INTRODUCTION

Corporate governance has become an important aspect into the business environment , important international corporations has been involved in scandals , where significant amount of money is missing and investor have been affected .

Important corporations such as: Enron, HIH, Parmalat and Northern Rocks, claimed bankrupt, it is an indication that corporations should be more transparent

In US as a response of those scandals a new regulation called the Sarbanes Act was adopted, where the main objective is to protect the right of investors.

In the European Union, corporate codes were revised by high level group of company law experts (HLG) in 2002 and some suggestion were given.

In this paper four corporations will be analyse (Enron, HIH, Parmalat and Northern Rocks) with the purpose to see where they were wrong and how corporate governance influenced

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DEFINITION

It seems to be an important issue for the companies’ health. However its definition is not clear as it covers a significant economic phenomena’s, therefore different people give different definitions, reflecting their particulars interest.

OECD says that corporate governance reflects the relationship “between corporate managers, directors and the providers of equity, people and institutions who save and invest their capital to earn a return”. According to Monks and Minow (1995) corporate governance is the relationship along with different participants such as, chief executive officer, management, shareholders, and employees, looking the direction and performance of corporations. Margaret Blair( 1995, p. 19) said “Corporate governance is about "the whole set of legal, cultural, and institutional arrangements that determine what public corporations can do, who controls them, how that control is exercised, and how the risks and return from the activities they undertake are allocated." For this paper I will say that corporate Governance is the system as firms are directed and is related to alignment of information.

From the international point of view, equality, transparency and accountability are all essential concepts for international Corporate Governance. Where equality means that share and stakeholders must received and equal treatment to avoid conflict of interests, transparency is related to the availability of information financial and non- financial; and accountability is seen as the obligation of the board to account the company as corporate body as well as shareholders. In order to ensure those concepts OECD, has promoting to use Corporate Governance specially since 1999 when it was first issued and years later 2004 was revised.

Parts of Corporate Governance

Chief Executive Officer:

Board of directors: make sure shareholders receive stable income, maintaining the balance between interest of the company and shareholders; they suppose to be objective to take decisions.

Management: the organisation strategy is under their responsibility

Shareholders: they can be consider as owners of the company and the source of capital, they delegate decisions to managers through votes

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN THE EU

Corporate Governance has gained importance with the wave of recent corporate scandals, now is considered as an international issue, as poor corporate governance performance can lead in undermined confidence in capital markets.

The EU has different systems of corporate governance, reflecting difference cultures and therefore the difference as companies and industries should be financed.

Over the last ten years corporate governance codes has been adopted at international and national level, always having a concern towards shareholders interest

The European Commission revised in 2001 some of the main corporate governance codes by a high level group of company law experts (HLG) this revision finished in 2002 and it concluded that the European Commission has not the necessity to develop an European corporate governance code, this conclusion might indicate that failures at international firms is not directly related to the standards of corporate governance.

The (HLG) observed that there are some differences related to company law, but not to corporate governance, as they showed significant convergence. However the EU play an important part in corporate governance , due that, some principles still need to be add at EU level and the following suggestions should be taken into consideration:

Enhancing Corporate Governance Disclosure: companies should include into their annual report and accounts information about corporate governance, showing the shareholders rights, composition of the board. Institutional investors should disclosure their investment policy.

Strengthening Shareholders’ rights: electronic facilities should be provided to shareholders, hence they can access to relevant information and even vote in absentia.

Modernising the Board of Directors: To avoid conflicts of interests such as remuneration of directors, decisions should be taken by non- executives or supervisory directors and shareholders should have the facilities to observe how the performance of the company is linked to the remuneration of directors, a drastic suggestion, which I agree with, was directors disqualification across the EU in case of misleading relevant information.

Co-ordinating Corporate Governance Efforts of Members States: As it was said before there are some differences within company law, therefore EU must work to coordinate corporate governance through company law.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN US

As It was said before corporate governance is an issue which is seeing as an international matter, it can be seen by the recent developments in the United States, when the Sarbanes- Oxley Act was adopted in 2002, Due to a series of scandals, the Act has affected the relationship between the board of directors and chief executive as well as in auditor relations, it has resolved some potential conflicts with management. “Section 404 of that Act, for example, generally requires that outside accountants attest to management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal controls and its internal financial reporting procedures”. This regulation has affected the internal culture and control practice of corporations, as a consequence financial information is more accurate and reliable and investors are more confident. In this point it can be argued that corporate governance in US does not need to improve. However the improvements made so far has had some cost as it has increased auditing costs. It is interesting to see how all those changes on regulations improving market integrity might make US less attractive place for companies. In this point a question arise, are all those improvements really needed to avoid failures at international corporations

ENRON CASE:

by 1989 the company started trading with natural gas, four years later trading with electricity as well as derivate financial contracts, by 1999 the company became global trader of oil, electricity and gas through its new Web site, which allowed to trade globally, the stock prices was about $ 48 per share and the next year it increased to $91. In 2001 Enron vice-president started to send anonymous letters to Ken Lay whom was the CEO, the letters were related to some problems that the company was having with some of its partnerships, such as Raptor.

After the attacks on 9/11 the share price plumed to $28 per share and suddenly the company report the a huge loss for more than $610 million, the investigation by the SEC revealed that the company had been overstating it profits for the last 5 years by $586 million and even its auditing firm Arthur Andersen was called by the SEC , in 2002 criminal investigations by the Justice Department began and others companies such as its bank Merrill Lynch were called to testify, therefore share prices went down even to $0.20.

It seems that the senior executives were the guilty ones. However they said their operations were approval by the board of directors and the board of directors claimed that they rely on it auditing firm, many of Enron’s employees were aware about what was going on with the accountability but just one of them Sherron Watkins in anonymous way informed to the CEO.

On top of that outside organizations were involved such as JP Morgan and Citibank as they provided cash to Enron, these banks managed to do those transactions under operation activities which was supported not only by accounting opinions but also by legal opinions; it can be asked in this point if the revision of accounting balances was done ethical and recognized by managers? Where was the corporate governance? It can be said that with stock prices and return increasing, the board of directors were feeling calm and confident, adding that even the auditing firm was giving good feedback, and therefore they did not have reason to reject those opinions.

One of the reasons for Enron’s’ failure can be when the firm changed its business from producer of energy to global market and trader of energy and even financial products. From my point of view the failure of this company was just the lack of honesty as well as not understanding of business due that when the firm adopted its new operations it needed a vast amount of finance and at the end it was a good as it was forecasted, I think that what really is important is the ethical way as individuals act rather than if regulations are good enough or if they have improved enough, in this case financial reports seemed to being according with accounting regulation the firm was using GAAP and even with corporate governance. Enron board of executives was well structured, with non executive directors, yet a clear leader was not identified and the actions from executive management were not effective. The common US structure, in which the board consists of non-executive directors with only the chairman and chief executive representing management, is potentially vulnerable to manipulation of information to directors.

The board of executives were elected by shareholders, relevant information was given to shareholders, and outside auditing was cheeking the firms’ accounting, and therefore once again I say it was most an ethical issue.

After this big scandal, the Sarbanes Oxley Act has taken important steps related to financial reporting and public auditing firms, section 404 of this Act express: “outside accountants attest to management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal controls and its internal financial reporting procedures”.Section 301 express that the outside auditor id not hired anymore by the management or the CFO , hopefully this Act will resolve the some of the conflicts related with management, so far it is seems to be working and not grater action should be taken.

HIH CASE:

This company was the biggest insurance company in Australia; by 2005 one of the major companies in the HIH group was in liquidation and the deficient of the group “as estimated to be between $ 3.6 billion and $5.3 billion”.It was considered the biggest failure in this country, its board of directors did not have enough ability to check what was had been done, the firm assumed that they needed non executive directors, some mistakes were done related to integrity, when the firm took business decisions based in not fair judgement on top of that the audit committee was weakly structured; as in Enron case there was a lack of transparency when relevant facts were not informed to shareholders such as, the failure of the company in the UK and US. This company failed due to that they assaulted the principles of good corporate governance.

PARMALAT CASE:

Parmalat consider as a one of the leader of dairy food claimed bankruptcy in December 2003, the corporate governance of the company was compared with many of the most

Important Italian firms .However it did not comply with the standards of Italian corporate governance best practice.

Parmalat group was mostly controlled by the Tanzi family, the structure of this company is not easy to draw (see appendix 1) especially at international level. However, it is common to see within European groups where an investment company controls almost all the voting rights. According to (Becht, 1997; Melis, 1999) the Italian structure allows and encourages shareholders to monitor what senior management do, it could be said that in this way the problem derivate from the relationship between senior managers and shareholders is reduced.

In Italy companies are monitored by two parts: The board of statuary auditors and external auditing firm

The Board of Statutory Auditors

They check that the decision taken from the board of directors are accorded with the law, they must ensure that instructions given from the company to its subsidiaries are adequate to the law. In Parmalat case it was formed by three members, which is usual by Italian companies. The board of statuary auditors never reported anything wrong, not even when some of the minority shareholders claimed to the board of auditors to answer why no any irregularity had been found

The External Auditing Firm

It is selected by the shareholders, but the board of statuary auditors has voice on it, In Italy the rotation of the auditing firms is compulsory, from 1990 to 1998 Grant Thornton Spa. was the auditing firm and then in 1999 Deloitte & Touche S.p.A. took it place, not even the new auditing firm reported inconsistencies, it can indicated that this rotation is not really effective.

If we compare civil law and common law codes in subjects as the best practice its enforceability is lower in civil codes as Italy (Cuervo , 2002). Parmalat seemed to be following the recommendations, such as, the firm had a special structure which had to deal with institutional investors (Preda code, 1999,2002 para 12), auditing firm (Draghi Reform, 1998, Art. 159), the role of the board of directors (Preda code, para 1), the independent directors (Preda code para 3). However, Parmalat did not follow some of the Italian Corporate governance standards such as, the composition of the board of directors and the internal control committee.

The Italian corporate governance standards are not considered as the highest level in comparison with international level, and probably some improvements need to be done. However, it cannot be said that it was the reason why Parmalat failure. This case can be fitted into the international corporate governance and can be compared with Enron, as well as with some European cases.

Northern Rocks Case

Northern Rocks was initially a mutual building society in 2007 it became a bank, adopting as a strategies, securitisation and funding and it was based wholesale money.

In August last year about £3 billion were withdrawn from the bank, It is interesting to see that months earlier the bank had reported a record profit, and its loan loss was good in comparison with the industry. Its problems began when people started to feel unconfident about what is called mortgage bank security which is associated in large part with developments in the sub-prime mortgage (SPM) market in the USA, therefore once the US housing market started to collapse it affected NR, also its business model started to be in question, as its funding were coming from the money market and they lent money not only to local costumers in Newcastle its loans were available in whole UK throughout agents.

The scandal of this bank could be linked to several aspects such as, it was exposed to low probability – high impact (LPHI), deposit protection in UK, Money Market operations by the Bank of England, financial regulation and corporate governance arrangements.

Its business model exposed the bank to the (LPHI) and its supervisors did not have the sufficient rigor, the increased in the European securitisation (see appendix 2) affect the bank as well. In Corporate governance aspect it would be interesting to see if the board of directors really care about the risk of the bank, apparently the board did not have knowledge about the implication to adopt that unique business model, adding there was a failure in monitoring and the way as risk was appreciate.

Northern Rocks scandal was due to different aspects it was not only a corporate governance issue, however some aspects should be analysis such as, the role of the board of directors particularly at monitoring risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Corporate governance is an important issue for corporations and the OECD has been promoting its use since 1999, it can be definite as: the system as firms are directed and is related to alignment of information.

In 2001 the European Union started to revise corporate governance codes this revision finished in 2002 with the conclusion that there is not the necessity to develop an European corporate governance code, this conclusion might indicate that failures at international firms is not directly related to the standards of corporate governance. However some suggestions should be taken. There is a convergence between European codes, but this revision observed differences within company law codes

In US after some scandals such as Enron improvement has been done under the Sarbanes- Oxley Act was adopted in 2002, and not greater improvement should be done, the failure of Enron can be said was due to the change of the nature of its business, as well as an ethical issue

In HIH case its failure did not happen because they were in the wrong business, its failure is due to that they assaulted some of the good principles of corporate governance.

Parmalat case can be compared with Enron and some other European cases, but once again its failure was not because corporate governance

In Northern Rocks case its failure happened due to different aspects, the boards of directors did not consider the risk of adopting such unique model business.

All those examples indicate that not greater improvements should be done is relation to corporate governance.

REFERENCES

C Yuksel, Recent Developments of Corporate Governance in the Global Economy and the New Turkish Commercial Draft Law Reforms [2008] (3) Available from: http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search [Accessed 4June 2008].

C Coglianese , L Michael, After the Scandals: Changing Relationships in Corporate Governance Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=911653 [Accessed 4June 2008].

A Gudikunst, Enron - A Study of Failures. Availablefrom:http://bryant1.bryant.edu/~facdev/Web%20Sites/newsletter/fall02/agudikunst.htm [Accessed 5June 2008].

FT.com After Enron - agenda for reform 2002. Available from: http://specials.ft.com/afr2002/FT3DD1QQOXC.html [Accessed 7 June 2008].

C Coglianese , L Michael, After the Scandals: Changing Relationships in Corporate Governance. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=911653 [Accessed 4June 2008].

A Mardjono, A tale of corporate governance: lessons why firms fail [2003] (20) Emerald .Available from:http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0510200305.html#0510200305003.png [Accessed 7 June 2008].

T. Llewellyn, The Northern Rock crisis: a multi-dimensional problem waiting to happen [2008] (16). Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/3110160103.pdf [Accessed 7 June 200].

Further Reading

A, Melis., 2005. Corporate Governance Failures: to what extent is Parmalat a particularly Italian Case? Blackwell, 13. Available from: http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113 [Accessed 7 June 2008]

Catherine M. Daily, Dan R. Dalton., 1994.Corporate Governance and the Bankrupt Firm: An Empirical Assessment. Strategic Management Journal 15.Available from: http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113 [Accessed 6 June 2008].

Claessens,Bruno and Stijn., 2007. Corporate Governance and Regulation: Can There Be Too Much of a Good Thing? Available from: http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&theSitePK=469372&piPK=64165421&menuPK=64166093&entityID=000112742_20070514102303 [Accessed 6 June 2008].

Commission of the European Communities, 2003 Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A Plan to Move Forward.

Corporate governance - the effects of US scandals and UK issues. Available from: http://www.manifest.co.uk/news/2002/20021129effects%20of%20US%20scandals%20and%20UK%20issues.htm. [Accessed 4 June 2008].

Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals. Available from: http://www.afajof.org/pdfs/2004program/UPDF/P666_Corporation_Finance.pdf [Accessed 5 June 2008].

http://specials.ft.com/afr2002/FT3DD1QQOXC.html

http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113

Appendix1

Parmalat Ownership structure: a simplified version [image] Available from: http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113

Appendix 2

2005. European securitisation [image]. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTex. Article/Pdf/3110160103.pdf

简介

的业务环境已经成为公司治理的一个重要方面，重要的国际公司已经卷入丑闻，其中缺少重大金额和投资者都受到了影响。

重要的公司，如：安然，帕玛拉特， HIH和北岩，声称破产，这是一个迹象表明，企业应该更加透明

作为响应这些丑闻在美国称为“萨班斯法案”通过了一项新的法规，其中的主要目的是为了保护投资者的权利。

在欧盟，企业代码由平高集团，公司法律专家（ HLG ）在2002年进行了修订，并给出一些建议。

在本文中， 4家公司将看到他们是错的目的，公司治理如何影响分析（安然，帕玛拉特， HIH和北岩）

企业管治定义

这似乎是一个重要的问题，为公司的健康。然而，它的定义是不明确的，因为它涵盖了显着的经济现象，因此，不同的人给予不同的定义，反映了他们的详情权益。

经合组织说，企业管治反映企业管理人员，董事和供应商的权益，个人和机构，储蓄和投资他们的资本赚取回报“之间的关系” 。据僧侣和米诺（1995）公司治理的关系等不同的参与者，行政总裁，管理层，股东和员工一起，寻找企业的发展方向和绩效。玛格丽特·布莱尔（1995年，第19页）说： “公司治理”的一整套法律，文化和制度安排，确定公共企业可以做什么，谁控制他们，如何行使，控制，以及如何在风险和返回从他们的活动进行分配。 “在本文中，我会说，企业管治是系统作为企业进行指导和相关信息对齐。

从国际上看，平等，透明度和问责制是国际公司治理的基本概念。平等意味着份额和利益攸关方必须接收和平等的待遇，以避免利益冲突，透明度有关财务和非财务信息的可用性;被看作是董事会的义务，考虑到公司作为法人和问责以及作为股东。为了确保这些概念经合组织，促进企业管治，特别自1999年以来，当它第一次发行及年后的2004年被修订。

部分企业管治

行政总裁：

董事会：确保股东获得稳定的收入，维护公司和股东利益之间的平衡，他们假设是客观的作出决定。

管理：组织策略是根据其职责

股东：他们的公司作为业主和资金来源可以考虑，他们决定委托经理通过选票

企业管治在欧盟

企业管治的重要性已经获得了最近的公司丑闻浪潮，现在被认为是一个国际问题，公司治理不善的表现可能会导致资本市场信心受挫。

欧盟有不同的公司治理体系，反映不同文化，因此资金应作为企业和行业的差异。

在过去的十年里企业管治守则已通过国际和国家一级，总是有一个对股东利益的关注

欧盟委员会在2001年修订的一些主要企业管治守则由平高集团，公司法律专家（ HLG）本次修订于2002年完成，并得出结论，欧盟委员会还没有必要制定一个欧洲的企业管治守则，结论表明，在国际企业的失败是没有直接关系的企业管治标准。

（ HLG ）指出，有一些分歧“公司法”相关，但不是企业管治，因为他们表现出显着的收敛。然而，欧盟在公司治理中发挥的重要组成部分，由于一些原则，仍然需要在欧盟层面上添加，应考虑以下几点建议：

加强企业管治资料披露：公司应该纳入他们的年度报告及账目中有关企业管治的信息，显示了股东权利，董事会组成。机构投资者应披露其投资策略。

加强股东的权利：电子设备应提供给股东，因此，他们可以访问相关信息，甚至缺席投票。

董事会：为了避免冲突的利益，如董事酬金现代化，决定应采取非执行董事或监事及股东应具备的设施，以观察公司业绩挂钩的薪酬如何，急剧的建议，我是同意的，是整个欧盟的误导有关信息的情况下董事取消资格。

统筹企业管治成员国的努力：有人说之前，公司内部法存在一定的差异，因此欧盟必须努力协调企业通过公司治理法律。

在美国的企业管治

有人说公司治理是一个问题，这是因为一个国际问题之前，可以看出在美国最近的事态发展，于2002年通过的“萨班斯 - 奥克斯利法案”时，由于一系列的丑闻，法已经影响到了董事会董事及行政总裁，以及核数师关系之间的关系，它解决一些潜在的冲突管理。 “该法第404条，例如，通常需要外部会计师证明管理层评估其内部控制的有效性，其内部财务申报程序” 。这一规定影响公司内部培养和控制实践，因此金融信息更准确，可靠和投资者更有信心。在这一点上，可以说，在美国的公司治理并不需要提高。然而，所做的改进，到目前为止，已经有一些成本，因为它增加了审计成本。有趣的是，看到所有这些变化对法规，提高市场诚信如何可能使美国公司有吸引力的地方。在这一点上出现的问题，都是那些真正需要的改进，以避免故障在国际企业

安然事件：

到1989年，该公司开始与天然气贸易，四年后的电力交易，以及衍生金融合约， 1999年该公司成为全球石油，电力和天然气交易商通过其新的网站，这使得全球的贸易，股票价格是每股48美元左右，明年增加至9100 。在2001年，安然公司的副总裁开始发送匿名信肯莱谁是CEO ，字母相关的一些问题，该公司有一些它的合作伙伴关系，如猛禽。

在9/11袭击后的股价羽至每股28美元，并突然该公司报告的一个巨大的损失更超过$第610笔资料万，由美国证券交易委员会的调查结果显示，该公司已经拔高它的利润为过去5年由$ 5.86亿甚至其审计公司安达信被称为美国证券交易委员会，在2002年由司法部刑事调查开始和其他公司如银美林被召来作证，因此份额价格下跌，甚至0.20美元。

似乎高管们有罪的。但是他们说，他们的业务进行的董事会董事和董事会批准声称，他们依靠它的审计事务所，很多安然的员工是知道什么是要对与问责，但只是其中之一谢伦·沃特金斯以匿名的方式通知的CEO 。

在顶部，外部组织参与，如摩根大通和花旗银行为他们提供现金安然，这些银行做这些交易不仅支持会计意见，但也受到法律意见根据经营活动的，它可以问此时若修订会计结余进行伦理和管理者的认可呢？公司治理在哪里？可以说，股票价格和回报的增加，董事会平静和自信的感觉，甚至审计事务所提供良好的反馈，因此他们没有理由拒绝那些意见。

安然失败的原因之一是，当企业改变其业务的能源生产国的能源，甚至金融产品的全球市场和贸易商。从我的角度来看，这家公司的失败只是诚信的缺乏，以及企业因不理解，当企业通过其新的业务，它需要大量的金融和结束时，它是一个很好的，因为它是预测，我认为真正重要的是作为个人道德的方式，而不是采取行动，如果法规是不够好，或者如果他们有足够的改善，在这种情况下，财务报告似乎正在按照会计监管公司使用美国通用会计准则，甚至与企业管治。安然板高管结构良好，非执行董事，但没有确定一个明确的领导者和执行管理的行动并没有有效。美国常见的结构，其中，董事会由非执行董事，只有董事长兼首席执行代表的管理，是可能受到操纵信息董事。

高管由股东选出董事会，相关信息提供给股东，验线和外部审计公司的会计，因此我再一次说，这是一个道德问题。

这个大丑闻后，萨班斯奥克斯利法案有关财务报告和公共审计事务所，该法快递404节的重要步骤： “外部会计师证明管理层评估其内部控制的有效性和其内部财务申报程序”第301号没有聘请外部审计了由管理或财务总监，希望该法案将解决一些冲突与管理，到目前为止，这是似乎是工作不刨应采取行动。

HIH CASE ：

这家公司是澳大利亚最大的保险企业，由2005年HIH组主要公司之一，在清算和组“作为估计到是美元之间， 3.6亿美元及5.3亿美元”的缺乏。它被认为是最大的失败在这个国家，其董事会并没有足够的能力去检查已经做了，该公司认为，他们需要非执行董事，以诚信，当企业商业决策中的不公平判决进行一些错误之上，审计委员会弱结构;在安然案件有关的事实时，没有被告知股东，该公司在英国和美国的失败是缺乏透明度。这家公司失败的原因，他们袭击了良好的企业管治原则。

PARMALAT CASE ：

帕玛拉特考虑作为乳品的领导者之一，在2003年12月宣布破产，该公司的企业管治进行了比较与许多最

重要的意大利公司。然而，它没有遵守与意大利公司治理的最佳实践的标准。

帕玛拉特组大多坦齐家族控制，这家公司的结构是不容易的，尤其是在国际层面绘制（见附件1 ） 。然而，这是一家投资公司，控制几乎所有的投票权的欧洲团体内经常可以看到。 （ Becht的，1997年;梅利斯，1999年） ，意大利的结构允许并鼓励股东监督高级管理人员做什么，可以说，在这样的问题衍生的高级管理人员和股东之间的关系降低。

在意大利公司是由两部分组成：董事会雕像审计和外部审计机构监控

法定审计委员会

他们检查，从董事会作出的决定符合法律规定，从公司及其附属公司的指示，他们必须确保有足够的法律。在帕玛拉特的情况下，它是由三名成员组成，通常是由意大利公司。董事会法定核数师，从来没有报什么错，即使是在一些少数股东声称回答为什么没有被发现任何异常情况，审计委员会

外部审计师事务所

它被选中的股东，但，董事会法定核数师的声音就可以了，在意大利，旋转的审计事务所是强制性的，从1990年到1998年均富温泉。被审计公司，然后在1999年德勤会计师事务所SPA把它的地方，甚至没有新的审计事务所的报告不一致，它可以表明，这种旋转是不是真的有效。

如果我们比较大陆法系和英美法码的科目作为最佳实践其可执行性是较低的意大利民法典（金快活，2002年） 。帕玛拉特似乎是继建议，例如，该公司有一个特殊的结构不得不面对与机构投资者（普雷达代码，股市88年，91年底第12段） ，审计师事务所（德拉吉改革， 1998年，第159 ） ，作用董事会（普雷达代码，第1段） ，独立董事（普雷达代码第3段） 。然而，帕玛拉特没有按照一些意大利企业管治标准，例如，董事会的组成和内部控制委员会。

的意大利企业管治标准不视为最高水平与国际先进水平相比，可能需要做一些改进。然而，不能说，这是帕玛拉特故障原因。这种情况下可以被安装到国际企业管治，可与安然，以及与一些欧洲的情况下。

北岩案例

北岩最初是一个相互的社会建设于2007年，它成为了一个银行，作为一种策略，证券和资金，并采用基于批发货币。

在去年8月英镑3亿从银行提取的，它是有趣的，看看个月银行早些时候报告了创纪录的利润，和同行业相比，其贷款损失。它的问题开始，当人们开始感到不自信什么叫抵押贷款银行的安全性，这在很大程度上与相关的次级抵押贷款（ SPM ）在美国市场，因此发展，一旦美国房地产市场开始崩溃，它影响NR ，其业务模式也开始成为问题，因为其资金来自货币市场和他们借钱，不仅整个剂，其贷款在整个英国纽卡斯尔当地的costumers 。

可能与这家银行的丑闻等几个方面，它被暴露概率低 - 高的影响（ LPHI ） ，英国存款保障，由英格兰银行货币市场操作，金融监管和公司治理安排。

其业务模式暴露了银行（ LPHI ）和监事均未有足够的严谨性，增加在欧洲的证券（见附件2）以及影响到银行。在公司治理方面，这将是有趣的，看看如果董事会真正关心银行的风险，董事会显然没有知识的寓意，采用独特的商业模式，在出现故障的监控和作为风险的方式是欣赏。

北岩丑闻是因为它不仅是一个公司治理问题的不同方面，但有些方面应该分析，如董事会的作用，特别是在风险监控。

结论

公司治理是企业和自1999年以来，经合组织一直促进其使用的一个重要问题，它可以明确为：系统为企业进行指导和相关信息对齐。

在2001年，欧盟开始于2002年完成本次修订的结论是，有没有必要制定一个欧洲的企业管治守则，这个结论可能表明，在国际企业的失败是没有直接关系到标准的修订企业管治守则企业管治。然而，一些建议应采取。欧洲代码之间有收敛，但本次修订公司法典内观察到的差异

后在美国已经做了一些丑闻，如安然改善下的“萨班斯 - 奥克斯利法案”于2002年通过，并没有较大的改进应该做，可以说是安然的失败是由于其业务性质的变化，以及一个道德问题

在HIH的情况下它的失败并没有发生，因为他们是在错误的业务，它的失败是因为他们袭击的良好企业管治原则。

帕玛拉特的情况下，可与安然和其他一些欧洲的案例相比，却一次又一次的失败是不是因为公司治理

在北岩的情况下由于不同的方面，其发生故障的董事会没有考虑采用这种独特的模型业务的风险。

所有这些例子表明，没有更大的改进应该做的是有关公司治理的。

参考

Ç YUKSEL ，最近全球经济中的企业管治的发展和新的土耳其商业法（草案） [2008] （3）改革： http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search [访问4June 2008 ]。

Ç Coglianese迈克尔，L ，后丑闻：改变企业管治的关系： http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=911653 [ 2008年4June ] 。

à Gudikunst的，安然 - 研究失败。 Availablefrom ： http://bryant1.bryant.edu/ ～ facdev /网页％ 20Sites/newsletter/fall02/agudikunst.htm [ 2008年5June ] 。

FT.com后安然 - 2002年改革议程。可从http://specials.ft.com/afr2002/FT3DD1QQOXC.html [ 2008年6月7日]。

Ç Coglianese迈克尔，L ，后丑闻：改变企业管治的关系。 ： http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=911653 [访问4June 2008 ]。

 Mardjono的企业管治，一个故事：企业为什么失败的教训[ 2003]（ 20 ）绿宝石可用[ 2008年6月7日] 。

T.卢埃林，北岩银行危机：一个多维的问题，等待发生的[2008] （16） 。可从： [ 200] 6月7日。

进一步阅读

A，梅利斯，2005 。企业管治失败：到什么程度帕玛拉特特别是意大利的情况下？布莱克韦尔13 。可从： http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113 [ 2008年6月7日]

凯瑟琳M.日报“ ， ”丹·道尔顿。 ， 1994.Corporate的治理和破产的公司的实证评估。战略管理杂志15.Available从： http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113 [ 6月6日] 。

克拉森，布鲁诺和Stijn ， 2007 。公司治理和监管：可以有太多的好东西呢？可从： [ 2008年6月6日] 。

欧洲共同体， 2003年追上时代“公司法”及加强企业管治在欧盟 - 前进计划委员会。

企业管治 - 美国丑闻和英国的问题的影响。 ： http://www.manifest.co.uk/news/2002/20021129effects ％ 20of ％ 20US ％ 20scandals ％ 20和％ 20UK ％ 20issues.htm 。 [ 2008年6月4日] 。

公司治理与会计丑闻。 http://www.afajof.org/pdfs/2004program/UPDF/P666_Corporation_Finance.pdf [ 6月5日]。

http://specials.ft.com/afr2002/FT3DD1QQOXC.html

http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113

附录

帕玛拉特股权结构：一个简化版本[图片] ： http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search?cid=12113

附录2

2005年。欧洲证券[图片] 。可从： http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTex 。 Article/Pdf/3110160103.pdf