如何確?；ㄆ煦y行洗心革面

????有時候，頭緒紛繁復雜，但其中有一個關系最為重大，足以決定一切的成敗。上周，杰德?拉科夫法官要求美國證券交易委員會（SEC）解釋，與花旗銀行（Citigroup）達成的2.85億美元和解方案如何才能保證花旗今后誠實對待客戶？

????該和解方案針對的問題是：花旗銀行被控在房地產市場危機爆發前夕曾經誤導過抵押貸款證券投資者。有鑒于此，法官提出的問題合情合理?？墒?，表面上看來，SEC要回答這個問題并不容易，因此聯邦法官是否會批準和解方案也就懸而未決。

????花旗2003年也曾與SEC達成一份和解協議，其中包括承諾公平而公開地向客戶披露信息，可是，對于該公司治理與文化的實質性改革，最近這份和解協議要求甚少。要知道，最初正是公司治理方面的失敗引發了種種問題。

????看來，拉科夫充分理解公司治理的重要性。他曾經負責世通公司（WorldCom）破產一案，并指派前SEC主席理查德?布里登擔任法庭監督人員。這總破產案的副產品是一系列公司治理方面的建議，明智的董事會應當以此為準繩，可事實上他們總是抗拒不已。

????那么，在這個最新的案例中，SEC將如何回應呢？拉科夫又該注意什么？

以前的補救措施為何無效？

????花旗銀行董事會有責任監管好公司的文化，而且，有兩位董事早在2003年和解方案達成之前就已經在董事會任職，包括其董事長理查德?帕森斯。

????達成和解之后，花旗董事會采取了哪些行動來改變公司治理監管方式？顯然，不管該董事會采取了什么補救措施，它們都說不上卓有成效，董事會應當重新進行評估，找出背后的原因。

????有可能董事會根本沒有花費足夠的時間來理解該行的工作文化，而是太過依賴于管理層的意見，或者說董事會本身就沒有充分理解這一職責的關鍵性。

????Sometimes, in a sea of questions there is that one that makes all the difference. Last week, Judge Jed S. Rakoff asked the SEC to explain how its $285 million settlement with Citigroup would ensure that the bank would be upfront with its clients in the future.

????It's a fair question, given that the settlement is in response to charges that Citi (C) had misled its mortgage securities investors in the run up to the housing crisis. But at face value, the question may not be so easy for the SEC to answer, leaving the federal judge's approval of the settlement up in the air.

????Citi's 2003 settlement with the SEC also included a promise to provide fair and open disclosure to clients, but this recent settlement calls for little in the away of substantive reforms to the governance and culture at the company. But it is failures in governance that lead to these problems in the first place.

????Rakoff seems to understand just how important corporate governance can be. He oversaw the WorldCom bankruptcy and the appointment of former SEC chair Richard Breeden as court monitor. That case led to governance recommendations that boards would be wise to follow, but continue to resist.

????So how will the SEC respond and what should Rakoff be looking at in this latest case? Here's a start:

Why did previous remedies fail?

????Citi's board has a responsibility to oversee the company's culture. And two of its board directors have been on the board since before the 2003 settlement, including chairman Richard Parsons.

????What actions did the board take to change its cultural oversight after that settlement? Clearly, whatever remedies the board took have not been wholly effective and they should conduct a review to find out why.

????It's possible that the board has not spent enough time to understand the bank's work culture, relying too much on management's opinion, or the board itself may have failed to understand this critical responsibility.