 We are moving forward with the international interventions and we already have looked at so many and in the last session we were looking at the combined code and also its different implications. So, now we are going to move forward and we are going to talk about the Turnbull and the Blue Ribbon Committee. Now both of these two different committees basically were formulated to take the Cadbury report forward and also look at how the combined code of corporate governance could be implemented in a better way. Now, the Turnbull Committee basically looked at the different stipulations in the UK system while the Blue Ribbon Committee looked at how corporate governance could be practiced in a better way in the USA. So, we see that these are two different committees but they do have certain overlaps which we will be looking at and then we will be taking it a little bit forward. So, ladies and gentlemen, what we see is that corporate governance is not something which is static. Corporate governance is dynamic and thus needs to be altered with changes. So, we see that the Turnbull Committee was set up by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in 1999. So, this was a flow forward what we see that the 90s was a very interesting area for corporate governance and in that area we see that in the early 80s, the mid-80s and then in the late 1990s, we see that all of these different committees constituted developments and also refinement of the Cadbury Committee and its implementation. So, what we see is that the Turnbull Committee was set up to provide guidance to assist companies in implementing the requirements of combined code related to internal control. So, that was what I was saying earlier that basically it was guidelines that how can we make sure that these different recommendations are implemented in a better way. Now, when we look at the committee, then this committee provided guidance to assist companies in implementing the requirements of the combined code relating to internal control. They also recommended that where companies do not have an internal control function, the board should consider the need for carrying out internal audit annually. So, again on one hand, we see the implementation and the roll out of the combined code in the different companies and corporate structures and secondly, if they do not have internal control departments or mechanisms, then how internal audits could be conducted on an annual basis. So, both different options were different to different corporate bodies. Now, basically the Turnbull Committee recommended that the Board of Directors confirm the existence of procedures for evaluating and managing key risks. So, just like earlier mentioned in the earlier session that on one hand, we are talking about internal control mechanisms. On the other, we are talking about effectiveness of the organization and most importantly, we are talking about its futures to risk management and managing key risks which became a mainstay for the Board of Directors to ensure that the companies become sustainable, remain healthy and continually grow in the corporate world. Now, across the ocean, what we see is that the Blue Ribbon Committee also came into existence and that basically was a consequence of the 1995 Private Security Litigation Act and in this particular Litigation Act, what we see is that the number of litigation and the number of suits against corporations greatly enhanced and therefore, there was a need to see how the corporations would respond to it and what we see is that there were more allegations of accounting manipulation as compared to earlier disclosure based allegations as the primary grounds of complaint. So, we see that before the 1995 Private Security Litigation Act, we see that before it was basically complaints which were on disclosure based allegations while after this particular act, we see that it becomes accounting manipulation or accounting window dressing. So, that became a main area of concern and also a main focus for different stakeholders and also third parties to see how different organizations were basically functioning. Now, to overcome this particular problem, the Securities Exchange Commission in the US set up the Blue Ribbon Committee under the Chairman of Mr. Levitt in 1998. So, very close to the committee which was set up in England to ensure that there is better implementation of the different stipulations of the Code of Conduct and we see that all of this was done to improve the financial reporting by strengthening the effectiveness of audit committee. So, that was the main focus and the organizations basically started moving in this particular direction based upon the Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations and they were basically that all listed companies over a certain size would have audit committees comprising of entirely independent directors. Secondly, they would also be independent. They would not be of any relative. They would not be receiving any compensation and the only thing that they could receive was a director's fee. So, this also ensured that there was no conflict of interest and there would be lesser manipulation through the different you can say benefits which were given to the directors and they would remain independent. Now, another thing was that for small firms, a minimum of three audit committee directors was also recommended and financial literacy was also mandatory so that they would be able to understand financial statements and would be able to demonstrate accounting expertise and that would ensure that these committee members would have a minimum accounting qualification which could be a CPA certification, could be a position as a CEO or a senior officer or they would also have some financial or accounting background and this would enable them to have better financial oversight and responsibilities. Now, we see that the need of a formal charter for audit committee in that there must be a formal charter to disclose the status of the charter. So, that also was incorporated within the Code of Conduct for all of the companies. The responsibilities and activities of the audit committee basically active in the selection and retention of the statutory auditor, one of the major responsibilities regularly evaluate the auditor's independence and then have discussions on the review related issues with the auditor. So, the organizations basically started evolving and made their internal audit and also the internal audit department and also the board of directors in which they would be independent audit related directors all of it independent so that they would be like a third party over viewing the different performance and activities of a particular company. So, that basically ensured that they would be better regulation, they would be better stipulations, they would be better accountability, they would be better transparency and then most importantly the future risk element was also considered and then dovetailed with a proper structure within the organization and also within the board and then making the board directors related to financial literacy independent and then ensuring that they would be a trickle down effect in the whole organization. So, by that way we see the consolidation of the Cadbury report and the consolidation of corporate governance. Thank you so much.