Categories
Corporate

Learn to draft a loan agreement like a pro

DeekshaSinghLoan agreements, like most commercial agreements, have a standard structure that must be moulded and adapted to suit specific transactions. In corporate lending, that is, where a bank is lending to a company, the amounts involved tend to be substantial and both the bank and the borrower will typically have legal representation. The bank’s lawyers usually draft the first version of the loan documents and the borrower’s lawyers review and negotiate the terms of the agreement on behalf of the borrower.

Remember, a loan agreement goes through many rounds of discussions and negotiation. A drafting lawyer must be prepared to rework the draft several times.

Term sheet

Before the lawyers begin drafting, the bank and the borrower enter into a term sheet that lays down the key commercial points that they have agreed upon in relation to the loan. Referred to as a financing term sheet, it is the basis for the legally binding documents that the lawyers have to draft. Generally, it covers only the more important aspects of a deal, without going into every detail covered in a binding contract. Typically, the authority or committee within a bank that reviews and approves loan proposals also considers financing term sheets.

Facility agreement

Often, a corporate loan is also called a ‘facility’ provided by the bank to the borrowing company and so, a corporate loan agreement is also known as a facility agreement.

A facility agreement between the bank and the borrower sets out the terms laid out in the term sheet in the form of a binding legal agreement. It contains the details of the loan, the manner in which the loan will operate, and the terms and conditions that have to be fulfilled by the parties to the agreement.

Each facility agreement is different and is drafted bearing in mind the nature of the facility. While there are several ways of drafting facility agreements, all of them can be divided into the following key sections—introductory, interpretation, operational, terms and conditions, and boilerplate clauses.

The introductory section

APCCLP_CompanyLaw-BannerAt the beginning of a facility agreement, the introductory section contains all the vital information that sets up the contract. This is typically the part where the drafter tells the reader what is being communicated, and what will be contained within the body of the contract.

The title, the exordium, the recitals, and the table of contents, which are items that are found at the beginning of most commercial agreements, are placed at the beginning of a facility agreement also.

The interpretation section

Every facility agreement also needs a separate section defining the special terms used in the agreement, or terms that are used in a particular way in the agreement. Typically, in facility agreements in India, definitions are provided at the beginning.

This section should be accurately drafted as it will significantly impact the way in which key clauses in the agreement operate. Many definitions are common to all facility agreements, but they can have minor variations depending on the specific transaction. It is, therefore, important for the drafter to tailor the definitions to suit the term sheet.

Most facility agreements will define terms like “Borrower”, “Obligor”, “Material Adverse Effect”, and “Event of Default”. A drafter must examine the terms of the particular loan transaction and determine how they should be defined.

In addition to a definitions section, a facility agreement can also contain a section that sets out specific rules for interpreting the agreement. These rules apply through the document.

The operational section

DraftingCreditFacilityAgreementsThis is the section of the facility agreement that deals with the operational details of the loan, that is, the amount of the loan, the term and purpose of the loan, how the loan will be drawn by the borrower, the repayment schedule, the details of payment of interest, conditions relating to prepayment of the loan, and so on. Obviously, these details are transaction-specific and the drafter will need to rely on the commercial understanding contained in the term sheet to draft the clauses in this section.

Terms and conditions

The terms and conditions section of a facility agreement is transaction-specific and contains the terms and conditions based on which the lender agrees to give a loan to the borrower. These terms and conditions differ among agreements and include both generic conditions that any lender would ask of a borrower—such as the borrower’s capacity to take the loan—as well as conditions that specifically relate to the facts and circumstances of that particular facility. An example of a specific condition is one where the borrower has to obtain the necessary environmental approvals, if the loan is for setting up a power plant.

Broadly, the provisions in this section can be categorised as representations and warranties, undertakings, events of default, and consequences of events of default. This section also includes provisions protecting the bank from changes in circumstances that could affect the loan.

Representations and warranties

The representations and warranties in a facility agreement typically focus on issues such as:

– Whether the borrower is a legally incorporated entity, carrying on business legally, and is duly authorised to take the loan and enter into the agreement;

– Whether the loan agreement and other finance documents for the transaction will be valid, admissible as evidence, duly stamped or registered, and binding on the borrower;

– Whether the borrower has committed any default in relation to the loan or has committed any default that could impact the loan;

– Whether all the information, including financial statements, that the borrower provided to the lender, are true, accurate, and in the form that the lender requires;

– Whether the rights of the lender under the loan agreement or the security documents are in any way subordinated to any other creditor of the borrower;

– Whether the borrower has any legal proceedings pending against it that could affect the borrower’s business or its ability to repay the lender; and

– Whether the assets offered to the lender as security are legally owned by the borrower, and whether they are free of any existing encumbrances.

Covenants

Covenants or undertakings are provisions in the loan agreement that relate to actions that the borrower company is required to carry out (known as affirmative covenants), or prohibited from carrying out without obtaining prior consent from the bank (known as negative covenants). These can also be financial covenants, which  set out parameters for the borrower to follow during the tenure of the loan. Typically, this section contains some specific financial definitions provided by the bank, based on which the bank intends to judge the financial performance of the borrower. The breach of these covenants can be an immediate event of default.

Events of default and consequences

InfrastructureLawThe section on events of default tends to be extensive, in order to protect the interests of the bank in the best way possible. Broadly, events of default focus on the following key points:

– Events relating to the loan agreement: Naturally, any non-payment of any amount due to the bank, any breach of, or any misrepresentation under the loan agreement will be considered an event of default by the lender. Similarly, any breach, or misrepresentation in relation to the security documents will also be included as an event of default.

– Events relating to the borrower: There will also be some other events, which affect the borrower’s ability to repay the loan that will be included as events of default. These include cross-default provisions that consider non-payment by the borrower in other loans as a default, any events in relation to the insolvency of the borrower, the cessation of business by the borrower, any illegal activity by the borrower, and so on.

Since loan agreements tend to be fairly one-sided documents, where the obligations remain primarily on the borrower, events of default are usually linked only to breaches by the borrower and not by the lender.

Deeksha Singh is part of the faculty on myLaw.net.

Categories
Corporate

Are the Competition Commission’s decisions ‘in rem’?

JSaiDeepakpicAre orders and decisions of the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) judgments in rem, or do they only bind the parties to a particular dispute? Take a scenario where the CCI has ultimately held that an agreement between X with Y is anti-competitive under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.

1. Would the finding apply to an identical agreement between X and Z, which the parties entered into after the CCI made its finding? Would it apply to an identical agreement between X and P, which the parties entered into before the CCI’s finding?

2. Would the finding apply to identical or similar agreements between A and B, which the parties entered into, either before or after the CCI’s finding?

Section 3 of the Act which deals with anti-competitive agreements, Section 4 which deals with abuse of dominant position, and Section 6 which deals with the regulation of combinations, attempts to proscribe or forbid certain types of behaviour which have an adverse bearing on competition in the market. The focus is on the behaviour of the entities, as opposed to the entities themselves. It could be said therefore, that a finding that a certain clause or transaction or practice is anti-competitive or abusive could apply to third party enterprises indulging in identical or similar practices, even if they were strangers to the earlier proceedings. To that extent, it could be said that the CCI is laying down the law on legally acceptable behaviour in the market.

However, practically, does this mean the CCI can forego investigation and proceed to declare as anti-competitive, the agreements between X and Z, or X and P, or A and B? Sections 42A and 53N help address these questions.

Section42ACompetitionActSection53NCompetitionAct _awardingcompensation

Comparing Sections 42A and 53N 

Section 42A applies to the violation of specific directions or orders issued against a specific enterprise, whereas Section 53N applies to situations covered by Section 42A as well as to subsequent violations of Chapter II of the Act (which contains Sections 3, 4, and 6) by the same enterprise. In other words, the scope of Section 53N is broader. In both instances, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (“COMPAT”) decides applications for compensation.

Under both provisions, an application for compensation may be moved by “any person” who is aggrieved either by a violation of the CCI’s directions or orders by the enterprise against which they were issued, or by a violation of the Act itself by such an enterprise, subsequent to and prior to the date of its conduct being declared as anti-competitive by the CCI or the COMPAT.

Critically, Section 53N(1) read with the Explanation (a) to Section 53N answers the queries raised in the APCCLP_CompanyLaw-Bannerpost. An application for compensation against an enterprise such as X may be moved only after its conduct has been found violative of the Act either by the CCI orthe COMPAT. It can be moved by “any person” who has suffered damage or loss as a result of the conduct. Therefore, if X’s conduct in relation to Y has been found anti-competitive, and X has entered into identical or similar transactions with P and Z in the past or the future, Y,P, and Z may all apply to COMPAT for compensation against X.

However, as the explanation implicitly clarifies, the finding with respect to X’s conduct cannot be directly applied or extended to an agreement between A and B, even if the agreement is identical or similar to the X’s agreement with Y, until it is determined afresh by the CCI or COMPAT (in appeal) that such agreement between A and B is violative of the Act.

Simply put, if the conduct of a party has been found to be violative of the Act, the Commission need not revisit the illegality of the party’s conduct over and over again in order to award compensation to parties affected by the party’s conduct. However, if a stranger to the earlier proceedings indulges in identical or similar conduct, it needs to be investigated and a fresh finding must be arrived at.

Another important caveat is that if a party’s conduct involves abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Act, it may not be possible to extend the findings arrived at in one case to past or future conduct since it would need to be ascertained if the party was in a position of dominance during each of the impugned transactions. This is because under Section 4, only the conduct of dominant parties may be investigated. Therefore, if a party is no longer dominant at the time of the subsequent transaction, the earlier finding may not be valid, which means a fresh investigation is necessary to arrive at the finding of abuse of dominance.

J. Sai Deepak, an engineer-turned-litigator, is a Senior Associate in the litigation team of Saikrishna & Associates. He is @jsaideepak on Twitter and the founder of “The Demanding Mistress” blawg. All opinions expressed here are academic and personal.

Categories
Corporate

Learn to structure and communicate a good due diligence report

Drafting_for_Business_Deepa_Mookerjee.jpgIn my last post here, I listed out some points that are important for a due diligence exercise. Completing the investigation (or the due diligence) however is just half the job. The latter half – often more confusing – is to organise all the information you have collected in a structured manner and communicate it effectively to your client.

Before starting to draft, determine the type of due diligence report your client wants. Typically, though there is no formal classification, there are two types of due diligence reports.

A comprehensive due diligence report

You will come across this type more frequently. Many pages long, often going into hundreds of pages, it will contain all the information that you have found from your investigations about the company. It is usually divided into many chapters, each containing information about a specific part of the company.

Generally the chapters include:

Corporate information: This chapter contains details about all corporate matters related to the target company, including its date of incorporation, number of directors, provisions in the articles of association, corporate compliances, and key decisions of the board and the shareholders.

– Litigation: This chapter lays out the details of all the litigation pending against, and filed by, the target company and their impact on the transaction, if such litigation is decided against the target company.

– Material agreements: Here, all the material agreements that a company has with its suppliers, consumers, and retailers, are reviewed to understand the important terms of such agreements, and determine whether there are any particular clauses that will hinder the transaction.

– Human resources: Here, a broad overview is provided of the employee structure, the key employees, their terms of employment, and conditions of their contracts.

– Financial information or indebtedness: In this chapter, all information about loans or financial indebtedness of the company is reviewed, and key issues such as requirement of consents from lenders, and restrictions on transfer of shares or assets, are highlighted.

– Compliances: In this chapter, there is a detailed investigation into the registration and licenses required under law to carry on the business of the company. Information regarding all statutory compliances is found in this chapter.

– Property: Information about all property (movable and immovable), whether owned or leased by the company, and their terms and conditions, is reviewed and outlined in this chapter.

– Intellectual property law issues: This is important if the target company has registered trademarks, copyrights, or patents. All documents in relation to their registration, ownership, or assignment are analysed, to examine any restrictions present on such intellectual property rights.

– Environmental law issues: If the target company is a manufacturing, construction, or engineering company, acquirers ensure that the company is in compliance with all environmental statutes in India and does not violate any pollution standards that have been prescribed.

– Insurance law issues: This chapter outlines the insurance policies taken by the target company, to provide the acquirer with a general idea of the protection available to the target company.

Since such a report runs into many pages, a client often asks for a separate document listing key issues to accompany this report. The list of key issues is a three-or-four-page document (maybe more depending on the transaction) which only lists out the problem areas of the company and provides concrete suggestions on how to solve these problems. Remember that the client will always want a solution to the problems. It is not enough to only identify the problems in the company. As a lawyer it is your duty to provide a solution. Therefore, while drafting, take some time out to think clearly about the manner in which a particular problem can be solved, and then specify that.

An “exceptions only” due diligence reportAPCCLP_CompanyLaw-Banner

Here, a lawyer is only supposed to list out the problem areas or issues with the company. The due diligence report will have language to the effect that “everything is in order with the company except the following…”. This is a report where the client assumes that all the items are in order except those listed in the report. The only problems with the company or its operations are those identified in the report. In other words, while drafting, you will only list out the problems with the company that you have investigated. You will not spend your time stating facts about the company that are in order.

In a comprehensive due diligence report, you will provide the client with all the facts (whether they are in order or not). You will obviously identify problem areas specifically but provide a complete picture as well. In an “exceptions only” report, the client will assume everything is in order except those issues that you have mentioned. Reports like this are becoming common and clients often ask for such reports as they are more concise and much easier to plough through.

Obviously the manner in which you will draft will depend upon the type of report that your client asking for. However, there are some basic drafting points to keep in mind for any report. See the image below.

DraftingaDueDiligenceReport_DosAndDon'tsKeep these points in mind while drafting your report. While some of these seem very simple and obvious, browsing through it before starting to draft will always help refresh your memory and hold you in good stead in your career as a commercial lawyer.

(Deepa Mookerjee is part of the faculty on myLaw.net.)

Categories
Corporate

[Infographic] Companies Act, 2013: Board of directors and board committees in Public Unlisted Companies

DeekshaSinghIn my last post, I had looked at the bare minimum requirements for the board of directors from different types of companies under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”).

In this post, let us take a look at specific requirements that apply to unlisted public companies. There are various thresholds specified in different sections of the Act, which aim at making larger companies subject to more stringent corporate governance requirements.

Here we can see a graphic representation of the different thresholds applicable to the composition of the board of directors of unlisted public companies.

PublicUnlistedCompanies_CompositionofBoard01These thresholds also apply to the committees of the board of directors. Here is a simple checklist depicting the companies, which must mandatorily set up certain committees.

PublicUnlistedCompanies_BoardCommittees

Remember that the Audit Committee must have a minimum of three directors, the majority of whom should be independent directors. The Nomination and Remuneration Committee must be composed of three or more non-executive directors, the majority of whom should be independent directors. The chairperson of the Stakeholders Relationship Committee must be a non-executive director.

AdvancedProfessionalCertificationinCorporateLawPractice_apcclp

Categories
Corporate

A brief history of board independence in corporate governance

CompanyLawMatters_TanikellaRastogi_2At the outset, it is important to note that corporate governance primarily concerns itself with public companies. The balancing of profit making with public or shareholder interests assumes legislative importance where the public are substantially interested in a corporation or where the shareholders are greatly dispersed. Such companies are invariably listed companies, that is, their securities are available on specified markets for purchase by all members of the public.

The board as interlocutor

In our previous article here, we outlined the evolution and purpose of the board of directors (“BoD”). We understood how the BoD, placed between shareholders and the executive management, is primarily a tool to resolve agency problems that arise to shareholders because of the diversification of ownership and control. Briefly summarised, the agency problems of a corporation are threefold: (a) conflicts between shareholders and management, (b) conflicts between majority and minority shareholders, and (c) conflicts between the controllers (majority shareholders or the management) and other stakeholders (such as creditors, clients, and regulators).

APCCLP_CompanyLaw-BannerThe role of corporate governance and law is therefore to effectively manage these conflicts. The BoD makes high-level decisions and monitors the performance of the management. It acts as a key interlocutor in the process of effective monitoring and resolution of these agency problems. The structure and organisation of the BoD assumes importance in addressing these problems. Historically, the BoD has been composed of the representatives of controlling shareholders, executive management, and at times, non-executive persons (who were representatives of other stakeholders such as creditors), people of prominence, or people otherwise affiliated to the company. This mix, although representative of the corporation, does not by itself eliminate the possibility of the functioning of the BoD being captured by the controlling constituents, that is, the controlling shareholders or the executive management, whichever has greater control of the corporation either through ownership or decision-making. This may lead to the decisions of the BoD being challenged by stakeholders on account of conflict of interest. In these situations it is likely that such decisions will be invalidated by courts or under law as it is difficult for a BoD composed in such a manner to demonstrate independence of judgment in cases where conflict is alleged by the affected stakeholders.

The prescription of non-executive and independent decision-making

Globally, the modern composition mandate of the BoD prescribes a mix of constituents including shareholder representatives, executive directors, and non-executive and independent directors (“IDs”). This mix has its origins in the corporate jurisprudence of the United States and the United Kingdom, self-regulation by stock exchanges, and legislation. The prescription for non-executive and independent directors in the U.S. was formed as a response to judicial decisions that gave weight to the non-executive and independent character of decisions in evaluating the proper discharge of the fiduciary duties of the BoD in situations of conflict such as self-dealing transactions and takeovers and business reorganisations. Corporate and accounting scandals such as those related to Enron and Worldcom further brought the failure of proper BoD oversight and action under public scrutiny and led to the mandatory prescription under the Sarbanes-Oaxley Act, 2002 (“SoX”). In the U.K., the concept of board independence dates back to the establishment of committees studying corporate governance beginning with the Cadbury Committee Report, 1992 and culminating with the consolidated Combined Code on Corporate Governance, 2008. Thus, the need for board independence that we have discussed in the previous paragraph, rose sharply after various multinational corporate failures resulting mainly from poor executive decision making, non-compliance with good company practices, and the internal corruption that ultimately reflected inefficient and conflicted board oversight.

Board independence in India

In India, the Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has spearheaded the adoption of board independence starting with the Kumar Mangalam Birla Report, 2000 which was followed by the Narayan Murthy Report, 2004. The mandatory prescription of board independence in the form of requiring a certain number of non-executive and independent directors was achieved via self-regulation in the form of Clause 49 of the listing agreement between the stock exchange and the companies. The Companies Act, 1956 was silent on the aspects of board independence and general directorial responsibilities.

RamalingaRaju_KumarMangalamBirla_NarayanaMurthy
Three influential figures in the development of the corporate governance regime in India – Ramalinga Raju, Kumar Mangalam Birla, and Narayana Murthy.

In the wake of corporate governance failures such as those involving Satyam, further reform has been brought in place by the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”), which now provides a legislative mandate for board independence, prescribes duties and responsibilities for the BoD, and fixes accountability on the actions of the BoD.

Importantly, the Act is the first Indian legislation to require corporate governance in the form of board independence not only from listed companies but also on public companies that (a) have a paid-up share capital of at least ten crore rupees, (b) have a turnover of at least one hundred crore rupees, or (c) have in aggregate outstanding loans, debentures, and deposits exceeding fifty crore rupees. Under the Act, listed public companies have to have at least one-third of its BoD consisting of IDs and the public companies (meeting the aforementioned criteria) are required to have at least two IDs.

The comprehensive and exhaustive criteria of independence for an ‘independent director’ (Section 2(47) read with Section 149(6) of the Act), which were missing from the Companies Act, 1956 are objective as well as subjective. One objective qualification to be an independent director is that a person cannot have any interests, pecuniary or real, in the company or its affiliates or with the promoters, directly or indirectly. The criteria that one must be a ‘person of integrity’ and ‘possess relevant expertise and experience’ are, on the other hand, subjective. The criteria also takes care to prohibit service providers such as accountants and legal professionals who meet specified thresholds in the form of pecuniary or transactional relationships with the company. It may be noted here that the Act for the first time lays down limits on the number of directorships an individual may hold simultaneously, namely, twenty for private companies and ten for public companies.

The roles and responsibilities of the IDs are expressly incorporated in Schedule IV of the Act. The Act mandates that the IDs have to exercise their judgments to take fair decisions in the interest of the company and the stakeholders and evaluate whether the BoD and the other directors are taking decisions safeguarding the interests of all the stakeholders. There are also broad guidelines prescribed for the IDs like upholding ethical standards of integrity, acting objectively, devoting sufficient time to ensure balanced decision-making in order to fulfil their duties and obligations such as assisting the company in implementing the best corporate governance practices and even to moderating and arbitrating in the interest of the company in situations of conflict between the interests of the company and shareholders. The Act gives enhanced significance to the role of the IDs to ensure that the companies are encouraged to follow the best corporate governance practices. In this regard, Section 173(3) of the Act requires that if the IDs are absent from any board meeting, any decision that is taken in the meeting shall be final only after it is ratified by at least one independent director. This provision also ensures that the board doesn’t arbitrarily take decisions in the absence of the IDs.

Legal Research AdvertisementBoard independence will be merely symbolic without adequate access to data and information, in the absence of which, even an independent director cannot be expected to discharge his function of oversight and control effectively. In order to ensure that the IDs are provided with enough data and information related to the affairs of the company, the Act mandatorily requires the companies to form various committees like the nomination committee, the remuneration committee, and the audit committee. Provisions have been made to involve the IDs in the decision-making of these committees by providing for conditions such as a minimum number of IDs or an ID as chairman of a committee.

Code VII of the Schedule IV of the Act requires the IDs to convene at least one meeting in a year without the presence of non-IDs and members of management which is called a ‘separate meeting’. The objective of conducting a separate meeting is to allow the IDs to discuss and evaluate the performance of the company, its chairperson, and other directors. It also allows the IDs to assess the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the flow of information between the management of the company and the board of the company which is necessary for effective and reasonable performance of the duties by the BoD. However, the powers of evaluation are reciprocal. The entire board also has the power to evaluate the performance of the IDs and the decision of whether to extend or continue the terms of appointment of the IDs is taken on this basis.

The SEBI has also brought in amendments to board independence requirements under the Model Listing Agreement to align it with the Act and adopt “best practices on corporate governance”. The provisions of Section 149(3) of the Act have been replicated by the SEBI in Clause 49(II)(B) of the Listing Agreement. The listing agreement also provides a limit on the number of directorships that a person can undertake while serving as an independent director. A person cannot serve as an independent director in more than seven companies at a time and if a person serves as a whole time director in any listed company, then the limit on his directorship as an independent director in other companies comes down to three.

Balancing the wide arena of responsibilities and obligations imposed on the IDs under the Act and to ensure that the IDs are not fastened with the liability in the affairs of the company where there is no involvement on their part, the Act provides that IDs may not be held liable for an offence by the company unless it is established that they had knowledge of the act and consented or connived in its occurrence. The Act provides that the “knowledge” of the ID can be attributed through board processes, therefore the records of a board meeting such as the minutes are enough to establish that the ID had “knowledge” of the act leading to an offence by the company. Further, the Act also provides that the ID may not be held liable if it can be proved that he acted diligently. There have been various judgments from the Supreme Court and several high courts where the IDs have not been held liable in the affairs of day to day management of the company. The liability instead, has been fastened on the people who had been in-charge of the affairs of the company and were responsible for the actions taken on behalf of the company. (See, Central Bank of India v. Asian Global Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 203, National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330)

The reader may also note that the Act ushers in significant provisions regarding the constitution of the BoD and functioning of directors of the company. In our next article we will study the duties of directors (including IDs) from a legislative and judicial perspective and its impact on board independence and liability. We will also examine certain provisions of the Act which fix specifically liability on executive management or the BoD.

(Jitender Tanikella is a corporate and tax lawyer with an advanced law degree from Columbia University. Anirudh Rastogi is a general corporate lawyer with an advanced law degree from Harvard University. They are part of Tanikella Rastogi Associates.)

References

– llan, Kraakman, Subramanian, Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organization, (Wolters Kluwer, 2009) 3rd ed., at 98.

– Umakanth Varottil, “Evolution and effectiveness of independent directors in Indian corporate governance”, Hastings Business Law Journal, Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 2, Page 281.

– Jay Dahya & John J. McConnell, “Board Composition, Corporate Performance, and the Cadbury Committee Recommendation” (2005), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=687429

– Erik Berglof and Ernst Ludwig von Thadden, “The Changing Corporate Governance Paradigm: Implications for Transition and Developing Countries” (1999), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=183708

– Cadbury Committee: FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (1992) available at http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/cadbury.pdf.

– Financial Reporting Council, The Combined Code on Corporate Governance, Jun. 2008, available at http://www.frc.org.uk/CORPORATE/COMBINEDCODE.CFM

Report of the Kumar Mangalam Birla Committee on Corporate Governance (Feb. 2000), available at http://www.sebi.gov.in/commreport/corpgov.html.

Report of the SEBI Committee on Corporate Governance (Feb.2003), available at http://www.sebi.gov.in/commreport/corpgov.pdf.