CR Common Practices

Related Party Disclosures

Introduction
Under 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 in
November 2009 the application of which is mandatory for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2011
although earlier application is permitted. This revision simplifies the definition of a related party, clarifying its intended
meaning and eliminating inconsistencies as well as establishing a partial exemption from the disclosure requirements
for 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 attention
to the possibility that its financial position and profit and loss may have been effected by the existence of related
parties and by transactions and outstanding balances with such parties. Under IAS 24 an individual is a related party
of an entity in one of three main circumstances: (i) if they have control or joint control; (ii) if they can exert significant
influence; and (iii) if they are a member of its key management personnel. Another entity is a related party if: (i) both it
and 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 post-
employment benefit plan for the benefit of the employees of the reporting entity; and (v) an individual qualifying as a
related 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 Company
Reporting data and comment, this report analyses the types of related parties identified and the form that company
disclosures take.
Key observations include the following. Key management compensation is widely disclosed with a number of
companies going beyond what is required by IAS24. Related party information given by Italian companies goes
beyond that of others due to national legislation. Financial institutions are most likely to identify governments as a
related party. Financial institutions are more likely than other companies to identify a post-employment benefit plan as
a related party.
Companies under examination
Our sample consists of 30 listed European company accounts, which feature in the Standard & Poor’s Europe 350
dataset with period ends of 31 December 2010 which have published recently their annual reports. The sample
contains a spread of companies from different countries and industry classes. The companies of which the accounts
have been analysed are as follows:
Company Period end Auditors Country Industry class
Accor 31 December 2010 Deloitte and Ernst & Young France Hotels
Aegon 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young The Netherlands Life Insurance
Anglo American 31 December 2010 Deloitte UK General Mining
ASML 31 December 2010 Deloitte & Touche The Netherlands Semiconductors
Assa Abloy 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Sweden Building Materials &
Fixtures
Astra Zeneca 31 December 2010 KPMG UK Pharmaceuticals
BAE Systems 31 December 2010 KPMG UK Defence
BASF 31 December 2010 KPMG Germany Commodity Chemicals
BBVA 31 December 2010 Deloitte Spain Banking
Belgacom 31 December 2010 Deloitte Belgium Fixed Line
Telecommunications
BG 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Integrated Oil & Gas
BMW 31 December 2010 KPMG Germany Auto-mobiles
BNP Parabis 31 December 2010 Mazers and PricewaterhouseCoopers France Banking
Commerzbank 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Germany Banking

1
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
Drax 31 December 2010 Deloitte UK Conventional Electricity
Eni 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young Italy Integrated Oil & Gas
E.on 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Germany Multi-utilities
Fiat 31 December 2010 Deloitte & Touche Italy Auto-mobiles
Groupe Danone 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & France Food Products
Young
Iberdrola Renovables 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young Spain Alternative Electricity
ITV 31 December 2010 KPMG UK Broadcasting and
Entertainment
L'air Liquide 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young and Mazars France Commodity Chemicals
Lloyd’s Banking Group 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Banking
Logica 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Computer Services
Nestle 31 December 2010 KPMG Switzerland Food Products
Novozymes 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Denmark Biotechnology
Royal DSM 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young The Netherlands Speciality chemicals
Smith & Nephew 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young UK Medical Equipment
TeliaSonera 31 December 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers Sweden Fixed Line
Telecommunications
UBS 31 December 2010 Ernst & Young Switzerland Banking

Analysis
Early Adoption
Of the companies in our sample only two have chosen to early adopt the revised version of IAS 24. These are
TeliaSonera and UBS. TeliaSonera continues to identify as related parties both the Swedish and Finnish governments
which respectively hold 37.3% and 13.7% of the company's shares. Despite the revised version of IAS 24 offering a
partial disclosure exemption in relation to government related entities there is no change to related party disclosures in
comparison to last year. TeliaSonera further notes that commitments are added to the list of examples of related party
transactions but again there is no change to the disclosures in comparison to last year. UBS states that it adopted the
revised standard in its 2009 financial statements thus resulting in a CHF668 million reduction in loans to related
parties and a CHF11 million reduction in fees receivable in relation to its 2008 financial year. Early adoption has not
impacted 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; joint
ventures; associates; governments; and pensions. The information given by UBS relates to key management
personnel compensation; associates; pension plans; entities in which key management have an interest; and loans to
board members.

Types of Related Party Information

The types of related party identified by our sample companies mirror those outlined in IAS 24 with the most common
type of information identified being compensation paid to key management personnel which is clearly disclosed by 29
of the 30 companies in our sample. The next two most commonly identified forms of related party are entities over
which the reporting entity can either exert significant influence or holds joint control namely associates and joint
ventures respectively. Of the companies in our sample 22 identify associates as related parties with 18 identifying joint
ventures. A further common type of related party which is identified by 10 companies in our sample is an employee
pension plan with others disclosed including: governments; entities in which key management personnel have an
interest; non-consolidated companies; and companies with a material shareholding in the reporting entity. Under IAS
24 for related parties other than Key Management Personnel Compensation companies should disclose the nature of
the related party relationship as well as any transactions and amounts outstanding at the yearend separately for each
type of related party (para 18 & para 19)

Types of Related Party Number of Companies

Key Management Personnel Compensation 29
Key Management Personnel Loans 5
Entities by virtue of Key Management Personnel Interest 7
Associates 22
Joint Ventures 18
Government 6
Pension Schemes 10
Non-consolidated subsidiaries/Companies 5
Companies with material shareholding or Control 3
 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

Key Management Personnel Compensation

Key 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 or
otherwise of that entity (para 9). All companies in our sample have a group of individuals at their head which meet this
definition but not all clearly identify such individuals as related parties using IAS 24 terminology. Of the companies in
our sample 20 identify the compensation paid to key management personnel within their related parties note with such
companies including BAE Systems, E.on and Royal DSM. A further three companies either include the information in a
separate note referenced within the related parties note or use IAS 24 specific terminology by identifying the
information given as key management personnel compensation. These companies are BG and Eni which both use the
key management personnel terminology and BBVA which gives the information in a referenced note. For a further six
companies information of the type required by IAS 24 is given in a note to the accounts but the link to related party
information 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 other
note to the accounts. Reference is instead made to a separate compensation report included within the corporate
governance section of the annual report.
Under IAS 24 companies are required to disclose key management personnel compensation in total and for each of
the following categories: short-term employee benefits; post-retirement benefits; other long-term benefits; termination
benefits; and share-based payment (para 17). Of the companies in our sample disclosing key management personnel
compensation in a note to the accounts all but one clearly discloses amounts in line with the IAS 24 defined
categories. The exception to this is Fiat which identifies the total amount paid to directors without giving any
breakdown, disclosing only that the total includes the notional cost of stock options and stock grants paid to the Chief
Executive Officer without quantifying the amount. In addition, Fiat discloses separately the total compensation paid to
executives with strategic responsibilities stating that this includes amounts in relation to both defined benefit and
contribution 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 IAS
24 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, Groupe
Danone 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 additional
disaggregation when disclosing the types of remuneration or by giving information separately for each member of key
management. Two additional types of remuneration disclosed by companies are benefits in kind and bonuses with
companies identifying the former including Iberdrola Renovables, Anglo American, BNP Parabis and BG. Those to
disclose the latter include Novozymes, BG and Nestle. BG makes reference to bonuses with Novozymes disclosing
cash bonuses and Nestle identifying both cash and share bonuses separately. Further additional categories identified
are social security costs which are disclosed by Iberdrola Renovables and Anglo American and Directors fees which
are disclosed by Groupe Danone and BNP Parabis. The former opts to disclose an aggregate figure whereas the latter
gives information separately for each director. The information given by BNP Parabis for each director is not limited to
such fees, however, with other forms of key management personnel information disclosed in the same fashion (Extract
3). BNP Parabis, although not for each individual, gives a particularly detailed breakdown of post-retirement benefits
disclosing information for separate pension schemes. BNP Parabis is not alone in presenting information separately
for individual directors. Other companies to do so are ASML, TeliaSonera, Assa Abloy, Aegon and Commerzbank.

3
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
Key Management Personnel Transactions
In addition to receiving compensation from the organisations within which they work key management personnel and
directors impact the related party disclosures of a number of sample companies in other ways. There are two main
instances where this is the case. These are either where an individual has transacted with the company in their own
right 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 that
loans have been made to such individuals. There are, however, differences between companies in relation to the
format that disclosures take. Lloyd’s Banking Group, Commerzbank and UBS all disclose this information in a tabular
format giving information in relation to movements during the year. Lloyd’s Banking Group and UBS both disclose
additions and repayments separately whereas Commerzbank gives only a percentage change figure which combines
both. 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 its
supervisory board and board of management. In contrast, UBS presents no such breakdown in a note, but does so in
a separate corporate governance report within which it identifies amounts paid to separate individuals. BNP Parabis
and BBVA instead disclose amounts outstanding in a narrative format with the latter identifying board of directors and
management committee amounts separately. Lloyd’s Banking Group stands out from the others as it is the only
company 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 which
members 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 identifying
the actual member of management concerned and their position within the related party. The other companies only
state that a related party relationship exists by virtue of an interest held by an unnamed member of key management
personnel. In each case, however, the entities transacted with, and the nature of the transactions undertaken, are
identified. In addition, with the exception of BMW which states that amounts are not material all companies quantify
transaction amounts including those outstanding at the year end.

Associates and Joint Ventures

Associates and joint ventures are both identified as related parties by a significant number of sample companies with
22 identifying the former and 18 the latter. Of the sample companies identifying associates and/or joint ventures as
related parties Accor, Belgacom, Nestlé and L'air Liquide make reference to transactions not being significant. In the
case of Nestle such a statement refers only to transactions with associates with no mention being made of joint
venture 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 be
disclosed. L'air Liquide also discloses superfluous and arguably misleading information within its related parties note
by identifying the contribution made to the consolidated balance sheet and income statement by proportionately
consolidated companies. Groupe Danone discloses only amounts outstanding at the yearend making no specific
statement 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 there
being a cross over in relation to banks where the primary area of business is to provide financing. Each of the banks in
our sample, provide funding to joint ventures and/or associates but there are differences in disclosure. BBVA and
Commerzbank both identify associate and joint venture amounts in aggregate with each disclosing both income
statement and balance sheet amounts in a tabular format. Lloyd’s Banking Group instead chooses to disclose the
information in a narrative format giving separate information for its Sainsbury's Bank joint venture but in common with
its peers, aggregate information for other joint ventures and associates. UBS and BNP Parabis in contrast to the other
banks disclose associate and joint venture amounts separately with the latter including a detailed analysis of income
statement 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 in
aggregate identifying a range of interest rates which attach to these loans. BMW and Anglo American also aggregate
loan amounts but only in relation to joint ventures. The latter disclosing separately a significant loan to an individual
associate. TeliaSonera also identifies a loan amount for an individual investment but the disclosures given by Eni are
by far the most detailed. Eni identifies separately loans made to each of its investments giving some information in
relation to the purpose of each loan. For each individual investment loan receivables, payables, charges and gains are
identified. In addition, Eni states that it has acted as guarantor for a number of its associates and joint ventures
disclosing 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 ventures
but again the format of the disclosures given varies. BG in common with its disclosure of loan amounts aggregates
associate and joint venture incomes and expenses as well as payables and receivables (Extract 5). TeliaSonera in
contrast discloses individual sales and purchases amounts but opts to aggregate payables and receivables. Anglo
American while disclosing that transactions were not significant also aggregates related party trade receivables and
 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

payable amounts. These aggregate totals are identified within the trade payables and receivables notes rather than
the related parties note. Once again, however, the stand out company in relation to the disclosure of associate and
joint venture related party transactions is Eni with individual sales, purchases, receivables and payables disclosed for
each investment (Extract 6). In addition, Eni presents a narrative description of the most significant transactions. Eni
goes further, however, by presenting a related parties income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement
impact 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 related
party columns on the face of the primary financial statements publishes separate supplementary statements so as not
to compromise an overall reading of the statutory statements (Extract 8). In addition Fiat presents in a note to the
accounts an analysis of related party amounts as they relate to discontinued operations. The detailed related party
information presented by both Italian companies is in respect of Italian legislation introduced in 2006. While the detail
given by other companies is not so high there is variety in relation to the information disclosed. BAE Systems for
example publishes a table which shows amounts in respect of individual equity accounted investments separately
including sales, purchases, receivables, payables, lease amounts and management recharges (Extract 9). In addition
to disclosing the figures involved ITV also explains the nature of related party transactions undertaken with associates
and joint ventures. In contrast, Smith & Nephew and BASF while disclosing associate and joint venture related party
information separately do not give amounts for individual joint ventures and associates.

Governments and other parties with a significant shareholding

Of the companies in our sample nine identify related party relationships in respect of either governments or other
parties with a significant shareholding. Six sample companies identify related party information in relation to
governments. Of these Aegon, Commerzbank and Lloyd’s Banking Group are financial institutions which due to
current economic conditions have sought government support. In the case of Commerzbank and Lloyd’s Banking
Group, this has led to the German government owning a 25% shareholding in the former and the UK government
owning a 41% stake in the latter. Both banks state that transactions are carried out with government entities in the
normal course of their business, however, only Commerzbank makes quantified disclosures in relation to such
transactions (Extract 10). Lloyd’s Banking Group does, however, make reference to conditions that have been placed
on it in return for government support. It has undertaken to loan a predetermined amount to businesses and to pay a
fee so that the government would guarantee the issue of debt. Aegon gives a detailed breakdown of the financial
support 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 the
Belgian 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 made
available 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, radio
frequencies and to fund measures to ensure electronic communications are not disrupted. The last company to
disclose a government as a related party is Eni which gives a detailed breakdown of transactions with government
controlled entities.
Companies to disclose related party transactions with significant or controlling shareholders other than governments
are BBVA, Novozymes and Iberdrola Renovables. BBVA within its related parties note identifies transaction amounts
in relation to significant shareholders in aggregate without identifying the parties in question. Analysis of the financial
statements as a whole reveals that no party owns more than 5.07% of the shares. In the case of the other two
companies a controlling shareholder is identified with 70.1% of Novozymes owned by the Novo Nordisk Foundation
5
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
and 80% of Iberdrola Renovables owned by Iberdrola. In both cases a detailed breakdown of income and expense
amounts 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 and
maturity analysis and a disaggregation into fixed and floating (Extract 11). Iberdrola Renovables further gives a
detailed description of agreements entered into with its parent and fellow subsidiaries.

Post-Employment Benefit Plan

Of the companies in our sample ten makes reference to a post-employment benefit plan being a related party. Of
these five are financial institutions. The information disclosed by these companies varies with Commerzbank stating
that external providers of occupational pensions for employees are considered related parties but give no further
information. Aegon goes a stage further by disclosing that it provides reinsurance, asset management and
administrative services to pension funds but stops short of giving any quantified information in relation to fees. Each of
the other financial institutions which are Lloyd’s Banking Group, BNP Parabis and UBS also make reference to
providing services for employee benefit funds but give quantified fee information. The information given by UBS, in
terms of detail, surpasses that given by its peers as not only is reference made in the related parties note, a specific
section exists within the post-retirement benefits note. Within this section UBS in addition to giving a breakdown of
fees and services discloses details of a scheme whereby bank properties were sold to a pension fund and a
transaction 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 pension
plan being a related party on the whole the level of disclosure is less detailed. Nestlé however, outlines how one of its
subsidiaries acts as an asset manager on behalf of a pension plan disclosing the fees that it receives in return for such
services. There is also quantification in relation to the amount of assets under management. ITV also makes an
interesting disclosure by identifying that a pensions funding partnership has been established. Under this
arrangement, an interest in a partnership, which owns a company subsidiary, has been contributed to the pension
fund. ITV makes it clear that it consolidates both the partnership and the subsidiary.

Stand out companies

Italian companies Eni and Fiat are worthy of praise for the sheer detail of the related party information that is
presented. Both companies present a full analysis of related party transactions by type including separate quantified
disclosure for transactions with each related party. The information disclosed is not confined to the related parties note
with both companies presenting additional primary financial statement information so as to exhibit the impact of
related party transactions as a whole. It should be noted that the information presented is largely as a result of
national legislation but the fact remains that the information presented far outstrips that given by companies from other
countries. 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 detailed
breakdown of transactions with post-employment benefit plans and BNP Parabis for the clarity of its disclosures in
relation 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 disclose
key management compensation in a related party or any other note to the accounts. Other companies which could
improve their related party disclosures are BG which expresses associate and joint venture amounts in aggregate and
L'air Liquide which within its related parties note includes information in relation to the impact that proportionately
consolidated entities have on the income statement and balance sheet that could easily be deemed superfluous.

Summary - Conclusion
Our principal conclusions are that:
 Key management compensation is widely disclosed with a number of companies going beyond what is
required 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 a
related party.
 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

Illustrative Extracts
Fiat: Key management personnel compensation (Extract 1)

7
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
Logica: Key management personnel compensation tabular format (Extract 2)
 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

BNP Parabis: Key management personnel compensation per director (Extract 3)

9
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
BNP Parabis: Balance sheet analysis of associate and joint venture related party amounts (Extract 4)
 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

BG: Joint venture and associated undertakings related party amounts aggregated (Extract 5)

11
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
Eni: Joint venture and associate related party amounts by company (Extract 6)
 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

Eni: Income statement with related party column (Extract 7)

13
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
Fiat: Related party transactions supplementary balance sheet (Extract 8)
 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

BAE Systems: Related party transactions equity accounted investments (Extract 9)

15
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com
Commerzbank: Government related party transactions (Extract 10)

Iberdrola Renovables: Analysis of related party financing (Extract 11)

 CR Common Practices
Related Party Disclosures

UBS: Post employment benefit plan related party disclosures (Extract 12)

17
www.companyreporting.com
Monitors ♦ Common Practices ♦ Emerging Issues ♦ Alerts ♦ Benchmarking Reports
© Company Reporting, 11 John’s Place, Edinburgh EH6 7EL Scotland, UK
Published on 10 January 2012. For more information, please email cp@companyreporting.com