Introduction There are several issues in this case of Medicaments plc Company. Foremost, there is the problem of corporate governance within the management of the firm which is currently under the leadership of Mike Croft. The second issue relates to non-compliance of the company with the UK corporate governance code in which we realize there have been few instances in which the company has failed to comply with the requirements of the code. Finally, other underlying issues in the financial department have to do with auditing and implementation of recommendations by the board of directors in which some of the recommendations are not reviewed. Discussion Corporate Governance Issues and Recommendation Corporate governance can be defined as laws and rules within which any business is operated; it also involves all processes of controlling and operating the business including the issues of internal affairs (Colley, 2003). Several factors may determine the level of corporate governance within an organization and accountability is one of the factors that can be used as a yardstick to determine and predict the level of corporate governance. Generally, a firm that has developed a mechanism of ensuring proper accountability and transparency portrays an example of good corporate governance (Colley, 2003). In this case study, we find that Croft, the CEO of the Medicaments plc Company is the one who sets the number of salary payments for all other board members and his salary as well. This is a clear situation in which there is poor corporate governance in the firm which is unjustified especially since the Company’s majority shareholder is the public. According to the Company’s Act 2006, “the remuneration of the directors shall be determined by the directors” in the properly managed company; this means that the board of directors has the mandate to determine and set the salary package of the CEO of any firm (Legislation.gov.uk, 2011). Furthermore, the board members should jointly decide their pay since one of the functions of the board of directors is to set their salary and compensation. Usually, the procedure followed involves the board of directors choosing a committee which is given the duty to set the salary of the CEO (Colley, 2003) but this is not the case in Medicaments Company since we can see that Croft is the one who has taken upon himself to determine the salary of the board members. This a clear evidence of poor corporate governance since the board directors are curtailed in exercising their duties fully (Amdur and Banket, 2002). In addition, Medicaments plc Company is seen to be poorly managed in the manner by which the board of directors is appointed. In this case, the two non-executive directors were chosen and appointed under the influence of Croft. According to the Company’s Act regulations, a well-managed company should be run by an effective board of directors who will have the responsibility of competitively appointing senior personnel. In doing so the board of directors should ensure that the non-executive board members appointed are impartial and performs their intended role of ensuring accountability of the firm (Amdur and Banket, 2002). Besides that, M