BETA

Activities of Evelyn REGNER related to 2010/2303(INI)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (14)

Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that the number of boards on which directors and supervisory board members of financial institutions may sit at the same time should be limited to three, in which connection membership of the boards of several companies within the same financial group should count as one directorship;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that greater diversity among the members of boards of directors will reduce the vulnerability of the financial sector to crises, and contribute to economic stability; calls on the Commission to submit a plan to bring about phased increases in gender diversity with the aim of achieving at least 40% balanced representation of at least 40% for each gender on the boards of directors of financial institutions, to ensure that this target is met within a foreseeable periodlinked to proactive support, proof of which must be provided, for the underrepresented gender, to ensure that this target is met within the period set for the 2010-2015 gender equality strategy, following on from the key actions formulated by the Commission for gender equality in decision-making processes, and to consider measures to strengthen diversity in terms of professional, social and cultural background;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises the importance of employee representatives being on the board of directors, in particular in view of their long-term interest in the sustainable management of the institution and because of their experience and knowledge of its internal structures;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that the drafting of an annual report – involving as little bureaucracy as possible – on the adequacy and effectiveness of their internal control systems and the adoption of that report by their board of directors should be mandatory for financial institutions; takes the view, further, that it should likewise be mandatory for the annual report drawn up by a financial institution’s external auditors to contain a similar assessment;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Takes the view that closer attention should be paid to the implementation of measures to raise risk awareness in financial institutions, as increased awareness of risk at all levels of the institution – and amongst its employees – is a decisive factor in improving risk management;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Is in favour of establishing channels to canalise information on internal conflicts or inappropriate practices in a company to the risk committee or external supervisors, also recognising that practices sometimes differ from policies and management are not always aware of real practices;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Notices that a dual system of boards provides a better basis for risk control than the monistic system, as the supervisory board has more independence from management than the board;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that too frequent a change of all the members of the board will have the undesirable effect of encouraging short-term vision, when what is needed is a responsible long-term approach;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that institutional investors should be required formally and publicly to explain any actions which breach the uniform EUir applicable national code for institutional investors (‘comply or explain’); points out, however, that such breaches are often not explained or explained only inadequately, and that in such cases compliance should be enforced by means of sanctions;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Regards a clearly defined European minimum standard for the accountability of the members of the boards of directors of financial institutions as desirablenecessary;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasises that the loyalty to the institution of members of its board of directors and supervisory board involves a long-term and sustainable business strategy that should not allow the running of any disproportionate risks;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Takes the view that members of the board of directors and supervisory board should be liable for decisions they take that involve the institution in disproportionate risk;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
9. Draws attention, with reference to remuneration and remuneration policies in financial institutions, to the legislative action which has already been taken, in particular the EU Capital Requirement Directive (CRD III), which came into force on 1 January 2011, and recommends that the next step should be to assess its effectiveness; calls for consideration to be given, after this assessment, to drawing up a specific directive setting out minimum standards for the level and composition of the components of remuneration, linked to sustainable and long-term commercial success;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that external auditors and members of the board of directors should be strictly prohibited from engaging in any other form of business dealings, in particular consultancies, with the financial concern in question; calls for external auditors to be subject to compulsory rotation, which should take place at least every five years;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI