title: Developments in non-mandatory disclosures in annual reports of companies: A case study

authors: Sharma, Umesh Prasad

subjects: non-mandatory disclosure

abstract: The paper investigates the extent of non-mandatory disclosure of information (NMD) in the annual reports of the 17 companies listed on the South Pacific Stock Exchange (SPSE) in Fiji, a developing country, and whether NMD by these companies has changed over time providing additional and useful information to stakeholders.  The empirical data was gathered from the years 2008 to 2010 to provide a clear picture of the change in the level and extent of NMD, and its influences over the periods 2008 to 2010. It can be seen from the Fiji perspective that the mandatory requirements tend to have a financial focus. However, it would be expected that the level of company disclosures would have changed over time, with not only global market forces but through differing societal values which have increased the frequency and demand of non-mandatory reporting by companies.  All companies showed some degree of NMD, and on average this demonstrates an increasing trend. The stakeholders are receiving more information about a company’s activities. The companies were analysed in light of recent developments in corporate governance by the Capital Markets Development Authority (CMDA) implementing their 10 corporate governance principles. This became a major driver of the increase in NMD levels of the disclosures in the annual reports of the listed companies. However, a large variation still exists between the level and extent of the NMD and the different listed companies. The minimum disclosure level found over the three years was 9.09 percent, which has increased to a minimum of 13.66 percent in 2010, and the maximum disclosure level over the three years was 81.82 percent. The findings for the extent of NMD was also similar where the minimum words used in NMDs was 114, increasing to 854 in 2010, and the maximum disclosure extent over the three years was 21,414 words. However, it was found that the measurement of counting words tended to fluctuate over different periods where significant events took place that affected the company. Therefore, it was established that disclosure is impacted by what happens in the reporting period, and can explain why one period may have greater disclosure than another. The paper aims to extend earlier work of Sharma & Davey (2013) on the extent of NMD in Fijian context.  While Sharma & Davey (2013) considered voluntary disclosure from 1999-2005, our study reviews NMD over 2008-2010.  The study has shown that corporate governance code issued in 2009 by Capital Market Development Authority has influenced the level of NMD.

text: Developments in non-mandatory disclosures in annual reports of companies: A case study The paper investigates the extent of non-mandatory disclosure of information (NMD) in the annual reports of the 17 companies listed on the South Pacific Stock Exchange (SPSE) in Fiji, a developing country, and whether NMD by these companies has changed over time providing additional and useful information to stakeholders.  The empirical data was gathered from the years 2008 to 2010 to provide a clear picture of the change in the level and extent of NMD, and its influences over the periods 2008 to 2010. It can be seen from the Fiji perspective that the mandatory requirements tend to have a financial focus. However, it would be expected that the level of company disclosures would have changed over time, with not only global market forces but through differing societal values which have increased the frequency and demand of non-mandatory reporting by companies.  All companies showed some degree of NMD, and on average this demonstrates an increasing trend. The stakeholders are receiving more information about a company’s activities. The companies were analysed in light of recent developments in corporate governance by the Capital Markets Development Authority (CMDA) implementing their 10 corporate governance principles. This became a major driver of the increase in NMD levels of the disclosures in the annual reports of the listed companies. However, a large variation still exists between the level and extent of the NMD and the different listed companies. The minimum disclosure level found over the three years was 9.09 percent, which has increased to a minimum of 13.66 percent in 2010, and the maximum disclosure level over the three years was 81.82 percent. The findings for the extent of NMD was also similar where the minimum words used in NMDs was 114, increasing to 854 in 2010, and the maximum disclosure extent over the three years was 21,414 words. However, it was found that the measurement of counting words tended to fluctuate over different periods where significant events took place that affected the company. Therefore, it was established that disclosure is impacted by what happens in the reporting period, and can explain why one period may have greater disclosure than another. The paper aims to extend earlier work of Sharma & Davey (2013) on the extent of NMD in Fijian context.  While Sharma & Davey (2013) considered voluntary disclosure from 1999-2005, our study reviews NMD over 2008-2010.  The study has shown that corporate governance code issued in 2009 by Capital Market Development Authority has influenced the level of NMD.

year: 2013

title: Where the earthly meets the ethereal

authors: Chevalier-Watts, Juliet

subjects: Mudharabas

abstract: 2020 has been a year of challenges and surprises in so many regards, and in keeping with this, Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2019] NZHC 406 represented a surprise for the New Zealand High Court, at least in terms of its subject-matter, as it was the first time a Mudharaba agreement has come before the courts. While this type of agreement is well known in Islamic law, or Sharia law, it is likely not so well known in New Zealand and certainly has not made its presence known in court before.  

A Mudharaba agreement is a type of partnership that aims to make a profit.  The lender, or investor (the rab al maal), provides money or capital to the borrower, or investment manager, or entrepreneur (mudareb or al-mudharib). The mudareb provides the knowledge and labour in the investment and management of the funds.  One of the key aspects of a Mudharaba contract is that any losses that may arise from the agreement will not be shared.  If there are losses, the lender will lose that money and the only losses suffered by the mudareb will be their time and future profits, as well potentially their reputation.  However, the profits of the agreement may be shared between the parties, as agreed prior to signing the contract (Fa’agatu at [5] and [6]; “Mudarabah” Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance <www.islamic-banking.com/explore/islamic-finance/shariah-rulings/question-answers-shariah-rulings/mudarabah>; and “Mudaraba” ThomsonReuters Practical Law <uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/>).

In this comment, and mostly following the approach of the Court, I will be reflecting on the issue of religion and its place in the New Zealand legal landscape in this specific context, and then I will turn to the matters of undue influence, and of breach of fiduciary obligation.

text: Where the earthly meets the ethereal 2020 has been a year of challenges and surprises in so many regards, and in keeping with this, Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2019] NZHC 406 represented a surprise for the New Zealand High Court, at least in terms of its subject-matter, as it was the first time a Mudharaba agreement has come before the courts. While this type of agreement is well known in Islamic law, or Sharia law, it is likely not so well known in New Zealand and certainly has not made its presence known in court before.  

A Mudharaba agreement is a type of partnership that aims to make a profit.  The lender, or investor (the rab al maal), provides money or capital to the borrower, or investment manager, or entrepreneur (mudareb or al-mudharib). The mudareb provides the knowledge and labour in the investment and management of the funds.  One of the key aspects of a Mudharaba contract is that any losses that may arise from the agreement will not be shared.  If there are losses, the lender will lose that money and the only losses suffered by the mudareb will be their time and future profits, as well potentially their reputation.  However, the profits of the agreement may be shared between the parties, as agreed prior to signing the contract (Fa’agatu at [5] and [6]; “Mudarabah” Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance <www.islamic-banking.com/explore/islamic-finance/shariah-rulings/question-answers-shariah-rulings/mudarabah>; and “Mudaraba” ThomsonReuters Practical Law <uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/>).

In this comment, and mostly following the approach of the Court, I will be reflecting on the issue of religion and its place in the New Zealand legal landscape in this specific context, and then I will turn to the matters of undue influence, and of breach of fiduciary obligation.

year: 2020

title: Cultural Justice and Ethics

authors: Nikora, Linda Waimarie

subjects: Maori

abstract: Contains the complete proceedings of the Cultural Justice and Ethics symposium held within the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Psychological Society, Wellington, 23rd-24th August, 1993. The responsibility for ensuring that the discipline of psychology is culturally just, is not only that of Maori or some other non-dominant group - the responsibility belongs to all involved in psychology. This collection of papers is about questioning and challenging the psychology that has been adopted from other settings. It is about nurturing and valuing the development of local and indigenous psychologies. It is about developing psychological tools and methods of application that are culturally compatible. It is an invitation to become excited about and instrumental in building a profession and practice in Aotearoa, for Aotearoa.

text: Cultural Justice and Ethics Contains the complete proceedings of the Cultural Justice and Ethics symposium held within the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Psychological Society, Wellington, 23rd-24th August, 1993. The responsibility for ensuring that the discipline of psychology is culturally just, is not only that of Maori or some other non-dominant group - the responsibility belongs to all involved in psychology. This collection of papers is about questioning and challenging the psychology that has been adopted from other settings. It is about nurturing and valuing the development of local and indigenous psychologies. It is about developing psychological tools and methods of application that are culturally compatible. It is an invitation to become excited about and instrumental in building a profession and practice in Aotearoa, for Aotearoa.

year: 1993