CLIENT ADVISORY BOARD

JANUARY 2018

WELCOME

2

Agenda

Lost Assets: Dormant assets, tracing and forfeiture

- Case study

John Christian Head of Product Computershare Carolyn Sharpe Assistant Company Secretary Rolls-Royce

Blockchain Proxymity voting platform

John Botha Manager, Global Capital Markets Computershare

Industry update & overview Michael Sansom Client Relationship & Industry Director Computershare

Product update John Christian Head of Product Computershare

LOST ASSETS

John Christian

January 2018

4

Lost Assets

• How lost shareholders are treated in the US/Australia and UK

• Escheatment in US

• Australian transfer of ownership

• UK Share Forfeiture and other assets - legislation

• Dormant asset commission

• Rolls-Royce Case Study

5

Aggressive Passive

USA Australia UK

State Regulator Company

Share Forfeiture – different treatments by country

• All US states require financial institutions, including brokerage firms, to report when personal property has been abandoned or unclaimed after a period of time specified by state law — often five years

The US Escheatment Process

• However, 16 states have a 3 year qualification period – including New York, California, Michigan, Texas and Washington

• The firm must make a diligent effort to try to locate the account owner. If the firm is unable to do so - the firm must report the account to the state where the account is held. The state then claims the account through a process called "escheatment“

• The state will hold the account as a book keeping entry, against which the former account owner may make a claim

• States tend to sell the securities in escheated accounts and treat the proceeds as state funds. A former account owner can make a claim for the cash equalling the value of the account at the time of escheatment - excluding dividends or interest covering the time after escheatment

1343 of the Australian Companies Act - A Disposal of securities and Interests if whereabouts of holder unknown

Where a person has been shown in an appropriate register of a company as the holder of securities of the company for a period of at least 6 years and the company has, for a period of at least 6 years: (a) had reasonable grounds for believing that the person was not residing at the address; and (b) was unable to contact the shareholder; the company may, by executing a transfer for and on behalf of the person, transfer to ASIC: (c) the securities and/or interests; and (d) any rights in respect of the securities and/or interests;

the responsible entity may, by executing a transfer for and on behalf of the person, transfer the interests and any rights in respect of them to ASIC to be dealt with under this Part.

ASIC = Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Australian transfer of ownership Process

While the securities industry lacks a standard definition for dormancy, there are various processes, according to asset type, for dealing with dormancy at present:

Share Forfeiture – UK – currently there is no legislative framework for dealing with the Shares

Dividends: if left unclaimed for 12 years, typically flow back into the funds of the issuing company;

Proceeds from corporate actions (e.g. takeovers): if shareholders do not respond for 12 years, unclaimed shares are sold and the proceeds paid to the Supreme Court (though the right to reclaim is retained);

Shares: here there is no process, the underlying shares remain with the registrar in the name of the investor, and the funds with the relevant company; and

Bonds: unpaid interest payments and repayments to lenders at maturity often sit on the company’s accounts as pending payments until, after six years, typically the payment obligations are cancelled

• HMT and DCMS are working on the government’s response to the Commissions' report.

Update, following meeting with the Dormant Asset Commission

• Government are keen to proceed with analysis of how the scope of the

dormant asset scheme can be expanded into our arena – encompassing

shares/bonds, outstanding cash (dividends and corporate action monies)

• Any scheme will be voluntary. They are considering working with industry and

organisations to determine best practice, which may extend to aspects such

as tracing

• Their report is likely to recommend a working group be established to work

through some of the technical/legal/operational issues

• Government response to the Commission report is likely to be published in

early 2018 – monies will start flowing several years later

• Commission on Dormant Assets issued a Call for Evidence in summer 2016. The resultant Commission report was published in March 2017

Example 1 of Articles wording

Example 2 of Articles wording

12

Example 3 of Articles wording

13

Example 4 of Articles wording

Share Forfeiture – Computershare experience

14

Value Realisation

› It unlocks dormant assets and puts the cash to good use

› Assets can be paid to the charity of the Issuers choice or other charities such as Sharegift

Cost Savings

› A forfeiture programme removes dormant shareholdings from the register which will reduce on going register costs

› It’s low cost. Typically a company can deduct the costs of the programme from the dormant assets sold

Know Your Shareholders

› It’s becoming increasingly important that Issuers know who their shareholders are. Running an annual forfeiture programme keeps the share register up to date

Engaged Shareholder Base

› By removing dormant shareholdings, it ensures a company has an active and engaged shareholder base

Why should a company consider running a programme?

We have successfully completed a share forfeiture event for Rolls-Royce

Share Forfeiture – Computershare experience ctd…

15

2. Employ a Tracing Agent

We can undertake the tracing using Georgeson Asset Reunification. The associated costs can either be passed onto located shareholders or deducted from the forfeited assets sold and therefore be at no cost to the company

1. Update Articles and gain shareholder approval

We can provide template clauses – although most companies will use their own lawyers. Typically it applies to shareholders who have been disengaged for 12 years

What does a company need to do

3. Computershare will do the rest!

You get full visibility every step of the way and are provided with a final scheduled of untraced holding. We arrange for the sale of the dormant assets and delivery of the the proceeds to you.

16

Rolls-Royce case study

Rolls-Royce Share Forfeiture Programme

17

1. Update Articles and gain shareholder approval

We made the following changes to our Articles of Association at the 2017 AGM: -

i) Authorised the Company to sell shares, belonging untraced shareholders and use the net sales proceeds to support our Community Investment & Education Outreach activities (and other good causes identified by the directors)

ii) Tidied up the definition of an ‘untraced shareholder’ in our Articles of Association. We haven’t paid a standard cash dividend since 2004 so references to uncashed dividends don’t really help. We included a reference to using an asset reunification company prior to any forfeiture

iii) Updated the provision in our Articles about how we communicate the notice of our intention to sell the shares. We removed all references to advertising in local and national newspapers.

Rolls-Royce Share Forfeiture Programme ctd…

18

2. Employ a Tracing Agent

We have been working with Georgeson since 2010 to locate our untraced shareholders. At the beginning of January we still had: -

- 17,000 untraced shareholders; and

- 6,000 of these shareholders had been missing for 12 years or more.

After the change to our Articles was approved we served formal three month notice, to the last known address, on 12 July 2017.

Georgeson and the Registry team worked together so that any shareholder who made contact during the three month notice period was removed from the Forfeiture population even if they had not completed the process of updating their shareholding.

Rolls-Royce Share Forfeiture Programme cont/d

19

3. Computershare will do the rest!

After the three month notice period Computershare confirmed the final number of shares to be forfeited.

Rolls-Royce issued a signed Board instruction confirming the forfeiture of these shares and Computershare sold the shares and updated the Register. A schedule, setting out the names of each former shareholders and the number/value of shares sold was also provided.

The net sales proceeds, less dealing commission and admin costs were remitted to RR bank account on 18 October 2017.

We received approximately £5.3m from the first forfeiture. We currently have 11,000 remaining untraced shareholders – forecast revenue for 2018 is circa £1m but this could go up or down depending on share price.

Rolls-Royce Share Forfeiture Programme cont/d

20

Finally – a few things to consider

• We set up a ring fenced Profit Ledger code so that we can account for all monies used and this allows for real time reporting on spend.

• We agreed up front with the Board that, in the event a former shareholder came forwards we would give them the net sales proceeds. We will not reinstate the shareholding.

• We have worked with our Group charitable donations committee and Community Investment team to come up with a strategy for how we will use these monies.

• We will provide information in our Annual Report about how we spent these monies in 2018.

Blockchain

Distributed Ledger Technology

John Botha

January 2018

What is it?

› What is blockchain’s relation to Bitcoin?

- Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency

- Blockchain is the ledger technology that powers it

› Definition:

“Blockchain is an incorruptible digital ledger of economic transactions that can be programmed to record not just financial transactions but virtually everything of value.”

Don and Alex Tapscott authors of Blockchain Revolution

› Public or Private?

- Cryptocurrencies are public open source networks

- Private blockchains are permissioned networks

Characteristics

› Distributed

- Traditional network (hub and spoke) versus a distributed network

- Single central database versus multiple copies or nodes (no single point of failure)

Characteristics cont/d

› Immutability

- Transaction is entered into the ledger creating a ‘block’

- Verification process means ‘block’ is confirmed by all ‘nodes’

- Subsequent transaction written onto the new verified block

Characteristics cont/d › Encryption

- Once a block is created it is encrypted or ‘hashed’

- Each block typically contains a hash pointer as a link to a previous block, a timestamp and transaction data. Subsequent transaction written onto the new verified block

- Asymmetric cryptography is an integral component of blockchain technology and the two components are the shared ‘public key’ and the individual ‘private key’

Characteristics cont/d

› Smart Contracts

- First developed on the Etherium blockchain

- Also called ‘self executing contracts’

- Terms and conditions of a transaction are coded between permitted parties

- Execute when the pre-set conditions have been met

- Smart contracts not only define the rules and penalties around an agreement in the same way that a traditional contract does, but also automatically enforce those obligations

Financial Services Interest

› R3 Consortium (R3CEV LLC)

- A consortium of more than 70 of the world's biggest financial institutions

- Set up to research and development of blockchain database usage in the financial system.

› CLS Consortium

- A consortium set up to bring efficiencies in the Forex market using blockchain

- Members include Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Bank of China

Computershare

› Setl

- Computershare is a minority shareholder in Setl

- Setl’s main focus is payments and settlement infrastructure

› Additional Use Cases

- A number of potential use cases have been identified including:

• Registers, share management and reporting

• Transfer Processing, including for restricted securities

• Dividends and other Corporate Actions, e.g., splits, acquisitions & spin-offs

• Shareholder Communications and Proxy Voting

PROXYMITY

VOTING

PLATFORM

John Botha

January 2018

What is it?

› Proxymity is an institutional proxy voting platform developed by Citi.

› The platform has been designed to create a direct investor notification and vote processing mechanism linking issuers/issuer agents (registrars) to investors/investor agents (custodians).

› Bypasses the exiting intermediated outsourced voting process.

› Pilot took place in collaboration with Computershare in Q4 2017

Proxymity CPU

Proxymity Beneficial Investor Notification

Beneficial shareholder Information

is pushed from Citi custody

system to the Proxymity platform

Insto 1 Insto 2 Insto 3

Meeting Information pushed to Proxymity directly by registrar

Citi

Meeting Information and

Beneficial shareholder

Information is

incorporated into a web

based voting portal

Proxymity Vote Processing

Issuers are provided with access to an

‘Issuer Portal’ where any voting

submitted can be viewed. This includes

beneficial owner details and investor

comments (planned for 2018 season)

Longer term, this is envisaged as an API

into Issuer Online for ease of use for

CPU issuer clients

Insto 1 Insto 2 Insto 3 Institutions input voting onto Proxymity

(ahead of proxy appointment deadline)

Proxymity also has the ability to ‘push and

pull’ information via an API from a 3rd

party voting platform such as ISS

Proxymity consolidates omnibus account voting into a single vote instruction. These vote

instructions along with single designation account votes are submitted to CPU prior to

the proxy appointment deadline

Issuer

Proxymity CPU

Proxymity ‘MVP’ Pilot results

› Issuer controlled full notifications distributed to investors up to 96 hours earlier than leading providers.

› Investors received market deadline, in cases investors received an improvement of 5 days on their existing deadline.

› Combined these benefits increased clients research and decision time by 9 days.

› Issuers could view votes, in one instance, 13 days before the deadline. (Most vote submissions coincided with ISS research publication.)

› In all cases votes were received a minimum of 4 days prior to deadline.

Summary

› A massive improvement on the existing institutional outsourcing options.

› First to provide a direct link between issuers and investors.

› Solves the problems in the voting process as set out by the Shareholder Voting Working Group. (e.g. over-voting, vote confirmations, late voting)

› The potential of issuer to investor connectivity should not be underestimated. (e.g. Shareholder ID, Corporate Actions Notifications etc.)

INDUSTRY

UPDATE AND

OVERVIEW

Michael Sansom

January 2018

36

Corporate Governance developments

MiFID 2

Proxy Advisor / Investor Guidance 2018

GDPR

Agenda

37

› UK Government Green Paper on Corporate Governance proposals issued November 16, with responses due by Feb 17

› Proposals were designed to:

› Increase shareholder control over executive pay (e.g. a binding annual vote on pay, and publication of a CEO/average employee pay ratio disclosure)

› Strengthen the stakeholder voice in the boardroom (including the suggestion of a mandatory shareholder committee)

› Strengthen the corporate governance framework of large private companies

› Legislation had been promised, but the UK general election in June 17 resulted in a change of tack – the scope for primary legislation is limited

› Financial Reporting Council asked to incorporate aspects of the government’s strategic goals into a review of the Corporate Governance Code

› BEIS may still look to legislate on some aspects via a Statutory Instrument

Corporate Governance - Background

38

› Proposed changes to the UK Code were published in Dec 2017

› The approach taken….

› Shorter, sharper

› designed to address the elements of governance most important to board effectiveness and corporate purpose

› incorporates the FRC’s work on corporate culture and succession planning

› takes account of the issues raised by the government’s Green Paper and the BEIS Select Committee Inquiry

› is based around a more broad definition of governance, including s172 obligations, organisational culture and wider definition of applicable stakeholders

› is intended to encourage companies to work harder to ‘tell their story’ as opposed to adopting a ‘tick box’ approach to Code disclosure

› Deadline for responses is 28 Feb 2018

› New Code to be published summer 2018 and effective for accounting periods starting on or after 1 Jan 2019

Corporate Governance – UK Code consultation

Taking account of wider stakeholders

› Implement one of three employee engagement

mechanisms:

1. A director appointed from the workforce

2. A formal workforce advisory council; or

3. A designated non-exec

39

Transparency of votes against resolutions

› Where more than 20% of votes have been cast against a

resolution, the company should explain, when announcing

the results, what action it intends to take to understand the

reasons

› An update to be provided 6 months later, before a full

summary in the following year’s report

Corporate Governance – Main proposals

Board composition, independence and tenure

› Removal of certain non FTSE350 company exemptions on

board composition

› Strengthened provisions on independence

› Where a non-exec and/or Chair does not meet the stated

criteria (e.g. 9 years service), they are not considered

independent

› Option for companies to ‘explain’ if they want such a

person to remain in situ

40

Diversity

› Aims to ensure that company appointment and succession

planning practices promote all forms of diversity

› Nomination Committee remit expanded to oversee the

development of a diverse pipeline and report on actions

› All companies (not just FTSE350) are asked to report on

gender balance in the first layer of management below

board level and their direct reports

Corporate Governance – Main proposals cont/d

Remuneration

› Remuneration Committee responsibility extended, at the

request of government, to require it to:

› demonstrate how pay and incentives are aligned

across the business

› explain to the workforce each year on how

decisions on executive pay reflect the wider pay

policy

› have responsibility for oversight of company

remuneration and wider workforce policies

› Recommend extending the minimum vesting and post-

vesting holding period from three to five years

› Rem Co chair to have 12 months Rem Co experience

before undertaking the role

41

Corporate Governance – Main proposals cont/d

42

› BEIS considering Statutory Instrument(s) on

› Pay ratio disclosure

› Increased disclosure obligations in the Strategic Report on how a company is complying with s172

› GC100 due to publish in early 2018 updated guidance on compliance with s172

› FRC consultation contained some questions on the operation of the Stewardship Code – A more formal consultation may follow in summer 18

› Investment Association have released a register of those companies who have had opposition of 20% or more on resolutions, including those from 2017 meetings

› BEIS working with the ICSA on a set of governance principles for large private companies. Meetings from January, with proposals by the summer

Corporate Governance – Other developments

43

Transaction reporting

• DoB, nationality and national ID required for dealing services

• Application to Corporate Action ‘investment decisions’ being reviewed

Terms and conditions

• All participants in regulated services have been mailed updated terms and conditions

Quarterly statements

• Legal advice received that will enable us to facilitate a compliant digital solution, using online channels. Communicating this to participants will serve as an opportunity to drive up e-comms participation rates

MiFID2

44

› Quarterly statements will be created for all impacted issuers/participants in early April, July, October and January each year

› Participants will be informed of the new approach to statements via a mailing in Q1 2018. We will also encourage participants to register for e-comms.

› On an annual basis we will issue participants with a consolidated summary of their client asset position via their chosen communication medium

Q1 2018

Catch Up Statement & statement

format/schedule notification

April 18

Quarterly Statement uploaded

(Jan – Mar)

July 18

Quarterly Statement uploaded

(Apr – Jun)

October 18

Quarterly Statement uploaded

(Jul – Sept)

January 2019

Quarterly Statement uploaded

(Oct – Dec)

Q1 2019

Consolidated client asset summary

notification (by post or email)

MiFID2 – Quarterly statements

45

As part of our Legal and Regulatory Assurance

Programme, a review was conducted of the General Data

Protection Regulation (GDPR) to identify high and low

level project requirements.

This review incorporated:

- the finalised GDPR text,

- guidance from supervisory authorities,

- Article 29 Working Party providing clarity on scope;

and

- the UK Government’s draft Data Protection Bill

We are aware that additional guidance from supervisory

authorities and changes to the draft Data Protection Bill

are expected and we will continue to monitor such

guidance to ensure this is considered by the project.

Analysis of the requirements of the GDPR against

services provided to issuers has enabled the project to

prioritise analysis of processes where there is a greater

likelihood that change will be required to support

compliance with the GDPR.

GDPR – Requirements and Supervisor Guidance

ata

rotection

46

Co

ntr

act

Pro

vis

ion

s

• The GDPR includes specific requirements for contracts between data controllers and processors and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has released draft guidance relating to these requirements.

• We are considering these requirements and drafting a data protection contract amendment to support both Computershare (Data Processor) and Client (Data Controller) GDPR compliance.

Pri

va

cy N

oti

ce

s

• The GDPR contains requirements with respect to information required to be provided by the data controller/processor to the data subject, often in the form of a privacy notice.

• We are reviewing privacy notices across the group to ensure that they

are compliant with the requirements of the GDPR. This includes where an shareholder may visit our website.

GDPR – Specific areas for consideration

47

Info

rma

tio

n

Re

ten

tio

n

• Our review of personal data flows and processing to compile a register of personal data processing will validate information storage locations to apply information retention rules to

• Within core share registry processing systems, we are developing

more automated methods of enforcing information retention periods for personal data

Bre

ach

R

ep

ort

ing

• Obligation on data controllers to report breaches to the supervisory authority within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach

DP

IAs

• Data protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) – Now mandatory if the processing is likely to result in a high level of risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals

GDPR – Specific areas for consideration cont/d

48

Regular updates on project progress to be produced and distributed

via Client Managers

Start to distribute proposed contract amendments from

February 2018 following review against GDPR requirements.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this pack or require

additional information in relation to our GDPR compliance

project, please contact your Client Manager.

Continued monitoring of guidance from supervisory

authorities and UK legislation to identify any updates to data

protection compliance requirements.

Where you identify any requirement to change services

to support their GDPR compliance these should

submitted via their Client Manager.

GDPR – Next steps and future engagement

49

› ISS issued their policy guidelines in November 2017 and the key focuses included

• Recommend a vote against directors who appear to hold excessive number of board positions in public companies.

• Five or more mandates (non-exec = 1 mandate / non-exec chair = 2 mandates / exec director = 3 mandates)

• Exec at one company and non-exec at another = overboarded

• Vesting levels of 25% or more could be inappropriate where grants represent large multiples of salary.

• Recommend votes in favour of hybrid meetings, providing there is no intention to hold virtual only meetings. This is inline with the IA’s position statement issued in Dec 2017 (found here).

CLICK HERE

› Georgeson is able to provide an overview of all ISS guideline updates affecting UK and Europe.

Proxy advisor guidelines - ISS

50

› Announced their policy guidelines were updated in December 2017 and key focuses included

• Companies encouraged to disclose pay ratios, accompanied by description of the methodology for their calculation

• Restricted share plans will be viewed on a case-by-case basis; but in line with the Investment Association guidance

• Recommend a vote against where a company fails to make progress towards the [Parker Review] targets or has not disclosed a cogent plan to address the issue.

• Address best practice for clearly disclosing the board’s skills & competencies

• Recommend a vote against an executive director who is serving on more than two other public company boards and any other director who services on more than five public company boards. Chairmanships are counted as two directorships. Directorships of large private companies will also be factored together with attendance record at all companies.

CLICK HERE

Proxy advisor guidelines – Glass Lewis

PRODUCT

UPDATE

John Christian

January 2018

What we delivered in 2017

52

Mandatory Direct Credit

Outstanding Payment Service – Payment Reissue

Share Forfeiture – already covered

The new share dealing service provider – The Share Centre

Deceased Estate share dealing service

A dealing service for UK shareholders in AMP

Regulatory Change – MiFID2

Progress on the virtual/hybrid meeting

Significant deliveries

Process Improvements

Mandatory Direct Credit

53

Why should other companies also consider MDC?

Shareholders receive their dividends quicker Ensures shareholders receive their payments quicker and don’t have the inconvenience and cost of lost cheques.

It eliminates cheque fraud Cheque Fraud is a concern for any organisation as paper cheques continue to be a target for criminals. Fraud can also be highly distressing for those shareholders who are victims.

It’s the environmental thing to do Removing cheques is a highly effective way to immediately reduce an organisations carbon footprint and helps promote electronic communications

It saves them money › Removing the need for cheque stationary › Eliminating print & postage costs when sending dividend

payments, tax vouchers and general shareholder mailings

Aviva was our 2nd FTSE 100 client to adopt MDC

Computershare Distribution Only

Outstanding Payment Service – payment reissue

54

What does the process involve?

› We search our records for any payment that is due to a shareholder who has recently signed up for direct credit

› We then send them a notification that we will be crediting their bank account for these outstanding payments – less a small admin fee

› The shareholder is given the option not to participate in the process

What are the benefits?

› For the shareholder – they receive money that they probably were not expecting

› For the company – it cleans up the register and is a better shareholder experience

Once a company has been through MDC, we recommend they now undergo a payment reissue programme

Computershare Distribution Only

The Share Centre has now replaced TD Direct as service provider

55

Fully migrated

› Certificated and Corporate Sponsored Nominee Dealing

› Share Trading and ISA Accounts

New product launches

› Deceased Estates Share Dealing Service

Pipeline

› Gilts Dealing

The new service is bedded in and consistently meeting our service standards

Computershare Distribution Only

Regulatory Change

56

MIFID 2 has introduced an avalanche of new regulation. Significant changes to Registry have included

› Requirement for new T&Cs

› Quarterly (and more detailed) Statements

› TRUP reporting – mercifully DRIPs have an exemption

› Extra KYC checks for dealing and CSN

MIFID 2 went live on the 3rd January 2018 – and has been described as the most significant event in the financial markets since the ‘Big Bang’

Computershare Distribution Only

A dealing service for UK shareholders of an Australian listed company

57

Non-Australian domiciled shareholders can find it difficult to sell their Shareholding. After the acquisition of Henderson Group, a number of shareholders were finding it difficult to sell their shares. CPU Australia were asked by AMP to offer a share dealing facility, to allow to sell their AMP Limited shares listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). CPU UK were engaged to administer the facility in the UK, collect all the orders and pay away the sale proceeds. The dealing service had a 19% take up – which is high for a postal dealing service This same service could be replicated for similar Australian companies – and potentially US.

Computershare Distribution Only 58

Virtual Meeting update

› Computershare has successfully held a hybrid meeting in Australia.

› US companies are now regularly holding hybrid or virtual meetings. A driver for this move online is to save costs.

› A number of main market listed companies are actively researching Hybrid meetings – fully virtual is proving more problematic

› In the UK, one of the stumbling blocks is the requirement for a ‘place of meeting’

Computershare Distribution Only

Process Improvement – making things easier and more secure

59

Investor Centre sign on process - Re-engineered by introducing express registration without impacting security

Improved logon password strength

Re-designed the virtual agent ‘Ask Penny’ – and now promote this service over FAQs

Self serve activation requests

E-IPO now live and evolving

Redesign of dividend confirmation notifications

Clear sign posting for shareholders to elect dividend payments methods – especially useful for overseas holders

2018 REGISTRY ROADMAP

60

2019

• New Probate Dealing Tool

IN PROGRESS

• Investor Centre - Responsive

• Issuer Online – Registry Intelligence

• New countersignature rules for letters of indemnity

• Alternatives to cash dividends

Q1 2018

• GDPR impact – including contract changes

• CSDR – starts in Feb 2018

• MIFID 2 Quarterly Statement development

Q2 2018

• Promotion of Trading Accounts

• Alternative Global Disbursements

H2 2018

• Beneficial Shareholder Reporting

Ongoing Process

• Clean-up of uncashed regulated cheques

Q3 2018

• Bank Mandates – automatic payment reissue

Q&As

NETWORKING