I've got the below question from one of my colleagues from the States.
The question is for A's executives sitting on a board of a foreign subsidiary (B) of A, are there supervisory expectations or regulations that set forth any requirements for that board member to raise any issues to the parent(A). APAC Compliance asked what requirements there are for A's executives sitting on the board of APAC subsidiaries (B) to raise issues learned as a board member to the head office (A).
When I saw this question at first, I thought he would like to know what is necessary for A's executives to raise issues of B to A, such as some specific qualification, eligibility or conditions. However, it seems that he would like to know whether A's executives has any obligations (ex. duty to report under the Corporate Law) to raise issues of B to A and if so, what kind of regulations obligate A's executives to do so. From my understanding, "requirement" is a thing that is needed or compulsory. But, in the above usage, the word seems to be used just to substitute for "to require/demand". I mean, to restate what he wanted to say in other words,
The question is for A's executives sitting on a board of a foreign subsidiary of A, are there supervisory expectations or regulations that set forth to require/demand that board member to raise any issues to the parent. APAC Compliance asked what requires/demands A's executives sitting on the board of APAC subsidiaries to raise issues learned as a board member to the head office.
It's a subtle difference, but I'm a little bit confused because the overall meaning of the question could be totally different because the problem here is anything but specific qualification, eligibility or conditions.
Could you please give me a clear explanation for the usage of this word?
