Related party disclosures - Company Reporting

CR Common PracticesRelated Party DisclosuresIntroductionUnder International Accounting Standards, the presentation of related party information is governed by IAS 24“Related party disclosures”. Two versions of this standard currently exist with a revised version having been issued inNovember 2009 the application of which is mandatory for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2011although earlier application is permitted. This revision simplifies the definition of a related party, clarifying its intendedmeaning and eliminating inconsistencies as well as establishing a partial exemption from the disclosure requirementsfor government related entities. It does not, however, alter the fundamentals of related party disclosure requirements.The overall objective remains that an entity's financial statements contain the disclosures necessary to draw attentionto the possibility that its financial position and profit and loss may have been effected by the existence of relatedparties and by transactions and outstanding balances with such parties. Under IAS 24 an individual is a related partyof an entity in one of three main circumstances: (i) if they have control or joint control; (ii) if they can exert significantinfluence; and (iii) if they are a member of its key management personnel. Another entity is a related party if: (i) both itand the reporting entity are members of the same group; (ii) one entity is an associate or joint venture of the other; (iii)if the same third party can exert joint control or significant influence over both entities; (iv) the entity is a postemploymentbenefit plan for the benefit of the employees of the reporting entity; and (v) an individual qualifying as arelated party controls, jointly controls or exerts significant influence over both entities (para 9).Focusing on a sample of 30 large listed European companies that report under IFRS, supplemented by CompanyReporting data and comment, this report analyses the types of related parties identified and the form that companydisclosures take.Key observations include the following. Key management compensation is widely disclosed with a number ofcompanies going beyond what is required by IAS24. Related party information given by Italian companies goesbeyond that of others due to national legislation. Financial institutions are most likely to identify governments as arelated party. Financial institutions are more likely than other companies to identify a post-employment benefit plan asa related party.Companies under examinationOur sample consists of 30 listed European company accounts, which feature in the Standard & Poor’s Europe 350dataset with period ends of 31 December 2010 which have published recently their annual reports. The samplecontains a spread of companies from different countries and industry classes. The companies of which the accountshave been analysed are as follows:Company Period end Auditors Country Industry classAccor 31 December 2010 Deloitte and Ernst & Young France HotelsAegon 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young The Netherlands Life InsuranceAnglo American 31 December 2010 Deloitte UK General MiningASML 31 December 2010 Deloitte & Touche The Netherlands SemiconductorsAssa Abloy 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Sweden Building Materials &FixturesAstra Zeneca 31 December 2010 KPMG UK PharmaceuticalsBAE Systems 31 December 2010 KPMG UK DefenceBASF 31 December 2010 KPMG Germany Commodity ChemicalsBBVA 31 December 2010 Deloitte Spain BankingBelgacom 31 December 2010 Deloitte Belgium Fixed LineTelecommunicationsBG 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Integrated Oil & GasBMW 31 December 2010 KPMG Germany Auto-mobilesBNP Parabis 31 December 2010 Mazers and PricewaterhouseCoopers France BankingCommerzbank 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Germany Bankingwww.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com1

Drax 31 December 2010 Deloitte UK Conventional ElectricityEni 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young Italy Integrated Oil & GasE.on 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Germany Multi-utilitiesFiat 31 December 2010 Deloitte & Touche Italy Auto-mobilesGroupe Danone 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & FranceFood ProductsYoungIberdrola Renovables 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young Spain Alternative ElectricityITV 31 December 2010 KPMG UK Broadcasting andEntertainmentL'air Liquide 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young and Mazars France Commodity ChemicalsLloyd’s Banking Group 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers UK BankingLogica 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Computer ServicesNestle 31 December 2010 KPMG Switzerland Food ProductsNovozymes 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Denmark BiotechnologyRoyal DSM 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young The Netherlands Speciality chemicalsSmith & Nephew 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young UK Medical EquipmentTeliaSonera 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Sweden Fixed LineTelecommunicationsUBS 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young Switzerland BankingAnalysisEarly AdoptionOf the companies in our sample only two have chosen to early adopt the revised version of IAS 24. These areTeliaSonera and UBS. TeliaSonera continues to identify as related parties both the Swedish and Finnish governmentswhich respectively hold 37.3% and 13.7% of the company's shares. Despite the revised version of IAS 24 offering apartial disclosure exemption in relation to government related entities there is no change to related party disclosures incomparison to last year. TeliaSonera further notes that commitments are added to the list of examples of related partytransactions but again there is no change to the disclosures in comparison to last year. UBS states that it adopted therevised standard in its 2009 financial statements thus resulting in a CHF668 million reduction in loans to relatedparties and a CHF11 million reduction in fees receivable in relation to its 2008 financial year. Early adoption has notimpacted the types of related parties reported by either company with both continuing to report a broad range.TeliaSonera's related party disclosures include information relating to: key management personnel compensation; jointventures; associates; governments; and pensions. The information given by UBS relates to key managementpersonnel compensation; associates; pension plans; entities in which key management have an interest; and loans toboard members.Types of Related Party InformationThe types of related party identified by our sample companies mirror those outlined in IAS 24 with the most commontype of information identified being compensation paid to key management personnel which is clearly disclosed by 29of the 30 companies in our sample. The next two most commonly identified forms of related party are entities overwhich the reporting entity can either exert significant influence or holds joint control namely associates and jointventures respectively. Of the companies in our sample 22 identify associates as related parties with 18 identifying jointventures. A further common type of related party which is identified by 10 companies in our sample is an employeepension plan with others disclosed including: governments; entities in which key management personnel have aninterest; non-consolidated companies; and companies with a material shareholding in the reporting entity. Under IAS24 for related parties other than Key Management Personnel Compensation companies should disclose the nature ofthe related party relationship as well as any transactions and amounts outstanding at the yearend separately for eachtype of related party (para 18 & para 19)Types of Related PartyNumber of CompaniesKey Management Personnel Compensation 29Key Management Personnel Loans 5Entities by virtue of Key Management Personnel Interest 7Associates 22Joint Ventures 18Government 6Pension Schemes 10Non-consolidated subsidiaries/Companies 5Companies with material shareholding or Control 3

Key Management Personnel CompensationCR Common PracticesRelated Party DisclosuresKey management personnel are defined by IAS 24 as those persons having authority and responsibility for planning,directing and controlling of the activities of the entity, directly or indirectly, including any director whether executive orotherwise of that entity (para 9). All companies in our sample have a group of individuals at their head which meet thisdefinition but not all clearly identify such individuals as related parties using IAS 24 terminology. Of the companies inour sample 20 identify the compensation paid to key management personnel within their related parties note with suchcompanies including BAE Systems, E.on and Royal DSM. A further three companies either include the information in aseparate note referenced within the related parties note or use IAS 24 specific terminology by identifying theinformation given as key management personnel compensation. These companies are BG and Eni which both use thekey management personnel terminology and BBVA which gives the information in a referenced note. For a further sixcompanies information of the type required by IAS 24 is given in a note to the accounts but the link to related partyinformation is less clear. These companies include BMW, ASML, Assa Abloy and BNP Parabis. In the case of BASF,however, there is no disclosure of key management personnel compensation in either a related parties or any othernote to the accounts. Reference is instead made to a separate compensation report included within the corporategovernance section of the annual report.Under IAS 24 companies are required to disclose key management personnel compensation in total and for each ofthe following categories: short-term employee benefits; post-retirement benefits; other long-term benefits; terminationbenefits; and share-based payment (para 17). Of the companies in our sample disclosing key management personnelcompensation in a note to the accounts all but one clearly discloses amounts in line with the IAS 24 definedcategories. The exception to this is Fiat which identifies the total amount paid to directors without giving anybreakdown, disclosing only that the total includes the notional cost of stock options and stock grants paid to the ChiefExecutive Officer without quantifying the amount. In addition, Fiat discloses separately the total compensation paid toexecutives with strategic responsibilities stating that this includes amounts in relation to both defined benefit andcontribution pension plans (Extract 1). No mention is made of the other IAS 24 defined categories.While all other sample companies giving key management personnel compensation information in a note follow IAS24 the format of disclosures is varied. The vast majority of companies including Logica, Belgacom and Astrazeneca(Extract 2) choose to present the information in a tabular format although there are those such as E.on, GroupeDanone and Royal DSM which instead employ a narrative disclosure format.Some companies opt to go beyond what is required by IAS 24. Companies do this by either including additionaldisaggregation when disclosing the types of remuneration or by giving information separately for each member of keymanagement. Two additional types of remuneration disclosed by companies are benefits in kind and bonuses withcompanies identifying the former including Iberdrola Renovables, Anglo American, BNP Parabis and BG. Those todisclose the latter include Novozymes, BG and Nestle. BG makes reference to bonuses with Novozymes disclosingcash bonuses and Nestle identifying both cash and share bonuses separately. Further additional categories identifiedare social security costs which are disclosed by Iberdrola Renovables and Anglo American and Directors fees whichare disclosed by Groupe Danone and BNP Parabis. The former opts to disclose an aggregate figure whereas the lattergives information separately for each director. The information given by BNP Parabis for each director is not limited tosuch fees, however, with other forms of key management personnel information disclosed in the same fashion (Extract3). BNP Parabis, although not for each individual, gives a particularly detailed breakdown of post-retirement benefitsdisclosing information for separate pension schemes. BNP Parabis is not alone in presenting information separatelyfor individual directors. Other companies to do so are ASML, TeliaSonera, Assa Abloy, Aegon and Commerzbank.www.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com3

Key Management Personnel TransactionsIn addition to receiving compensation from the organisations within which they work key management personnel anddirectors impact the related party disclosures of a number of sample companies in other ways. There are two maininstances where this is the case. These are either where an individual has transacted with the company in their ownright or where another party over which the individual may have influence has transacted with the company.Each of the banks in our sample identifies key management personnel as related parties by virtue of the fact thatloans have been made to such individuals. There are, however, differences between companies in relation to theformat that disclosures take. Lloyd’s Banking Group, Commerzbank and UBS all disclose this information in a tabularformat giving information in relation to movements during the year. Lloyd’s Banking Group and UBS both discloseadditions and repayments separately whereas Commerzbank gives only a percentage change figure which combinesboth. In addition both Lloyd’s Banking Group and Commerzbank disclose the interest rates relevant to these loans.Within its related parties note to the accounts Commerzbank further analyses loans into those relating to itssupervisory board and board of management. In contrast, UBS presents no such breakdown in a note, but does so ina separate corporate governance report within which it identifies amounts paid to separate individuals. BNP Parabisand BBVA instead disclose amounts outstanding in a narrative format with the latter identifying board of directors andmanagement committee amounts separately. Lloyd’s Banking Group stands out from the others as it is the onlycompany to also present deposit information again in common with loans identifying the relevant interest rates.Of the sample companies six, across a range of different industries, identify as related parties entities within whichmembers of key management personnel have an interest. The sample companies in question are Accor, UBS, Fiat,Eni, Drax and BMW. Of these, Fiat, Drax and BMW fully explain why a related party relationship exists by identifyingthe actual member of management concerned and their position within the related party. The other companies onlystate that a related party relationship exists by virtue of an interest held by an unnamed member of key managementpersonnel. In each case, however, the entities transacted with, and the nature of the transactions undertaken, areidentified. In addition, with the exception of BMW which states that amounts are not material all companies quantifytransaction amounts including those outstanding at the year end.Associates and Joint VenturesAssociates and joint ventures are both identified as related parties by a significant number of sample companies with22 identifying the former and 18 the latter. Of the sample companies identifying associates and/or joint ventures asrelated parties Accor, Belgacom, Nestlé and L'air Liquide make reference to transactions not being significant. In thecase of Nestle such a statement refers only to transactions with associates with no mention being made of jointventure transactions other than that they are eliminated on consolidation in line with the Nestlé's percentage holding.The relevance of such a statement is hard to fathom as under IAS 24 the full amount of any transaction should bedisclosed. L'air Liquide also discloses superfluous and arguably misleading information within its related parties noteby identifying the contribution made to the consolidated balance sheet and income statement by proportionatelyconsolidated companies. Groupe Danone discloses only amounts outstanding at the yearend making no specificstatement about the existence or not of current year transactions.Related party transactions with associates and joint ventures can be split into two types: funding and trading with therebeing a cross over in relation to banks where the primary area of business is to provide financing. Each of the banks inour sample, provide funding to joint ventures and/or associates but there are differences in disclosure. BBVA andCommerzbank both identify associate and joint venture amounts in aggregate with each disclosing both incomestatement and balance sheet amounts in a tabular format. Lloyd’s Banking Group instead chooses to disclose theinformation in a narrative format giving separate information for its Sainsbury's Bank joint venture but in common withits peers, aggregate information for other joint ventures and associates. UBS and BNP Parabis in contrast to the otherbanks disclose associate and joint venture amounts separately with the latter including a detailed analysis of incomestatement and balance sheet amounts (Extract 4).Non-financial companies to disclose the provision of loan finance to joint ventures or associates include TeliaSonera,Anglo American, BG, BMW and Eni. BG discloses only the total for loans to all associates and joint ventures inaggregate identifying a range of interest rates which attach to these loans. BMW and Anglo American also aggregateloan amounts but only in relation to joint ventures. The latter disclosing separately a significant loan to an individualassociate. TeliaSonera also identifies a loan amount for an individual investment but the disclosures given by Eni areby far the most detailed. Eni identifies separately loans made to each of its investments giving some information inrelation to the purpose of each loan. For each individual investment loan receivables, payables, charges and gains areidentified. In addition, Eni states that it has acted as guarantor for a number of its associates and joint venturesdisclosing the amounts involved. Another company to act as guarantor for associate loans is Royal DSM.Each of the above non-financial companies also enters into trading transactions with its associates and joint venturesbut again the format of the disclosures given varies. BG in common with its disclosure of loan amounts aggregatesassociate and joint venture incomes and expenses as well as payables and receivables (Extract 5). TeliaSonera incontrast discloses individual sales and purchases amounts but opts to aggregate payables and receivables. AngloAmerican while disclosing that transactions were not significant also aggregates related party trade receivables and

CR Common PracticesRelated Party Disclosurespayable amounts. These aggregate totals are identified within the trade payables and receivables notes rather thanthe related parties note. Once again, however, the stand out company in relation to the disclosure of associate andjoint venture related party transactions is Eni with individual sales, purchases, receivables and payables disclosed foreach investment (Extract 6). In addition, Eni presents a narrative description of the most significant transactions. Enigoes further, however, by presenting a related parties income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statementimpact analysis as well as including separate related party columns on the face of its primary financial statements(Extract 7).Fellow Italian company Fiat discloses equally as detailed related party information but instead of including relatedparty columns on the face of the primary financial statements publishes separate supplementary statements so as notto compromise an overall reading of the statutory statements (Extract 8). In addition Fiat presents in a note to theaccounts an analysis of related party amounts as they relate to discontinued operations. The detailed related partyinformation presented by both Italian companies is in respect of Italian legislation introduced in 2006. While the detailgiven by other companies is not so high there is variety in relation to the information disclosed. BAE Systems forexample publishes a table which shows amounts in respect of individual equity accounted investments separatelyincluding sales, purchases, receivables, payables, lease amounts and management recharges (Extract 9). In additionto disclosing the figures involved ITV also explains the nature of related party transactions undertaken with associatesand joint ventures. In contrast, Smith & Nephew and BASF while disclosing associate and joint venture related partyinformation separately do not give amounts for individual joint ventures and associates.Governments and other parties with a significant shareholdingOf the companies in our sample nine identify related party relationships in respect of either governments or otherparties with a significant shareholding. Six sample companies identify related party information in relation togovernments. Of these Aegon, Commerzbank and Lloyd’s Banking Group are financial institutions which due tocurrent economic conditions have sought government support. In the case of Commerzbank and Lloyd’s BankingGroup, this has led to the German government owning a 25% shareholding in the former and the UK governmentowning a 41% stake in the latter. Both banks state that transactions are carried out with government entities in thenormal course of their business, however, only Commerzbank makes quantified disclosures in relation to suchtransactions (Extract 10). Lloyd’s Banking Group does, however, make reference to conditions that have been placedon it in return for government support. It has undertaken to loan a predetermined amount to businesses and to pay afee so that the government would guarantee the issue of debt. Aegon gives a detailed breakdown of the financialsupport that it has received from the Dutch government in the form of convertible loans including terms and conditions.Under the support agreement dividends cannot be paid until the government loans are repaid.Two further companies, Belgacom and TeliaSonera are government owned telecommunications providers with theBelgian government having a 53.5% stake in the former and the Swedish and Finnish governments having a 37.3%and 13.7% shareholding in the latter respectively. Although both companies state that telephony services are madeavailable to the governments in question no quantified information is disclosed on grounds of materiality. TeliaSonera,however, does disclose a number of fees that it pays to the government such as for the use of numbers, radiofrequencies and to fund measures to ensure electronic communications are not disrupted. The last company todisclose a government as a related party is Eni which gives a detailed breakdown of transactions with governmentcontrolled entities.Companies to disclose related party transactions with significant or controlling shareholders other than governmentsare BBVA, Novozymes and Iberdrola Renovables. BBVA within its related parties note identifies transaction amountsin relation to significant shareholders in aggregate without identifying the parties in question. Analysis of the financialstatements as a whole reveals that no party owns more than 5.07% of the shares. In the case of the other twocompanies a controlling shareholder is identified with 70.1% of Novozymes owned by the Novo Nordisk Foundationwww.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com5

and 80% of Iberdrola Renovables owned by Iberdrola. In both cases a detailed breakdown of income and expenseamounts and transaction balances is presented showing transactions with the controlling party and fellow subsidiaries.In addition, Iberdrola Renovables gives a breakdown of financing received from its parent including a currency andmaturity analysis and a disaggregation into fixed and floating (Extract 11). Iberdrola Renovables further gives adetailed description of agreements entered into with its parent and fellow subsidiaries.Post-Employment Benefit PlanOf the companies in our sample ten makes reference to a post-employment benefit plan being a related party. Ofthese five are financial institutions. The information disclosed by these companies varies with Commerzbank statingthat external providers of occupational pensions for employees are considered related parties but give no furtherinformation. Aegon goes a stage further by disclosing that it provides reinsurance, asset management andadministrative services to pension funds but stops short of giving any quantified information in relation to fees. Each ofthe other financial institutions which are Lloyd’s Banking Group, BNP Parabis and UBS also make reference toproviding services for employee benefit funds but give quantified fee information. The information given by UBS, interms of detail, surpasses that given by its peers as not only is reference made in the related parties note, a specificsection exists within the post-retirement benefits note. Within this section UBS in addition to giving a breakdown offees and services discloses details of a scheme whereby bank properties were sold to a pension fund and atransaction analysis of UBS securities held by the pension fund (Extract 12).For the non-financial companies including BAE Systems, BMW and TeliaSonera that make reference to a pensionplan being a related party on the whole the level of disclosure is less detailed. Nestlé however, outlines how one of itssubsidiaries acts as an asset manager on behalf of a pension plan disclosing the fees that it receives in return for suchservices. There is also quantification in relation to the amount of assets under management. ITV also makes aninteresting disclosure by identifying that a pensions funding partnership has been established. Under thisarrangement, an interest in a partnership, which owns a company subsidiary, has been contributed to the pensionfund. ITV makes it clear that it consolidates both the partnership and the subsidiary.Stand out companiesItalian companies Eni and Fiat are worthy of praise for the sheer detail of the related party information that ispresented. Both companies present a full analysis of related party transactions by type including separate quantifieddisclosure for transactions with each related party. The information disclosed is not confined to the related parties notewith both companies presenting additional primary financial statement information so as to exhibit the impact ofrelated party transactions as a whole. It should be noted that the information presented is largely as a result ofnational legislation but the fact remains that the information presented far outstrips that given by companies from othercountries. Italy could easily be considered to be leading the way in terms of related party transaction disclosures.Other companies that are worthy of note are UBS which has early adopted revised IAS 24 and provides a detailedbreakdown of transactions with post-employment benefit plans and BNP Parabis for the clarity of its disclosures inrelation to key management personnel compensation, associates and joint ventures.In contrast, companies which could improve the quality of related party transactions are BASF which does not disclosekey management compensation in a related party or any other note to the accounts. Other companies which couldimprove their related party disclosures are BG which expresses associate and joint venture amounts in aggregate andL'air Liquide which within its related parties note includes information in relation to the impact that proportionatelyconsolidated entities have on the income statement and balance sheet that could easily be deemed superfluous.Summary - ConclusionOur principal conclusions are that: Key management compensation is widely disclosed with a number of companies going beyond what isrequired by IAS 24. The most detailed related party information is given by Italian companies as a result of national legislation. Financial institutions are the companies which are most likely to identify governments as related parties. Financial institutions are more likely than other companies to identify a post-employment benefit plan as arelated party.

CR Common PracticesRelated Party DisclosuresIllustrative ExtractsFiat: Key management personnel compensation (Extract 1)www.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com7

Logica: Key management personnel compensation tabular format (Extract 2)

CR Common PracticesRelated Party DisclosuresBNP Parabis: Key management personnel compensation per director (Extract 3)www.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com9

BNP Parabis: Balance sheet analysis of associate and joint venture related party amounts (Extract 4)

CR Common PracticesRelated Party DisclosuresBG: Joint venture and associated undertakings related party amounts aggregated (Extract 5)www.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com11

Eni: Joint venture and associate related party amounts by company (Extract 6)

CR Common PracticesRelated Party DisclosuresEni: Income statement with related party column (Extract 7)www.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com13

Fiat: Related party transactions supplementary balance sheet (Extract 8)

BAE Systems: Related party transactions equity accounted investments (Extract 9)CR Common PracticesRelated Party Disclosureswww.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com15

Commerzbank: Government related party transactions (Extract 10)Iberdrola Renovables: Analysis of related party financing (Extract 11)

UBS: Post employment benefit plan related party disclosures (Extract 12)CR Common PracticesRelated Party Disclosureswww.companyreporting.comMonitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UKPublished on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com17