<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/18/proxy-advisory-firms-and-corporate-governance-practices-one-size-does-not-fit-all/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 15:03:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Proxy Advisory Firms and Corporate Governance Practices: One Size Does Not Fit All</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/18/proxy-advisory-firms-and-corporate-governance-practices-one-size-does-not-fit-all/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=proxy-advisory-firms-and-corporate-governance-practices-one-size-does-not-fit-all</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/18/proxy-advisory-firms-and-corporate-governance-practices-one-size-does-not-fit-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Institutional Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Classified boards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glass Lewis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder proposals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=63935?d=20141215153726EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2014 proxy season, like previous seasons, has provided shareholders of public US companies with an opportunity to vote on a number of corporate governance proposals and director elections. Throughout this proxy season, proxy advisory firms have provided shareholder vote recommendations “for” or “against” those proposals and “for” or to “withhold” votes for directors. Certain [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.chapman.com/attorneys-William-Libit.html" target="_blank">Bill Libit</a>, partner concentrating in corporate and securities and municipal finance at Chapman and Cutler LLP, and is based on a Chapman publication by Mr. Libit and <a href="http://www.chapman.com/attorneys-Todd-Freier.html" target="_blank">Todd Freier</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>The 2014 proxy season, like previous seasons, has provided shareholders of public US companies with an opportunity to vote on a number of corporate governance proposals and director elections. Throughout this proxy season, proxy advisory firms have provided shareholder vote recommendations “for” or “against” those proposals and “for” or to “withhold” votes for directors. Certain proxy advisory firms, such as Institutional Shareholders Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass, Lewis &amp; Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), have also published updated corporate governance ratings reports on public companies, including evaluations of a company’s corporate governance risk profile.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/18/proxy-advisory-firms-and-corporate-governance-practices-one-size-does-not-fit-all/#more-63935" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Proxy Advisory Firms and Corporate Governance Practices: One Size Does Not Fit All">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/18/proxy-advisory-firms-and-corporate-governance-practices-one-size-does-not-fit-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
