. In Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing, [FN85] the non-executive directors were liable on the same basis as the executive directors and it was held that the scope of the duty of skill of a non-executive director should be determined subjectively by reference to that director's own skill and experience and the duty of care should be determined objectively by reference to the standard expected of the ordinary reasonable man. The twofold objective/subjective standard is generally accepted to represent the law and is in this author's view likely to be followed in the higher courts. [FN86]
The statutory duties that the non-executive directors are subject to apply equally to all directors and are to be found mainly in the Companies Acts and the Insolvency Act of 1986. The Companies Acts provisions include administrative and accounting duties such as the duty to keep books up to date and the duty to file annual returns. Sections 212 to 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 impose criminal and civil liability on the non-executive director where the company continues to trade when the non-executive director knew or ought to have known that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation or if the non-executive director knowingly continues to carry on business with the intention of defrauding creditors in the knowledge that there was no reasonable prospect of the creditors being paid by the company. Liability can also be imposed on the non-executive director through a raft of statutory law including health and safety regulations, environmental legislation, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, competition law and financial services law. The Company Directors Disqualification Act of 1986 applies to non-executive directors and has the practical effect of raising standards of skill and care. Further, Re Barings [FN87] shows that a director may still be found unfit even though no breach of a legal duty has been established. The range of potential liabilities for the non-executive director is considerable.
One of the main weaknesses in the corporate governance structure for any director has been the lack of indemnity cover and exposure to legal action. [FN88] As the recently settled legal action between Equitable Life and Ernst and Young demonstrates, the risk of exposure is real and may be even greater for the non-executive director as the non-executive may not have the necessary understanding of the relevant sector of the market place. In 2003 the non-executive directors of Equitable Life sought to have the claims against them struck out on the grounds that as non-executive directors they were not liable for the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty that Equitable Life was claiming. Langley J. delivered a judgment that cast doubts on the rights of non-executives and observed:
"I've concluded that Equitable's claims against the non-executive directors aren't ones of which it can be said that they have no real prospect of succeeding. I should stress that this conclusion does not mean that I think Equitable's case is right or even probably right." [FN89]
Consequently the non-executive directors spent years in the throes of legal action in a case against all 15 (six full *77 time directors and nine non-executive) directors that was finally settled in December 2006 on the basis that Equitable Life paid £10 million towards a proportion of the legal costs of the nine directors who had not already reached a settlement with Equitable Life. The non-executive directors clearly did not have the resources to meet the legal costs of the action and their no win no fee contingency arrangements prevented them from settling the action on the basis that each side would meet their own costs. Six directors had settled on this basis in October 2006 when the claim against the auditors collapsed. Only one non-executive director, David Wilson, settled on the basis that he met his own legal costs and it is significant that he was named in 2004 as Britain's 97th richest man with a reported fortune of £410 million. Quite simply he could afford to meet his legal costs. Other non-executive directors did not possess, and cannot be assumed to possess, that level of resource and they require adequate insurance provision to protect them from the costs of potential legal actions. If Equitable Life had succeeded in their legal action and the non-executive directors had been found liable without adequate insurance provision in place there could have been further renewed reluctance on the part of potential non- executive directors to take up the role. [FN90] As it is, the non-executive directors of Equitable Life have given a significant proportion of their life to fighting this legal action at considerable cost because Equitable Life did not meet all the legal costs involved.
Section 727 of the Companies Act 1985 has always relieved directors from liability for negligence, default, breach of duty or trust, if in the opinion of the court they have acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. Section 727(2) permits the non-executive director to seek relief if he has any reason to apprehend that any claim will or might be made against him. But this provision requires a legal action to be taken and requires a court to consider to matter. This is not likely to be an attractive proposition to any current, or for that matter, future non-executive director. The costs of bringing the action are likely to be considerable. Although ss.19 and 20 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, which came into force on April 6, 2005, [FN91] permit, but do not require, companies to indemnify directors in respect of proceedings brought by third parties and applications for relief from liability (covering both legal costs and the financial costs of any adverse judgment except criminal penalties, penalties imposed by regulatory bodies such as the Financial Services Authority and the legal costs of unsuccessful criminal defences or applications for relief), and permit, but do not require, companies to pay directors' costs of defence proceedings as they are incurred, even if the action is brought by the company itself or is a derivative action, the director is still liable to pay damages and repay his defence costs to the company if his defence is unsuccessful. A similar but more tightly drawn provision permitting insurance against liability or indemnification against liabilities incurred already exists in s.310(3) of the Companies Act 1985. These provisions provide some relaxation of the rigour of the prohibition which exists by virtue of s.310 of the Companies Act 1985, where it remains the case that companies will still not be permitted to exempt directors from, or indemnify them against, liabilities to the company itself: the insured v insured, often now described as the "Equitable Life claim scenario". That sort of exposure to liability, as the Equitable Life case clearly demonstrates, still exists. Moreover, the indemnity cover provided by the company under ss.19 and 20 above is not a right that the non-executive directors can rely on. It is only something that the company is permitted to provide and if it is provided there must be an appropriate statement made in the directors' report and the shareholders have a right to inspect any indemnification agreement entered into by the company or an associated company. Shareholders clearly have the right to challenge or object to the provision of even this limited form of indemnification.
The Combined Code provision A.1.5 includes a reference to the need to provide appropriate directors' and officers' insurance [FN92] and thus highlights the importance of this issue. In September 2003 the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators ("ICSA") in response to a request from the Higgs Review issued a guidance note on insurance. [FN93] That guidance highlights that directors' and officers' insurance is normally taken out in one of three formats, [FN94] resulting in potential overlaps and gaps in coverage.
In the future, ss.210-216 of the Company Law Reform Bill will provide a legal basis for the provision of insurance by the company for directors under s.211 and qualifying third-party indemnity provisions under s.212. Even under the proposed reforms it seems that company law principles could be compromised, as expressed in s.210(1) of the Company Law Reform Bill, by the company seeking to exempt the directors from liability. Although there is the right given to the company to provide insurance under s.211, this is not something that the non-executive director can demand as of right. Moreover, s.212(3)(b)(ii) prevents the provision of qualifying third-party indemnity provisions to liabilities incurred by the director in defending civil proceedings brought by the company against him. If this analysis remains *78 the case, a professional institution with the trappings of a professional regulatory institution, including full professional indemnity insurance cover, is in this author's view becoming essential. There should be full indemnity insurance cover to cover all potential liabilities, including liabilities to the company itself, available for non-executive directors as of right and at a reasonable cost. The provision of adequate directors' and officers' insurance cover is the quid pro quo that a professional institution could provide for validating that individuals have the necessary skills and experience for demanding posts especially in the financial services sector. If non-executive directors with appropriate skills have independent insurance cover, this will ensure that the right people are appointed and are sufficiently questioning and independent. Non-executive directors protected by proper insurance cover are more likely to remain objective and avoid manipulation by the board. In the meantime all non-executive directors should be made aware of the ICSA Guidance Note and its contents when considering any appointment. The Combined Code contains a specimen appointment letter for non-executive directors and suggests that a copy of the D & O policy is provided. Good professional advice in considering the coverage of the D & O insurance is essential.
Directors are also at risk of legal action from the Government. The crown has lost its preferential creditor status with the introduction of the Enterprise Act 2000 and is more likely to pursue directors of insolvent companies. Further potential scope for liability for the non-executive director already exists with further incarnations of the Corporate Manslaughter Bill, the Health and Safety (Directors' Duties) Bill 2005 and the Corporate Responsibility (Environmental, Social and Financial Reporting) Bill likely to appear on the legislative horizon. The Combined Code of Best Practice will also provide ammunition for legal claims even if it lacks a statutory basis. A non-executive director can face devastating liabilities often for little compensation [FN95] and those potential liabilities look set to increase.
By the Combined Code and the European recommendations focusing detailed attention on the importance of the non-executive directors on the issues of nomination, remuneration and audit they may be distracting attention away from the most important issue for non-executive directors, and that is the monitoring of board activities generally. The legal model has always assumed that whatever the uselessness of the role of the non-executive director when the company is well run they are expected to act in the event of mismanagement. As the Equitable Life case demonstrates, the non-executive directors are expected to be liable in the same way as the executive directors and probably more so as their stated purpose is to monitor and supervise the board. In fact they are probably more exposed to legal liability because they may not have sufficient skills and experience to meet the objective elements of the duty of skill and care and if inexperienced they may be at risk of manipulation by the executive team that they are responsible for overseeing. If non-executive directors are appointed to the board they must not allow themselves to be sidetracked and spend their time on peripheral issues, however important. They must focus primarily on monitoring as that is where their primary liabilities are focused. Non-executive directors may require support to achieve this focus, and this support is more likely to come from a professional institution that caters to their needs rather than from the board that the non-executive director is meant to be supervising.
A weakness in the current law that serves to emphasise the potential for liability is the degree of uncertainty as to the precise nature and scope of the legal duties that the non-executive director is subject to. The draft Companies Bill, published originally in July 2002, [FN96] provides general principles by which directors are bound in Sch.2. That draft was superseded by Pt B of the Company Law Reform Bill published in April 2005 and is now included in Pt 10 and ss.154 to 238 of the Company Law Reform Bill now before the House of Lords. The provisions in the proposed s.158 require directors to exercise the care, skill and diligence of a reasonably diligent person with both the knowledge, skill and experience which may reasonably be expected of a director in his or her position, and any additional knowledge, skill and experience which the particular director has. If enacted, as the Government clearly intends at some time in the future, this statement of the expected duties of the non-executive director would clearly endorse the application of both the objective and the subjective duty of care applicable to the non-executive director cumulatively and would endorse cases [FN97] that are bringing the common law duty of care of a director closer to the standard imposed by s.214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. More relevantly for present purposes the statement of directors' duties will provide a much-needed clarity to the statement of directors' duties that will provide more specific guidance to the non-executive director of what is expected of him or her without taking expensive legal advice.

The modern commercial environment and the development of a professional institution
Although much has been done to improve the position of the non-executive director, gaps and weaknesses remain, most notably financial acumen [FN98] and the continued under-qualification of certain non-executive directors, [FN99] especially *79 apparent in highly specialised sectors, e.g. financial services, as demonstrated by the apparent alleged failure of the non-executive directors in Equitable Life. It is these gaps and weaknesses that the author suggests could be addressed by the creation of a professional institution to regulate the skill level of non-executive directors. Indeed, the author is of the view that this lack of experience within non-executive directors is exacerbated by the failure to draw on the full talent pool available and possibly in and of itself justifies the creation of a professional institution to address these issues. It is suggested that an external legal framework for creating this institution is necessary because professional self-regulatory organisations develop over time. Since the role of the non-executive director is largely a creature of the past 20 years there is no time to wait for such an organisation to evolve naturally as it might well do given the passage of time and the development of a community spirit within the group of non-executive directors.
A similar proposal was put forward by Lord Wedderburn in his reply to the Higgs consultation process. [FN1] Lord Wedderburn suggested that the Higgs Review should propose that an institution be established, possibly called the Corporate Governance Standards Board, whose functions should include: keeping a list of persons who qualify under tests of independence, experience, knowledge and market sector; establishing training schemes; raising public awareness of the functions of non-executives; proposing non-executives for boards on whose election the shareholders could decide; and producing annual reports that assess progress towards resolving the problems of separation of ownership and control. [FN2] Such an institutional structure would be similar to a professional group as suggested here.
Such a professional institution would not be incompatible with the suggestion of Dean Tyson of the London Business School, who recommends the development of a high-visibility initiative which provides regular and reliable measures of board composition for individual companies, and which monitors both progress on achieving rigorous and transparent processes for non-executive director appointments and progress on building more diverse boards. Tyson recognised that such an initiative would have more influence if it were independent of government and drew a substantial share of funding from the business community. A professional institution as suggested here could meet these criteria and fulfil the role outlined in the Tyson Report. A professional institution would give substance to the initiative suggested by Tyson and would create an institution to take forward those suggestions.
Normally a professional group would have a monopoly over a certain activity; in this case that would be that of the role of the non-executive director, that monopoly being justified because of certain benefits that would accrue to society. A professional institution could certainly take over the role of regulating the non-executive director's performance and ensuring that non-executive directors' moral, ethical and professional standards are maintained. It is submitted that this benefit would have advantages because there is an important principle at stake--Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? (who guards those who guard?)--and, at the moment, there is no one. Alternatives such as the performance review of the non-executive director by the company [FN3] that they are themselves reviewing does have some benefits as outlined by Tyson but it can create a conflict of interest for the non-executive director that undermines the very nature of the post. It is suggested that this professional group should be self-regulated within a statutory/code framework because this would allow membership of the regulatory body of the professional institution to extend beyond the existing non-executive director membership to the full range of stakeholder interests involved. This might include, as suggested by Lord Wedderburn, City institutions' institutional investors, banks, accountancy professions, management interests, employee organisations generally and trade unions representing workers and management, CBI, scholars with experience in the field, environmental interests, bodies concerned with equal opportunities and the like.
Having a professional institution and (the author would also recommend) a code of ethics and standards developed by the professional institution directly applicable to the specific situation of the non-executive director would in all probability impact also on future legal decisions as it would provide customary evidence of the relevant standards of ethics and skill and care to be expected of the non-executive director. Providing such rules in the form of a code provides many advantages such as flexibility, and the possibility of developing rules quickly in response to changing circumstances by persons experienced in the field. But codes still need to be enforced. To do this a professional institution must have the power to take such action. In a different age they might have developed through customary rules but in the modern commercial fast-moving environment a specific institution with the power to develop the code and given enforcement powers at the outset would be better. If the professional institution was a monopoly then expulsion would be available as a sanction. A wider range of sanctions and enforcement powers would in this author's view be advisable. The lack of direct enforcement of a code by a professional institution would become a striking omission that would need to be addressed.
If there is to be a professional institution for non-executive directors, who should it be? There are arguments to exclude certain organisations. The professional institution so charged with responsibility for "legislation", or to put it more appropriately "setting standards" should under the doctrine of the separation of powers be quite separate from the enforcement mechanism of the Financial Reporting Review Panel. Thus any links with the FRC and its sub-group the ASB and the FRRP would have to be put into question. Similarly since the FSA is the competent authority for listing and the FSA's developing legislative role in the European context could impinge on its independence in the context of administering an executive professional institution, the FSA would not be a suitable institution for developing a professional institution for non-executive directors. The links being created between the FRRP and the FSA adds emphasis to this argument. [FN4] The best alternatives are *80 therefore a completely new institution or an institution developed under the aegis of the Institute of Directors, although it is arguable that the IOD's role in relation to executive directors could conflict with its role in relation to non-executive directors. This latter argument is not strong and, given the fact that there is no legal difference between the legal duties of executive and non-executive directors and much of the training is identical, the synergy in having the IOD regulating the non-executive directors in a more formal context has much to commend it.
Another concern of note on this issue is that the large mutual life companies are failing to provide their non-executive directors with access to professional advice, according to data collated by the Myners/Treasury-backed review into governance of the sector. [FN5] This is despite the Combined Code provision A.5.2. that states that non-executive directors should have access to professional advice at the company's expense where they judge it necessary to discharge their responsibilities as directors. In March 2004, following the publication of the Penrose Report [FN6] into the failings at Equitable Life, Paul Myners, chairman of Marks and Spencer, was asked to lead a Treasury-backed review into the corporate governance of mutual assurers. Lord Penrose had in his report criticised the failure of Equitable board members to ask about, or understand, the actuarial and financial risks the troubled mutual was running. Lord Penrose said that none of the non-executive directors "had relevant skills or experience of actuarial principles or methodologies over most of the relevant period". All were ill equipped to manage a life office and depended totally on actuarial advice which they were incompetent to handle objectively. This clearly raises issues of training and competence and access to professional advice discussed above. Understanding financial risks is a complex matter that requires training. Understanding actuarial risks is an even more complex matter that requires training and access to independent professional actuarial advice. Non-executives require training as to the range of the financial risks that they are exposed to in each type of company and of the specific risks inherent in some forms of company. This issue applies equally to the many financial institutions because of the complexity of the range of financial instruments. Catastrophic financial failures have arisen because of junk bonds, hedge funds and financial derivatives, to name but a few. A professional institution could provide training, or direct the provision of training, and ongoing support services to the non-executive directors of financial institutions and companies generally. These could train the non-executive director to recognise the range of risks that the company is exposed to and most importantly alert the non-executive director of the necessity to seek further specialist professional advice where necessary. Even a training and technical support department of a professional institution would be likely to have its limitations. Actuarial risk assessments require independent actuarial advice and a professional institution could advise the non-executive director where this could be best obtained. A professional institution could also monitor whether other professionals, such as actuaries, are providing truly independent professional advice to non-executive directors.
The Penrose Report also highlights that a non-executive director cannot rely on regulatory standards of solvency to fully understand the financial position of the company. Lord Penrose concluded that the regulatory returns and measures applied by the regulators did not keep pace with the industry developments, and therefore regulatory solvency became an increasingly irrelevant measure of the realistic position of the society. Therefore the training of the non-executive directors within the financial services industry on financial issues must include, but not be limited to, the prudential rules of the Financial Services Authority. This is indeed an exacting requirement. The training of the non-executive director must be comprehensive on financial matters and will be exacting for many potential non-executive directors to undertake.
On the issue of training and education much has already been done to address this issue. Many business schools now offer relevant courses and the Company Direction programme run by the Institute of Directors is open to both aspiring non-executives and existing company directors looking to raise their skill levels. Successful completion of the Chartered Director programme of eight modules [FN7] represents the first step towards qualifying as a chartered director under the Institute of Director's Chartered Director Scheme. To achieve final qualification candidates are also expected to have a minimum of three years' experience as a director and go through a professional review to show that they can use their skills and knowledge effectively. There is much to be said for taking this scheme as a basis and applying it flexibly to "aspiring non-executives". At present few choose to be a non-executive director as a career path but its development as a career path for mature persons of standing should not be ruled out. This could be achieved by the creation of a professional institution for non-executive directors either under the Institute of Directors or as a result of direct liaison with them. Certainly, their experience of creating an independent professional qualification would be extremely valuable. Other valuable initiatives abound. There is the FTSE 100 Chairmen's mentoring programme, the DTI/Cass Business School conference on "Thinking laterally--the 21st Century Board", and initiatives such as that of 3i, who have developed an independent directors' programme and have stressed the importance of induction, training and performance review (and have created a pool of pre-qualified candidates who have been through a recruitment and referencing process and have a track record on the boards of unquoted companies), could also be included. A professional institution could provide an umbrella organisation to bring these initiatives together and provide an appropriate standard of qualification or validation of existing skills and experience to suit each level of appointment as a non-executive director.

*81 Conclusion
Historically the non-executive director was often rather useless in the legal model of the company but increased liability within the current legal context of the company requires the non-executive director to meet higher standards. Given the importance of the role of the non-executive director in the modern commercial context and its importance to the enforcement of the inclusive model of the company, improved standards of regulation of non-executive directors could be crucial to the success or otherwise of the wider social context of the company that is now developing. Whether the inclusive model, and hence the wider social purpose of the company, will succeed will depend ultimately on its enforcement. If enforcement fails then the argument put forward by Berle against the pluralist argument, and by this author for the inclusive model of the company, will prevail. A purely legal model of the company will result and the interests of shareholders will retain primacy at all times and the market mechanism such as it is will regulate with many of the failings resulting from the separation of ownership and control. If enforcement succeeds, a wider model of the company that takes account of social processes will prevail. For enforcement to be successful the non-executive directors will have to be of the highest possible calibre and, to achieve this, the regulation and development of the role of the non-executive director is essential.
The creation of a professional institution would create an institution that could cater specifically to the needs of the non-executive directors as they seek to meet these increased expectations and potential liabilities. It could regulate training, provide standardised qualifications and validation, group insurance policies, monitoring of the number of non-executive directors and their backgrounds, encouragement and support to new and prospective members and so much more. A professional institution could also affiliate with other similar institutions in other countries. Higgs recommended that all companies operating in international markets could benefit from having on their board at least one international non-executive director with relevant skills and experience. If this is the case then those international non-executive directors would benefit from an institution that can respond to their needs. A professional institution is a useful method of fulfilling this ancillary purpose. Enforcement through the strict application of legal liability as witnessed in the Equitable Life case will improve standards of skill and care in all probability, but at the expense of the numbers willing to take on the role of the non-executive director. The United Kingdom is a leader in the field of corporate governance and the creation of a professional institution would provide an institution to take the role of the non-executive director to the global marketplace in a manner compatible with best practice in global corporate governance standards and in accordance with a redefinition of the legal model of the company.

Postscript
Since the above was written the government have under s.257 of the Companies Act 1985 enacted the Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review) (Repeal) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3442. The regulations commence on January 12, 2006 and remove the requirement for an OFR.
Margarita Sweeney-Baird The author would like to thank Professor Harry Rajak for his invaluable support, kindness and time.

FN1. Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors, January 2003, Derek Higgs, www.dti.gov.uk/cld/non exec review.

FN2. The Tyson Report on the Recruitment and Development of Non-Executive Directors, A report commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry following the publication of the Higgs Review of the Role and Effectiveness of non-Executive Directors in January 2003, London Business School, June 2003 (copies available from the London Business School).

FN3. The draft regulations on the OFR and Director's Report were published initially on May 5, 2004 in the form of secondary legislation made under an amendment to s.257 of the Companies Act 1985 by s.13 of the Companies (Audit,
Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 with a further draft published on January 21, 2005. The final regulations are The Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Director's Report etc.) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/1011. They were made on March 21, 2005 and came into force on March 22, 2005. Despite this the Government now intends to abolish the Operating and Financial Review; see below.

FN4. Commission Recommendation of February 15, 2005 on the role of non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees of the (supervisory) board (2005/162).

FN5. Company Law Reform White Paper, March 2005, Company Law Review, www.dti.gov.uk/cld/review.htm. The final version of the Company Law Reform Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on November 1, 2005 and is available on www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/034/2006034.htm.

FN6. A. A. Berle Jr, "Corporate Powers as Powers in Trust" (1931) 44 Harvard Law Review 1049-1074.

FN7. E. Merrick Dodd Jr, "For whom are corporate managers trustees?" (1932) 45 Harvard Law Review 1145-1163. In an interesting analysis of the legal model of
the company Lee Roach contrasts Berle and Dodds in the course of an analysis of the Harvard debate and the inclusive model and the pluralist model of the company and similarly notes the interesting parallels that can be drawn between the work of the Company Law Reform Steering Group and the Harvard debate between Berle and Dodds. See Dr Lee Roach, "The legal model of the company and the Company Law Review" (2005) 26 Company Lawyer 98-103 at p.101.

FN8. Dodd, fn.7 above, at pp.1146-1147.

FN9. Brian R. Cheffins, Company Law Theory, Structure and Operation (Oxford, 1997), p.54.

FN10. Pollock, First Book of Jurisprudence (1996), p.179.

FN11. Adam Smith was of the view that some loss was inevitable because of the separation of ownership and control. In his Wealth of Nations he said:

"The directors of such companies, however, being managers rather of other people's money than their own, it cannot be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the parties in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man they are apt to consider attention to small matters are not for their master's
honour and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company."

FN12. Dodd, fn.7 above, at p.1147.

FN13. ibid., at p.1163 where he also said that "If we recognize that the attitude of law and public opinion toward business is changing, we may then properly modify our ideas as to the nature of such a business institution as the corporation and hence as to the considerations which may properly influence the conduct of those who direct its activities".

FN14. This is based on cl.B3 of the Company Law Reform White Paper, fn.5 above. Interestingly, the reference to the need to take account of short-term interests has been omitted in the House of Lords Bill.

FN15. Building on the work of the Law Commission's 1998 Paper 261, "Company directors: (Regulating Conflicts of Interests and Formulating a Statement of Duties)".

FN16. ibid., at p.5.

FN17. As Dodd noted, "If incorporated business is to become professionalized, it is to the managers, not to the owners, that we must look for the accomplishment of this result." Dodd, fn.7 above, at p.1153.

FN18. As acknowledged by Lee Roach also. See Roach, fn.7 above, at p.101. For further analysis in America on the nature of the legal model of the company, Clarke in his text on Corporate Law (Little, Brown and Co, Boston, 1986), at pp.675-703, contrasts what he describes as "Dualism: The Norm of Strict Profit Maximisation, Monism: Long-run Identity Between Public and Private Interests, Modest Idealism: Voluntary Compliance with the Law, High Idealism: Interest Group Accommodation and the Public interest as Residual Goals and Pragmatism: Contracting to Provide Public Services". Although very complicated, the thrust of this analysis seems to seek to further social goals within the context of the legal model of the company without actually seeking to alter the model of the company.

FN19. Cheffins, fn.9 above, Ch.13, "Non-Executive Directors and the Company Board: the Case for Reform", pp.602-603.

FN20. Paul L. Davies, Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law (6th edn, Sweet
and Maxwell, 1997), p.193.

FN21. ibid., at p.69.

FN22. Harry Rajak, A Sourcebook of Company Law (Jordans, 1989), p.458.

FN23. Alex Rubner, The Ensnared Shareholder (Macmillan, London, 1965), p.56.

FN24. ibid., at p.57.

FN25. ibid., at p.57.

FN26. I. Stratton, "Non-executive directors: are they superfluous?" (1996) 17 Company Lawyer 162.

FN27. Rubner, fn.23 above, at p.56-57.

FN28. National Association of Pension Funds, "Independent Directors--What Investors Expect", May 9, 2002.

FN29. The NAPF is considering on a case-by-case basis the issue of independence
and in particular whether a non-executive director is independent after serving nine years in the role. The Combined Code provides that they are no longer to be considered independent. Sundeep Tucker, "Lobby group shifts stance on non-execs --corporate governance guidelines", Financial Times, January 17, 2005, http://global.factiva.com/en/arch/print results.asp.

FN30. Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. Response by UK Society of investment Professionals (to the Higgs Review) available on the DTI website at p.3, J. E. Rogers, chief executive, September 5, 2002.

FN31. CIMA, "The Role of the Non-Executive Director: Making Corporate Governance Work", p.9. (available at www.cimaglobal.com).

FN32. Robert Bittlestone, managing director of management consultancy Metapraxis, proposes the following theory about Neds: Director effectiveness = timeavailable x personal competence x information quality. He cites Marconi as an example of a company that failed because of untimely information. CIMA, ibid., at p.12.

FN33. Higgs Report, fn.1 above. Although private companies will no longer need a company secretary under s.247 of the Company Law Reform Bill, all public
companies will still be required to have one under s.248 of the Bill. This indicates the continuing importance of the company secretary's role in the context of the public company.

FN34. Saleem Sheikh and Prof. William Rees (eds), Corporate Governance & Corporate Control (Cavendish Publishing, London, 1995), p.381.

FN35. Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors, comments from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, September 2002, p.2, available on the DTI website.

FN36. Saleem Sheikh, "Non-Executive Directors: Self Regulation or Codification?" Submission to the Higgs committee, available on the DTI website, at p.11 where it is stated that "There is another wider role attributable to NEDS that ought to be taken seriously by them: they must also exercise corporate social responsibilities which entails considering the interest of other 'stakeholders' on the corporation".

FN37. Rob Lake, "Governance for Corporate Responsibility: The Role of Non-Executive Directors in Environmental, Social and Ethical Issues," A discussion paper, May 2003.

FN38. Sheikh and Rees, fn.34 above, Ch.18, "Corporate Governance and Corporate Control--Self Regulation or Statutory Codification?", at p.381; because of "cost and the likely negative impact on the calibre of personnel available to fulfil a fully public role", see M. Sweeney-Baird, "Institutional shareholders, non-executive directors and corporate governance" (1999) 6(2) European Financial Services Law 71-77 at p.76.

FN39. The code was intended to apply for reporting years beginning on or after November 1, 2003. The new code supersedes and replaces the Combined Code that was issued by the Hampel Committee on corporate governance in June 1998. The new code derives from the recommendations of the Higgs Review, "Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors", published January 2003, and the Smith Review of Audit Committees, "Audit Committees Combined Code Guidance", published January 2003.

FN40. Principle A.3, Combined Code on Corporate Governance, published July 2003.

FN41. See the Smith guidance on audit committees, fn.39 above, at para.2.3, appended to the Combined Code on Corporate Governance, ibid.

FN42. Principle A.4, Combined Code on Corporate Governance, ibid.

FN43. ibid., Sch.B, guidance on liability of non-executive directors: care, skill and diligence.

FN44. Code of Best Practice, s.1A.1 Supporting Principles, Combined Code on Corporate Governance, ibid.

FN45. Appended to the Combined Code on Corporate Governance, published July 2003 at p.63 and available on the FSA website.

FN46. 2005/162 [2005] O.J. L52/51.

FN47. Principle D.1, Combined Code on Corporate Governance, fn.40 above.

FN48. DTI, Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report Regulations, government response to public consultation, December 2004, para.2.25 at p.14, and see also para.2.45.

FN49. Annex B to the Explanatory Memorandum, Final Regulatory Impact Assessment
on the Operating and Financial Review and Director's Report Regulations, Purpose and Intended Effect. Objectives, para. 4, DTI, January 8, 2005.

FN50. DTI, fn.48 above.

FN51. E.1 Institutional Shareholders, dialogue with companies, Combined Code on Corporate Governance, fn.40 above, and under E.3 institutional shareholders have a responsibility to make considered use of their votes. In future if s.866 of the Company Law Reform Bill is enacted institutional investors may be required to give information about the exercise of voting rights under regulations issued by the Treasury or the Secretary of State.

FN52. See for example cll D16, D17, D50 and Part E and F of the draft Company Law Reform Bill, which was included in Pt 7 Draft Clauses in the Company Law Reform White Paper, March 2005, Company Law Review, www.dti.gov.uk/cld/review.htm, and see now ss.308, 315 and Sch.5 Pt 3 of the Company Law Reform Bill currently before the House of Lords.

FN53. "The government acknowledges that some critics believe stakeholder engagement theory--encouraging shareholders to exercise effective and responsible control to head off the worst excesses of agency problems--is
imperfect; providing little guidance to management on how to choose between the multiple, and sometimes, competing interests of stakeholders. But it considers this a first necessary plank in encouraging the adoption of long term value maximisation as the single objective function of the firm, where shareholders are involved to add positive value to the company." Annex B to the Explanatory Memorandum, fn.49 above: Risk Assessment, para.32.

FN54. New s.234 of the Companies Act 1985.

FN55. Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy, July 2001, URN 01/942.

FN56. CM 5553--I & II, July 2002.

FN57. The consultation period on the initial draft concluded on August 6, 2004 and on November 25, 2004 Patricia Hewitt announced the Government's response in a written statement laid in Parliament. Regulations are made under an amendment to s.257 of the Companies Act 1985 by s.13 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004.

FN58. The final regulations are The Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Director's Report etc.) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/1011. They were
made on March 21, 2005 and came into force on March 22, 2005. The regulations were made under an amendment to s.257 of the Companies Act 1985 by s.13 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004.

FN59. Directive 2003/51 of the European Parliament and the Council of June 18, 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660, 86/635 and 91/674 on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings; [2003] O.J. L178/16. The Fourth Council Directive of July 25, 1978 (78/660) is based on Art.54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies; [1978] O.J. L222/11. Further practical guidance for directors from the Radcliffe Committee was also to be expected. The concept of "materiality" at the core of the Radcliffe Report has now been subsumed into the concept of 'to the extent necessary' as a result of the wording of the EU Modernisation Directive rather than the wording used by the CLRSG and/or in the government White Paper, but the result of the analysis is largely the same.

FN60. By virtue of the Reporting Standards (Specified Body) Order 2005 (SI 2005/692), coming into force on April 6, 2005. This order specifies the Accounting Standards Board established under the accounting Standards Board limited as a body which may issue standards under regulations made under the
Companies Act 1985. Such regulations may provide for issue by the ASB of standards in relation to matters to be contained in reports which are required by the Companies Act 1985 Pt 7 to be prepared by the directors of a company.

FN61. reg.1(3) of the Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005.

FN62. Supervision of Accounts and Reports (Prescribed Body) Order 2005 (SI 2005/715) in force April 6, 2005. This order appoints the FRRP established under the Financial Reporting Review Panel Ltd to exercise the functions mentioned in the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, s.14(2). These functions are the keeping under review of certain periodic accounts and reports produced by issuers of listed securities and informing the FSA of any conclusions that the FRRP reaches. The FRRP may, under s.245F of the Companies Act 1985 require the production of documents, information or explanations. This applies to certain classes of issuer. By virtue of the Companies (Defective Accounts) (Authorised Person) Order 2005 (SI 2005/699); in force April 6, 2005, the FRRP is authorised to make an application to court under s.245B of the Companies Act 1985 for a declaration or a declarator that the annual accounts of a company do not comply with the requirements of that Act and an order requiring the directors of the company to prepare revised
accounts. Under both orders the FRRP is required to keep appropriate records.

FN63. Directive 2003/51, fn.59 above.

FN64. Better Regulation, Draft Simplification Plan, November 2005, see especially at p.7, published on November 29, 2005, available on DTI website

FN65. Available on www.dti.gov.uk/cld/hottopics.htm.

FN66. Mark Milner and Jill Treanor, "Big investors may insist on good governance reviews", Guardian Unlimited, November 29, 2005, http://business. guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1653062,00.html.

FN67. Sch.7ZA, para.1 of the Companies Act 1985 inserted by reg.9 of The Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/1011.

FN68. Para.A.12, Operating and Financial Review, Practical Guidance for Directors, Chairman, Rosemary Radcliffe.

FN69. ibid., para A.12.12. This is also supported by the Government. See DTI,
fn.48 above, at para.2.4.

FN70. The Operating and Financial Review, fn.68 above. Once the OFR Regulations are finalised the guidance is to be updated by the same body. Rosemary Radcliffe's independent working group was set up by the Government in 2002 to develop broad principles and practical guidance. That guidance helps directors decide what principles and processes to follow in deciding what information to include in their OFR, based on what is important for the success of their business. Thus the OFR defines what social purposes the company should be interested in.

FN71. Better Regulation, fn.64 above; see especially at p.7.

FN72. Denise Kingsmill, Accounting for People: A Consultation Paper issued by the Task Force on Human Capital Management, May 2003.

FN73. www.accountingforpeople.gov.uk.

FN74. Report on diversity of FTSE 100 Directors, July 2004, Commissioned by the DTI, Dr Val Singh. See especially para.1.1 where reasons are given for why the issue of diversity is so important: including the need to increase the talent
pool and cloning of directors fromsimilar backgrounds can lead to "group-think", thereby inhibiting creativity and innovation, while not representing the workforce and the customer base in terms of diversity and being part of a decent society.

FN75. DTI, "Building better boards", December 2004, p.7.

FN76. "The Higgs Review found that the majority of NEDs in UK companies are white, middle-aged males of British origin with previous plc director experience. In the survey of companies completed for the Higgs Review, non-British nationals accounted for only 7% of NED positions, while British citizens from ethnic minority backgrounds accounted for only 1% of such positions. The survey also found that although 30% of managers in the UK corporate sector are female, women hold only 6% of NED positions." Taken from the Tyson Report, fn.2 above, at p.5 Further at p.16 of the Tyson Report it is stated that "Board size constraints may explain why women account for a larger fraction of NED positions in larger companies than in smaller ones. Women hold 11% of NED positions of FTSE 100 companies compared to about 8% for FTSE 250 firms, and less than 4% (3.9%) in other listed companies". It is on the basis of this statistical evidence that Dean Tyson made her recommendations.

FN77. DTI press release, May 5, 2004: "Hewitt announces new plans to strengthen corporate Britain".

FN78. Explanatory Memorandum, fn.49 above, at para 7.3.

FN79. A. A. Berle and G. C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (rev. edn, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc, New York, 1967).

FN80. s.234AB Companies Act 1985. The OFR must also be signed on behalf of the board by a director or the secretary of the company.

FN81. The new s.256A of the Companies Act 1985 provides that directors who comply with a reporting standard for the OFR (issued by the ASB) are presumed (unless the contrary is shown) to have complied with the provisions of the 1985 Act relating to the contents of an OFR.

FN82. [1925] 1 Ch. 407.

FN83. Re Brazilian Rubber Plantations and Estates Ltd [1911] 1 Ch. 425 at 437 where Neville J. observed that "[a director] may undertake the management of a rubber company in complete ignorance of everything connected with rubber,
without incurring responsibility for the mistakes which may result from such ignorance".

FN84. See Baker v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2001] B.C.C. 273.

FN85. [1989] B.C.L.C. 498.

FN86. Norman v Theodore Goddard [1991] B.C.L.C. 1028 and Re D'Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 B.C.L.C. 561.

FN87. Re Barings Plc (No.5), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Baker (No 5) [1999] 1 B.C.L.C. 433.

FN88. John Barlow, "Directors and officers' liabilities--through the looking glass" (2004) Liability Risk and Insurance [April 2004, LRI 164 (17)]

FN89. Equitable Life Assurance Society v Bowley [2003] EWHC 2263 (Comm), QBD, [2004] 1 B.C.L.C. 180.

FN90. The third Ernst and Young corporate governance survey of board members of the United Kingdom's leading 500 companies found that 40% said that they would
be less likely to accept a non-executive directorship than in the previous 12 months. See (2004) 25 Company Lawyer 115.

FN91. Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 (Commencement) and Companies Act 1989 (Commencement No.18) Order (SI 2004/3322) (c.154); see Sch.2, www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043322.htm, published December 21, 2004.

FN92. "The company should arrange appropriate insurance cover in respect of legal action against its directors."

FN93. ICSA Guidance Note 030925: Directors and Officers Insurance, www.practicallaw.com/AW4064, provides a checklist on matters that directors should consider in connection with directors' and officers' insurance. The aim of the guidance is to help directors understand director and officer insurance, evaluate their needs and evaluate their existing cover as provided by the company.

FN94. "A policy which is taken out by the company (and most usually the policy schedule will be in the name of that company) and which provides cover for
indemnifiable risks under one section and non-indemnifiable risks under another--commonly referred to as sections A and B;

A policy which is taken out by the company (again most usually the policy will be in the name of that company) and which provides cover for non-indemnifiable risks. This type of policy is particularly popular for companies that wish to provide significant limits of indemnity for directors and officers when the company does not, cannot or will not indemnify. Particular care attention must be paid to the wording of the operative clause in such policies (ie regarding when indemnity can be provided);

A policy covering an individual named person, eg. Mr David Smith, who may have one/or a number of directorships, executive or non-executive positions which he wishes to insure under his 'own personal policy'." ICSA Guidance Note, ibid., at p.2.

FN95. The European Commission has adopted a non-binding Recommendation on directors' remuneration suggesting that Member States should ensure that listed companies disclose their policy on directors' remuneration and inform shareholders how much individual directors are earning and in what form. See www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal market/company/docs/directors-remun/2004- recommendation en.pdf, published on October 6, 2004. The Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations SI 2002/1986 provides for details of the
directors' remuneration to be disclosed in the remuneration report.

FN96. DTI White Paper, "Modernising Company Law" ("White Paper") published July 2002, Company Law Review Final Report. See further, DTI consultation on director and auditor liability, December 2003.

FN97. See, for example, Norman v Theodore Goddard, fn.86 above; Re D'Jan of London Ltd, fn.86 above; and Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd (in liq) v Maxwell (No.2) [1994] 1 All E.R. 261.

FN98. "A recent survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit and KPMG has revealed that financial information and the understanding (or lack of it) of financial issues are major barriers preventing the implementation of successful corporate governance policies. Nearly a quarter of the international companies in the survey cited a 'lack of financial understanding on the part of senior executives and the board' as a significant stumbling block." CIMA, "The Role of the Non-Executive Director", fn.31 above, at p.12.

FN99. DanMace, "Helping Directors Direct" (2000) 15(7) Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 247, where it is noted that "there are no entry requirements for directors. There is no training requirement. There are no
requirements for continuing education. Even in listed companies, directors need no qualifications or proven understanding of their duties".

FN1. Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Q.C., FBA, "Non-Executive Directors, Leaders and Monitors, Christmas Tree Decorations or Custodians? Widening the Gene Pool", A submission to the Higgs Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-executive Directors: September 2002.

FN2. Lord Wedderburn, ibid., at p.16.

FN3. Principle A.6., Combined Code on Corporate Governance, fn.40 above.

FN4. Paul Grant, "FRRP teams up with FSA to review accounts", Accountancy Age, April 6, 2005. The links exist in relation to listed company accounts; www.financialdirector.co.uk/news/1139889.

FN5. Andrea Felsted and Sundeep Tucker, "Larger mutuals are 'failing to give non-executives access to advice"', Financial Times, December 15, 2004, Document FTFT000020041215e0cf0003a, http://global.factiva.com/en/arch/print results.asp.

FN6. Report of the Equitable Life Inquiry, Rt Hon. Lord Penrose, March 8, 2004,
H.C. 290; A. Samuel, "The Penrose Report--how to wreck a life assurer?" (2004) Compliance Monitor 16.7 (1).

FN7. Directors' duties, liabilities and legal responsibilities, finance, setting strategic direction, human resource strategy, marketing strategy, leading and directing change, decision-making and performance management