The Network shares also factual information on the content and implementation of national corporate governance codes with European authorities and other interested parties. The purpose of the website is to provide links to those codes and to reports on how they have been applied.

Participation in the Network is open to all organisations responsible for writing and/or monitoring the implementation of national corporate governance codes in European Union and European Economic Area countries.

Having said that, I saw today some very interesting presentations from a recent seminar about modernising the Dutch insolvency laws, see here for the link. This made me think, as the current Dutch Insolvency Act is from 30 September 1893 and according to experts really needs to be modernised, wouldn't it be great if a new Dutch Insolvency Act gets adopted in 2016?   

About ring-fencing: "138. One lesson relates to structural reforms. As Sir Charles Dunstone, non Executive Director of HBOS 2001-08, observed, if HBOS had survived as an independent entity in the form it took in 2008, it would almost all fall within the proposed ring-fence. HBOS had no culture of investment banking; if anything, its dominant culture was that of retail banking and retail financial services more widely, areas from which its senior management were largely drawn. Whatever may explain the problems of other banks, the downfall of HBOS was not the result of cultural contamination by investment banking. This was a traditional bank failure pure and simple. It was a case of a bank pursuing traditional banking activities and pursuing them badly. Structural reform of the banking industry does not diminish the need for appropriate management and supervision of traditional banking activities."

About lending policies: "In view of the reckless lending policies pursued by HBOS Corporate Division, we are extremely disappointed by the attempts of the most senior leaders of HBOS at the time to attribute the scale of the consequent losses principally, or in significant measure, to the temporary closure of wholesale markets. The lending approach of the Corporate Division would have been bad lending in any market. The crisis in financial markets was merely the catalyst to expose it. Losses in the Corporate Division did not prove temporary. Indeed, we estimate that the HBOS Corporate loan book has continued to incur significant impairments in every year since 2008, demonstrating that the losses were the result of incompetent lending and not caused solely by the events of 2008."

About the risk function: "The risk function in HBOS was a cardinal area of weakness in the bank. The status of the Group risk functions was low relative to the operating divisions. Successive Group Risk Directors were fatally weakened in carrying out their duties by their lack of expertise and experience in carrying out a risk function, by the fact that the centre of gravity lay with the divisions themselves rather than the group risk function, and by the knowledge that their hopes for career progression lay elsewhere in the bank. The degradation of the risk function was an important factor in explaining why the high-risk activities of the Corporate, International and Treasury Divisions were not properly analysed or checked at the highest levels within the bank. The weaknesses of group risk in HBOS were a matter of design, not accident. Responsibility for this lies with Sir James Crosby, who as Chief Executive until 2005 was responsible for that design, with Andy Hornby, who failed to address the matter, and particularly with Lord Stevenson as Chairman throughout the period in question."

About regulation: "The picture that emerges is that the FSA’s regulation of HBOS was thoroughly inadequate. In the three years following the merger the FSA identified some of the issues that would eventually contribute to the Group’s downfall, notably the risk that controls would fail to keep pace with aggressive growth and the Group’s reliance on wholesale funding. The FSA failed to follow through on these concerns and was too easily satisfied that they had been resolved. The FSA took too much comfort from reports prepared by third parties whose interests were not aligned with those of the FSA. From 2004 until the latter part of 2007 the FSA was not so much the dog that did not bark as a dog barking up the wrong tree."

About corporate governance: "The corporate governance of HBOS at board level serves as a model for the future, but not in the way in which Lord Stevenson and other former Board members appear to see it. It represents a model of self-delusion, of the triumph of process over purpose. The Board, in its own words, had abrogated and remitted to the executive management the formulation of strategy, a matter for which the Board should properly have been responsible. There was insufficient banking expertise among HBOS’s top management. In consequence, they were incapable of even understanding the risks that some elements of the business were running, let alone managing them. The non-executives on the Board lacked the experience or expertise to identify many of the core risks that the bank was running. In Sir James Crosby’s revealing phrase, it was not composed in a manner that would be appropriate for “a business concentrating entirely on banking”. The board was composed in a manner which appeared suitable for a retail-oriented financial services company, but that board lacked the necessary banking experience among its non-executives, particularly in relation to higher risk activities, for a bank whose strategy and business model was posited on asset-led growth led by non-retail divisions of the bank. Judging by the comments of some former Board members, membership of the Board of HBOS appears to have been a positive experience for many participants. We are shocked and surprised that, even after the ship has run aground, so many of those who were on the bridge still seem so keen to congratulate themselves on their collective navigational skills."

"3.5 Bij de beoordeling van deze klachten, die zich lenen voor gezamenlijke behandeling, dient te worden vooropgesteld dat de bevoegdheid tot het indienen van een verzoek tot het instellen van een enquête toekomt aan degenen aan wie deze bevoegdheid in de wet is verleend en dat de daartoe strekkende opsomming in art. 2:346 BW limitatief is. Volgens vaste rechtspraak brengt de strekking van het enquêterecht echter mee dat de verschaffer van risicodragend kapitaal die een eigen economisch belang heeft in de vennootschap waarop het verzoek betrekking heeft, welk belang in zoverre op een lijn kan worden gesteld met het belang van een aandeelhouder of certificaathouder, voor de toepassing van art. 2:346, aanhef en onder b, BW, dient te worden gelijkgesteld met aandeelhouders of certificaathouders (vgl. HR 6 juni 2003, LJN AF9440, NJ 2003/486, HR 4 februari 2005, LJN AR8899, NJ 2005/127, HR 25 juni 2010, LJN BM0710, NJ 2010/370, HR 10 september 2010, LJN BM6077, NJ 2010/665, en HR 8 april 2011, LJN BP4943, NJ 2011/338).

3.6 De ondernemingskamer heeft vastgesteld dat de aandeelhouders in Chinnede - waaronder [verweerster 1] - onder de door haar in rov. 3.5 genoemde omstandigheden moeten worden aangemerkt als de economisch gerechtigden in Chinese Workers. Met dat oordeel heeft zij tot uitdrukking gebracht dat [verweerster 1] als verschaffer van risicodragend kapitaal een eigen economisch belang heeft in Chinese Workers dat in zoverre kan worden gelijkgesteld met het belang van een aandeelhouder als bedoeld in art. 2:346, aanhef en onder b, BW. Dat oordeel getuigt niet van een onjuiste rechtsopvatting, is niet onbegrijpelijk en is toereikend gemotiveerd. De omstandigheid dat [verweerster 1] niet rechtstreeks aandelen houdt in Chinese Workers, maar dat zij door middel van aandelen in Chinnede een economisch belang heeft in Chinese Workers, doet daaraan niet af. Ook de omstandigheid dat Chinnede een vennootschap is naar het recht van Hong Kong leidt niet tot een ander oordeel, nu de ondernemingskamer heeft vastgesteld dat de ondernemingsactiviteiten plaatsvinden in Chinese Workers. De klachten in de onderdelen 1, 2 en 4 stuiten daarop af."