It is conceivably foreseeable that crises lead to calls for improved regulation of business actors, such as the debate over the world economic predicament. Nevertheless, such methodical crises are unusual. On the other hand, company failure following a wrongdoing is a more frequent occurrence. For illustration, Maxwell and BCCI in the UK, WorldCom and Enron in the United States and Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank of Germany are examples of corporations that have collapsed as a result of wrongdoing. Such corporate scandals have resulted in the establishment and improvement of company governance codes, which are put in place to monitor corporate conduct generally, and act of corporate directors in specificity (London stock exchange, 2012). The codes are either wholly voluntary such as the financial reporting council of 2008 in the United Kingdom, or a mixture of legal and voluntary elements like the 2008 German code. As thus, they may be taken as apparatus of flexible law or a mixture of soft and inflexible law. Within the code elements, individual rules might be flexible or rigid. Advocates of flexible law of explanation assert that it has fundamental flexibility, which is not present in rigid laws and the aspiration to conform to societal norms yields indisputable observance. Flexible laws are the rules of conduct that have no lawful obligatory force, which may have practical upshots. Though corporations and their directors may opt to conform or not match flexible law, a generally held supposition is that actions are more likely to be consistent with codified regulation and declarations of best practice. Since flexible law is not lawfully obligatory, its execution has to solely rest on the goodwill of those agreeing to and affected by it. Apparently, where such goodwill is not present, flexible law may result in flexible observance. Where benevolence and the aspiration to conform subsist, conformance may not be the most practicable alternative for corporations and their directors. They may set out that the doctrine supporting a specific regulation on bets practice will be best served by non-conforming. In addition, they might be safeguarded from conforming for reasons beyond their control (The European voice of directors, 2012. Australian council of super investors, 2010). The use of prudence to establish conformance or non-conformance may be helpful to both regulators and the regulatees. Comply or explain may assume several forms. Compliance means severe observance to every detail of the rule or to the primary rule, or both. Germany advocates the formation of an audit committee to act as the oversight of the entire audit process in a large company. Non conformance is commonly warranted by the resort to firm-or industry level specifics, or against the judgment of definite code terms. The flexibility of the laws, that is, “explain” might lead to corporate scandal and eventual collapse. For illustration, the yearly report by the Hypoereinsbank (Germany) vindicated its non-conformance (explain) with the certain rules necessitating that directors’ and officers’ responsibility insurance has a deductible with the plain statement: “responsible act is an understood obligations of the members, no deductible is needed for that.