98 items, ordered by date. Displaying page 2 of 2. Show on timeline Items per page: 25 | 50 | All
51. Record of meeting with Hugh Collum, 100 Group, 14 January 1992
Comments on the papers circulated for the 20-21 January 1992 meeting.
Covers aspects of board of directors, internal controls, financial reporting, auditing.
The views cover the range of auditing issues, non-executive directors, responsibilities of directors, divided boards and other matters.
54. Letter, 7 July 1992, from JP Dobrowolski, Argos plc.
Comments on the role of internal auditors.
Includes comments on differentiation between executive and non-executive board members, role of auditors and non-audit fees. Memo from Nigel Peace included.
56. Revised questions and answers brief for the launch of the [draft] report, 22 May 1992.
Includes 2 pp of 11 questions apparently compiled by ICAEW referring specifically to auditing and accounting aspects.
Reports the results of a survey. Auditors are least likely to benefit while non-executive directors benefit most. Responsibility for compliance lies with company management and institutional shareholders or Stock Exchange, while expresses doubts over self-regulation.
Comments that fraud is very difficult to prevent and comments on non-executive directors and auditing, especially their resignation advice.
59. Letter, dated 18 June 1992, Annual Report analysis from Jonathan Chaytor and FT article.
Comments on institutional investors, non-executive directors and internal auditors.
60. Letter, dated 24 June 1992, from EA Bradman.
Comments on voluntary nature of the code, non-executive directors, the role of audit committees, directors' contracts and the independence of auditors.
61. Letter and comments, dated 30 June 1992, from Tim Knowles.
Comments on non-executive directors, financial reporting, auditing and institutional shareholders.
62. Letter, dated 1 July 1992, from AR Threadgold, POSTEL.
Comments on separation of roles of Chairman and Chief Executive, independent non-executive directors and directors service contracts and the independence of auditors.
63. Letter, dated 3 July 1992, from Dermot Glynn, NERA and presentation, dated June 1992.
Includes a paper on European accounting, audit independenc and regulation.
64. Letter, 5 July 1992, from AL Hempstead.
Comments on lack of audited accounts for a fund managed by the Nationwide Building Society.
Suggests appointing an 'audit trustee' appointed by lenders and creditors rather than the board.
66. Letter, 7 July 1992, from RJ Alexander, London and Manchester Group plc.
Author suggests that an 'Appointed Accountant' with responsibility for preparing financial reports, should be employed.
67. Letter, 7 July 1992, and comments from TJ Grove.
Comments on appearing to be written with best interests of directors, and aspects of auditing.
68. Letter, 8 July 1992, from DEF Green.
Comments on independence of auditors, audit committees and non-executive directors.
69. Letter, 10 July 1992, from NC Kelleway, Rikard Keen & Co.
Comments on auditing, complying with a code of best practice, non-executive directors, internal control systems and going concern recommendations.
70. Letter, 10 July 1992, from CM Stuart.
Comments on non-executive directors roles, internal control systems, the role of auditors.
71. Letter, 13 July 1992, from Gerard Howe, Howe Associates.
Comments on distinctions between executive and non-executive directors, compliance with the code, separation of roles and board appointments, committees, directors remuneration, auditors and other services to organisations.
72. Letter, 13 July 1992, from Sir George Russell, Marley plc.
Comments on differentiation between executive and non-executive directors, access to independent advice, and communication with shareholders.
73. Letter, 14 July 1992, from JBH Jackson.
Comments from his perspective of 'professional chairman' and strongly in favour of unitary boards.
74. Letter, 16 July 1992, from Gary Allen, IMI plc.
Comments on responsibilities of directors and potential for two-tier boards, non-executive directors, access to independent advice and the role of the auditors.
75. Letter, 20 July 1992, from David Fifield.
Comments on ownership models, accountancy work, short-termism.
Comments in detail on sections of the draft report, approving the self regulation approach, questioning statements of compliance requirement, commenting on the role of non-executive directors, remuneration, auditing and shareholders' role.
77. Letter, 21 July 1992, from Paul Girolami, Glaxo.
Comments on directors and non-executive directors roles, auditors and Code of Best Practice.
78. Letter and comments, dated 23 July 1992, from Blenyth Jenkins, the Institute of Directors.
Comments in the context of the wider context of corporate governance, while focussing on internal control, self-regulation and enforcement, interim financial reporting and auditing.
79. Comments, dated 23 July 1992, from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.
Comments on the separation of roles, non-executive directors , internal control systems, audit and remuneration committees and various aspects of auditing.
80. Comments, dated 24 July 1992, from Catherine Gowthorpe, Lancashire Polytechnic Business School.
Comments at length on non-executive directors - the qualities required, their financial interests and selection. Also includes comments on the board and in detail on aspects of auditing.
81. Letter and report, dated 24 July 1992, from the Institute of Internal Auditors.
Comments on codes for standards of conduct, the role of internal auditors and an auditing committee, fraud and compliance with the code.
82. Letter, dated 28 July 1992, from Serious Fraud Office.
Comments on auditors' statutory protection and the role of non-executive directors.
83. Letter, dated 28 July 1992, from McKenna & Co.
Letter covers enforcement of the code, the role of non-executive directors, separation of the roles of Chief Executive and Chairman, shareholders' role and that of the auditors with respect to fraud.
84. Letter, dated 30 July 1992, from JD Traynor, CRH plc.
Expresses concerns about emphasis on control and monitoring, and the influence of accountants and auditors. It continues to make specific points.
These documents concentrate on auditing and its role in investment businesses. The Board supports the Auditing Practices Board, believing its primary function is to form and express an opinion.
86. Letter, dated 31 July 1992, from Sir Richard Greenbury.
Letter comments on board structure, especially unitary boards, the duties of directors to shareholders and the responsibilities of the external auditors.
87. Letter, dated 4 August 1992, from Bill Morrison, Auditing Practices Board.
Comments on the practicality of auditors commenting on corporate governance compliance while proposing an alternative method and also comments on interim reporting.
Covers the role of institutional shareholders, auditors and non-executive directors.
Asks Nigel Peace's opinion of alternative working for para 5.34. This may have been prompted by comments on the draft report from among others Ernst & Young as it is clipped to a letter saying they may have been wrong in their criticisms.
90. Meeting on 17 September 1992, Committee's conclusions on proposed revision to draft report.
Covers all sections of the report with suggested replacement wording.
There is draft guidance on compliance with the Code of Best Practice and also guidance on the topic issued in December 1993. In July 1993 the APB issued a draft for comment on reviewing interim financial information.
The paper sets out the many recent reforms in financial reporting and auditing practices. It supports the Cadbury proposals but calls for more coordination and consistency between the various bodies with a role in financial reporting and auditing.
93. Letter, dated 23 February 1994, from Dermot de Trafford, Institute of Directors.
Comments on the recent Auditing Practices Board exposure drafts and too warmly welcoming them.
94. Letter, dated 19 October 1994, from Mr Gillum about audit committees.
Recounts a case history of auditing and proposes a solution.
Deals with internal control systems, issues for the successor body, monitoring compliance [with the Code] and various aspects handled by the Monitoring Sub-committee. Also includes letter from DTI on length of directors' service contracts, disclosure of no-audit fees paid to firms, protection for auditors reporting fraud. A note sets out proposed amendment to minutes of meeting held on 14 September, 1994.
Comments on and suggests approaches on various aspects of AGMs, creating two classes of non-executive directors. Butcher supports rotation of auditors.
97. Letter, dated 12 November 1992, from Beharrell, Thompson.
Raises SEC approach to corporate governance, compliance with Code of Best practice, auditors and the cost of compliance. It includes the documents from the SEC about executive compensation.
98. Letter, dated 30 July 1991, from Sir Simon Hornby about giving evidence to the Committee
Lists the headings which Sir Simon Hornby would discuss.