 Bismillah. Welcome back to the corporate governance module. Last time we were talking about the OECD principles and how corporate governance started to permeate within the US framework of corporateization and corporate control and the different episodes which took place especially the SNL scandal and then moving on to the COSO commission and the institutionalization of the Securities Exchange Commission. Ladies and gentlemen, today we are going to take it a little bit further and look at the incorporate person. Now when we are looking at an organization in the corporate governance context then basically it means that a corporation has legal rights and duties and that is how it becomes an incorporate person and ensures that the corporation has certain duties, obligations and responsibilities. Now when we look at corporate governance from the Asian times then we see that throughout the various millenniums and the various centuries we see that there have always been rules, regulations and certain lose laws which have existed but with the advent of the industrial age we see that things started changing and even companies like the East India Company or the Dutch East India Company they had to change. Now we see that the Dutch East India Company in 1609 found their capital locked into a company only publishing its accounts every ten years and they insisted on paying their dividends in spices. Now that itself created a lot of problems so therefore the various governments and monarchies of that time decided that they are going to dilute the ownership of the Dutch East India Company and similarly we see a situation emerging in the East India Company of the British Empire. Now all of these started changing because in 1729 we see in 1720 sorry we see the advent of the bubble act so that a bubble scenario would not be created whereby the whole system would be collapsing and therefore the role of controlling these huge mammoth companies came into existence which we also see in 1857 because in 1857 when the East India Company took over the monarchy of the subcontinent that is when the Queen Victoria of that time became the Queen of India also and the control of the company was taken over by the monarchy through its board. So we see that now slowly slowly there was more interference or there was more regulation by the monarch or by the state or by the government and these things were moving forward to ensure that we would eventually in the end of the 20th century move towards good governance and corporate governance. Now what we see is that there are four different cycles which exist over here and England in all of these years has been moving forward gradually and slowly and that was the essence of the South Sea bubble whereby these different new transparency and cross-regulation and cross-countability and transparency context basically emerged. We also see that the larger ownership started splitting and therefore the role of the minority stakeholder also came into essence and came into play and the role of having a minority shareholder on the board also emerged. So all of these were consequences of the bubble act of 1720. So again these were the developments which were taking place and we see that even the classical English model which is not a corporate model but is more a company model started emerging and we see that the different forms of ownership also emerged looking at them like control through almost complete ownership, majority control, control through a legal device without majority ownership, minority control and management control. So what we see is the splitting of the atom of ownership and based upon that different dilution of ownership controls, control through almost complete ownership, majority control, control through a legal device without the majority ownership, minority control and management control. So, ladies and gentlemen, what we see is that there was not one system of control. There were multiple systems of control and based upon that we see that there was better cross accountability because there would not be a perpetual form of ownership which would be controlling the assets of the company. Sometimes it could be the majority stakeholders, sometimes it could be through a legal instrument defined by the government or by the Securities Exchange Commission, sometimes it could be the minority taking control and sometimes the management itself could be taking control. So, these different variables further ensured that there would be cross accountability and there would be more dependability and there would be more self-discipline existing within the different frameworks and the different stakeholders. Thank you so much.