11.07.2015 Views

Annual Accounts and Report as at 30 June 2011 Draft - Mediobanca

Annual Accounts and Report as at 30 June 2011 Draft - Mediobanca

Annual Accounts and Report as at 30 June 2011 Draft - Mediobanca

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Type of serviceRecontaErnst & Young€mRecontaErnst & Youngnetwork€mSt<strong>at</strong>ements 97 3Other services: 85 150Total 182 153Given the m<strong>and</strong><strong>at</strong>es conferred on Reconta Ernst & Young S.p.A. <strong>and</strong>its network by <strong>Mediobanca</strong> S.p.A. <strong>and</strong> the other Group companies, theSt<strong>at</strong>utory Audit Committee does not consider th<strong>at</strong> there are any criticalissues arising with respect to the external auditor’s independence;d) no external opinions have been expressed by the External Auditors<strong>as</strong> required by law in the course of the financial year under review,in the absence of any grounds for such opinions.3. During the twelve months under review, a total of eight complaintspursuant to Article 2408 of the Italian Civil Code have been received:The first complaint, referring to the fine applied to <strong>Mediobanca</strong> inrespect of Consob-Se<strong>at</strong> Pagine Gialle in August 2010, involved thealleged lack of adequ<strong>at</strong>e internal control procedures <strong>and</strong> the absenceof appropri<strong>at</strong>e disciplinary action <strong>and</strong> stricter organiz<strong>at</strong>ional me<strong>as</strong>ures.The St<strong>at</strong>utory Audit Committee had already <strong>as</strong>certained th<strong>at</strong> the finederived from the conduct of individual traders r<strong>at</strong>her than from inadequ<strong>at</strong>eprocedures. Disciplinary me<strong>as</strong>ures had been taken against the tradersinvolved in the c<strong>as</strong>e. The St<strong>at</strong>utory Audit Committee accordingly decidedthere were no grounds for pursuing the m<strong>at</strong>ter further.The second complaint regarded the re<strong>as</strong>ons supplied by the directorswho did not take part in the general meeting held on 28 October 2010.The St<strong>at</strong>utory Audit Committee noted th<strong>at</strong> there is no oblig<strong>at</strong>ion ondirectors to take part in general meetings, <strong>and</strong> those who were absenthad sent notice in good time of their intention not to <strong>at</strong>tend. TheSt<strong>at</strong>utory Audit Committee accordingly decided there were no groundsfor pursuing the m<strong>at</strong>ter further.The third complaint regarded alleged improper tre<strong>at</strong>ment of the profit<strong>at</strong>tributable to tre<strong>as</strong>ury shares rel<strong>at</strong>ive to a resolution adopted in aprevious year.The St<strong>at</strong>utory Audit Committee referred to the comments on this issuecontained in the annual report for the year ended <strong>30</strong> <strong>June</strong> 2009, <strong>and</strong>– 271

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!