 Welcome back to corporate governance and we are continuing with our journey to understand the role of media on corporate governance, its role and implications with the shareholders and with the stakeholders. Today, the topic is going to be corporate governance and press shareholders, activists and institutional investors. So, again we are looking at the nitty gritties of how the shareholders and the institutional investors would be responding to corporate governance and press and the dissemination of news related to the institution in the press and what are the various consequences and repercussions of that particular news and how it is assimilated by the board of directors and also by the shareholders and the institutional investors. So, this is a very important topic and again there are many examples. We have seen that Robert Monks and Nell Minow found the press useful in the struggle with management circles in the United States. So, basically what we see is that the press also acts as a protection layer for whistle blowers because when the whistle is blown and the press takes up the issue and that is disseminated across the country or across the globe then the implications tend to change and the very powerful management or the very powerful board of directors cannot well or put a blind eye to what is happening in the organization and that is extremely important. And it has been seen that some very good organizations just like we have been talking about the example of Enron and WorldCom and also how it has streamlined various incongruences within the organization. And then we see another aspect that it has also been practiced in emerging economies especially in the case of Korea where we see that the various large conglomerates had to realign and recalibrate themselves and see how they can do business in a better way and also curtail corruption which was taking place within their fold. The beginning of efforts to force change in Korea dates back to 1996 and the formation of the People's Solidarity Participated Democracy, PSDPD. The activists in Korea relied on legal pressures including proxy battles, criminal suits and derivative suits and on the use of the press to shame popularly disobeyed again. What we see is that a multi-tier approach basically took place in Korea especially against bad governance and bad governance practices and it was a multi-pronged approach which also entailed legal battles, proxy battles, criminal suits, derivative suits. So, all of these different types of legal instruments were used against these very powerful K-Bowl because they called as K-Bowls or K-Bowls in Korea and they basically were the financiers for governments and therefore it was very difficult to bring them into check but since 1996 we have seen a steady flow of rules and regulations and laws emerging which have controlled these K-Bowls or these large huge conglomerates which basically were the backbone of the Korean economy. The success of press stands in a sharp contrast with the failure of legal actions. Shareholders' proposals are severely restricted and cannot involve the removal of directors or auditors. What we see is that in all of this activism that has been taking place we see that many a times some legal actions tend to fail but the pressure of the press tends to build up a very moral standing and moral issue which can be assimilated and can be channelized by the different stakeholders of that particular industry or that particular institution and then we also see that the shareholders they also have certain limitations in which they cannot remove the directors or auditors which again becomes a very severe restriction to counter such moral practices or corruption which is taking within the particular organization but the press puts a lot of pressure both direct and indirect and ensures that whatever wrong is taking place at least that is stopped and many a times it has been seen that those involved in such moral practices are removed from the institution and sometimes even the institution has to get winded up. Only successful legal challenge has been the one to ensure investors' rights to speak at meetings so again various legal decisions have led to this right of investors to speak at meetings and therefore channelize the outcome of a particular meeting. The effect of shareholder and public opinion pressure was an increase in the transparency so again we see that a public opinion one and secondly the effect of shareholders being catalyzed and leveraged by the press tends to increase transparency that is extremely important. Institutional investors have many legal mechanisms to encourage change in corporate policies the presence of an active press increases their influence so again ladies and gentlemen what we see is that these institutional investors have many legal mechanisms by which they can impose their opinion or their rights or how they want to see the future of the organization and they have a direct influence on the corporate policies and many times what we see is that with the presence of an active progressive and truthful press then the institutional investors influence also tends to increase it provides a relatively cheap way to impose penalties on companies and it helps coordinating the response of other investors and availing themselves of potential legal protection so again what we see ladies and gentlemen is that the press the news is reinforcing is augmenting is strengthening the capacity of the board of directors and also ensuring that the institutional investors do not lose out on their investment because they carry immense influence on the management and on the employees and therefore a very holistic approach is created through these news channels and these news platforms and these news prints which tend to influence the organization and provides legal protection to all of the stakeholders and all of the institutional investors which can lead towards a better organization thank you so much