This seems like another sketchy outfit who basically make their own rules and now they’re suing the SEC to try to stop newly clarified rules that would make them subject to certain anti-fraud rules.
So, to me, it sounds like they’re against anti-fraud measures. 🤔
So, to me, it sounds like they’re against anti-fraud measures. 🤔
Now, I don’t know much about all of this type of stuff, so I’m just throwing some things I found here.
Looks like the ISS is the ‘Institutional Shareholder Services.”
The article says that companies have complained that they & one similar company weird too much power.
Looks like the ISS is the ‘Institutional Shareholder Services.”
The article says that companies have complained that they & one similar company weird too much power.
Previous SEC guidance was too vague (gee, imagine that) on whether proxy advisers had to follow anti-fraud rules, so the SEC recently clarified to state that proxy advisers such as ISS DO have to follow anti-fraud rules. And apparently ISS doesn’t want to do that.
The US CoC agrees with the SEC (though they are still sketch since they’re in bed with China), but this explains it, LOL.
This is all I needed to see - “climate change” and “UN-backed investor group.”
This is all I needed to see - “climate change” and “UN-backed investor group.”
This is quite interesting as well. Is this how all these green activists get put onto company boards?
institutionalinvestor.com/article/b16pv9…
institutionalinvestor.com/article/b16pv9…
