????有時(shí)候，頭緒紛繁復(fù)雜，但其中有一個(gè)關(guān)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(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）解釋?zhuān)c花旗銀行（Citigroup）達(dá)成的2.85億美元和解方案如何才能保證花旗今后誠(chéng)實(shí)對(duì)待客戶(hù)？

????該和解方案針對(duì)的問(wèn)題是：花旗銀行被控在房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)危機(jī)爆發(fā)前夕曾經(jīng)誤導(dǎo)過(guò)抵押貸款證券投資者。有鑒于此，法官提出的問(wèn)題合情合理?？墒?，表面上看來(lái)，SEC要回答這個(gè)問(wèn)題并不容易，因此聯(lián)邦法官是否會(huì)批準(zhǔn)和解方案也就懸而未決。

????花旗2003年也曾與SEC達(dá)成一份和解協(xié)議，其中包括承諾公平而公開(kāi)地向客戶(hù)披露信息，可是，對(duì)于該公司治理與文化的實(shí)質(zhì)性改革，最近這份和解協(xié)議要求甚少。要知道，最初正是公司治理方面的失敗引發(fā)了種種問(wèn)題。

????看來(lái)，拉科夫充分理解公司治理的重要性。他曾經(jīng)負(fù)責(zé)世通公司（WorldCom）破產(chǎn)一案，并指派前SEC主席理查德?布里登擔(dān)任法庭監(jiān)督人員。這總破產(chǎn)案的副產(chǎn)品是一系列公司治理方面的建議，明智的董事會(huì)應(yīng)當(dāng)以此為準(zhǔn)繩，可事實(shí)上他們總是抗拒不已。

????那么，在這個(gè)最新的案例中，SEC將如何回應(yīng)呢？拉科夫又該注意什么？

以前的補(bǔ)救措施為何無(wú)效？

????花旗銀行董事會(huì)有責(zé)任監(jiān)管好公司的文化，而且，有兩位董事早在2003年和解方案達(dá)成之前就已經(jīng)在董事會(huì)任職，包括其董事長(zhǎng)理查德?帕森斯。

????達(dá)成和解之后，花旗董事會(huì)采取了哪些行動(dòng)來(lái)改變公司治理監(jiān)管方式？顯然，不管該董事會(huì)采取了什么補(bǔ)救措施，它們都說(shuō)不上卓有成效，董事會(huì)應(yīng)當(dāng)重新進(jìn)行評(píng)估，找出背后的原因。

????有可能董事會(huì)根本沒(méi)有花費(fèi)足夠的時(shí)間來(lái)理解該行的工作文化，而是太過(guò)依賴(lài)于管理層的意見(jiàn)，或者說(shuō)董事會(huì)本身就沒(méi)有充分理解這一職責(zé)的關(guān)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.