 BismillahirRahmanirRaheem and As-Salaamu Alaykum ladies and gentlemen. Last time we basically were talking about the corporate governance developments in the USA and we talked about the different laws and frameworks which exist over there. And we were seeing that how the Watergate scandal basically catalyzed or sparked the importance of corporate governance and catapulted this concept into the limelight whereby it was considered very important and critical that the corporations should be properly regulated and that their funds and finances should be properly audited and there should be a publication of all those reports so all the stakeholders have a clear picture of what is happening in the corporation. Today ladies and gentlemen we are going to be talking about the developments in the UK and amazingly when we are talking about the developments in the UK then we see that the BCCI the Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandal played a huge role in catapulting and in catalyzing and energizing the corporate governance movement within the corporate structure of the United Kingdom. Now ladies and gentlemen when we look at what happened in England then the seeds of modern corporate governance were shown by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International BCCI. The BCCI was a global bank made up of multiplying layers of entities related to one another. So what we see ladies and gentlemen is that we had this huge web of entities. They were intertwined with each other and it became very difficult to distinguish between the different institutions, the different sister concerns and the different associated companies which were linked to the BCCI Bank. So things were very complex and complicated and they were absolutely unclear and when the bank collapsed then this huge financial structure came down which affected the whole world and therefore there was this great need and desire that it should not happen again and therefore there should be a proper corporate governance system in place. What we see is that within the corporate structure of BCCI and the shorty record keeping regulatory review and audits the complex BCCI family of entities was able to evade ordinary legal restrictions on the movement of capital because what they would do is that they would shuffle the transactions between each other and it became very difficult to trace and find out that what is happening and how funds are coming, how funds are being utilized, what level of transactions are taking place, what are the profits and all of these different aspects basically created this spider web of entities and they could not be distinguished and therefore BCCI was able to get away with illegal practices over many many years and then because they basically were indulged in so many negative activities that they finally collapsed. So that is what we see that due to the shorty record keeping and again review and audits they basically collapsed. The corporate model of BCCI presented an ideal mechanism for facilitating illicit activity by others. Another landmark that enlightened people's awareness and sensitivity on the issue of corporate misdeeds was the failure of Baring's Bank. So on one side we see that the BCCI was a role model and again for the UK it contributed in catalyzing this whole concept forward but another very important episode was that of the extinction of the Baring's Bank which was a highly reputed over many centuries bank but unfortunately what do we see? We see that the Baring's Bank failure was caused by the actions of a single trader based at a small office in Singapore, Nick Leeson. Nick started trading on behalf of the bank whereas he was supposed to trade only on behalf of the customer. So what we see is that the traders actually had to have limited liability and based upon that they could only basically facilitate or trade with the clients or the consumers. However, Nick Leeson basically found a lacuna and then he started trading for the bank and as a result of that this bank which had its presence around the world was sold for only one dollar. Now what we see is that eventually when a strategy failed because of an earthquake in Japan, Baring's Bank had already lost 1.4 billion and it had to shut office. As a result of these failures and lack of regulatory responses and measures from authorities, an adequate response to check them in future, the committee of sponsoring organizations was established. So what we see is that a new network was established to ensure that what happened with Baring or what happened with BCSI to not happen again and there should be a super regulatory body which would ensure that there would be a certain high level of standardization and also that all of the stakeholders would be protected in that particular context. The report produced by it in 1992 suggested a control framework which was endorsed and refined in the four subsequent UK reports. And those reports are famous reports. We have the Cadbury report. We have the Ruthman report. We have the Hampel report and we have the Turnwell report. And companies such as Polypec and British and Commonwealth and Robert Maxwell's Mirror Group News international were all victims of the boom to bust a gate of the 1980s. So what we see is that many large corporate entities basically had to close down because they could not match up to the regulations stipulated by Cadbury, Ruthman, Hampel and Turnbull and according to the control frameworks which were earlier available. So what we see is that this whole chaos started taking place because companies were being regulated. They were being made responsible and it was very difficult to get out of that quagmire situation or out of that whirlpool situation. So what we see is that the publication of a series of reports consolidated into the combined code on corporate governance. The Hampel report in 1998 resulted in major changes in the area of corporate governance in the United Kingdom. So what we see is that the sea change takes place due to these new regulations, due to these new laws and effective implementation and execution coupled with sporadic monitoring and evaluation exercise. So this whole mechanism ensured that many companies started producing better, started working better and started to create enabling and conducive environments and that was the crux of the different models that were basically emerging and they were not inorganic models. Organic models especially in the context of knowledge generation, knowledge sharing and knowledge inputs. Thank you so much.