Excerpt:

“The terminal. Nothing captures Bloomberg better than these machines, though these days, it’s usually more accurate to call them pieces of software. A terminal costs about $20,000 a year and, with 315,000 subscriptions around the world, accounted for the bulk of the company’s $7.9 billion in revenue last year. Up-to-date sales figures and other data about the terminals are displayed on screens throughout Bloomberg’s offices.

The promise of the terminal, which it more-or-less fulfills, is quick and unlimited access to any information that might possibly make you money, from credit default swap spreads to sports betting odds. What’s going on at the largest American oil reserve, which holds the crude sold on the New York Mercantile Exchange? Bloomberg commissions a satellite to fly over the site in Cushing, Oklahoma, twice a week and take a picture. Any terminal customer can access the photographs along with estimates of the amount of oil held in the tanks based on the length of the shadows cast across their roofs.

Each of Bloomberg’s more than 15,000 employees has a terminal, its iconic keyboard and twin screens making the offices resemble a trading floor, and is encouraged to use it as much as possible. Many core functions of the company are conducted with the terminal. Bloomberg’s 2,400 journalists use it to maintain a collective database of sources—contact information, details like children’s names and accolades, and a record of every conversation with that person.

And as the rest of the world just learned, all employees—including, until recently, Bloomberg reporters—have access to potentially sensitive information about terminal users: the last time they logged in, the commands they use, and their chats with customer service. Bloomberg staff have had such access for years.”

Part 6 of the Act contains the provisions which will give shareholders in quoted companies a binding vote over the pay of their directors, by amending Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006. It is expected that those amending provisions will come into effect on 1 October 2013, with the provisions applying to quoted companies with financial years beginning on or after that date.

The documents can be read here.

The covering QCA press release summarised the changes to the Code:

“Last published in 2010, the QCA Code has been revised and updated to take into account a number of corporate governance developments. Some key changes include:

• Emphasising the benefits of good governance to a public company, including how it can build trust between the company, its shareholders and potential shareholders;

• Focusing on the prime importance of companies delivering good quality explanations of its approach, actions and behaviour;

• Emphasising the central role of the chairman in delivering good governance;

• Further embedding the principle of constructive engagement between companies and shareholders in light of the UK Stewardship Code;

• Including greater detail on the characteristics of an effective board; and

• Reordering the Quoted Companies Alliance’s 12 principles of corporate governance to place greater emphasis on the delivery of growth in long term shareholder value.”

The guide (URN: 13/769) can be downloaded here.

The associated BIS press release is here.

The associated BIS press release is here. Excerpt from press release:

“As of 1 March 2013 the figures show within the FTSE 100:

• Women now account for 17.3 per cent of all directorships, up from 10.5 per cent in 2010
• Women have accounted for 34 per cent of all board appointments (45 out of 134 appointments)
• There are currently 94 boards with female representation
• There are now 192 women directors on FTSE 100 boards out of a total of 1,110.

In the FTSE 250 the figures show:

• Women now account for 13.2 per cent of directorships, up from in 6.7 per cent in 2010

• Women have accounted for 26 per cent of board appointments

• There are currently 183 boards with female representation

• For the second year running, all-male boards are in the minority at 26.8 per cent.”

From Manches’ note:

“When entering into a confidentiality agreement (or NDA) with another business or organisation there may be times when, in order to meet your objectives, you want to allow the recipient to go on to disclose confidential information to third parties. In such cases it is critically important to have proper protection in place.

…

Businesses concerned about protecting opportunities where third parties may need to become involved should give proper consideration to whether ‘standard’ confidentiality agreements contain adequate provisions.  If the intention is that a recipient of information needs to procure a back-to-back agreement on terms equivalent to those contained in the original confidentiality agreement, the original agreement should clearly say so.”

A good note by Freshfields summarising those changes is here.