I don't have much of an opinion on the matter at all. One great big ugly proxy battle is being hashed out and the sooner June 23 comes the better. Back and forth she goes.

So the "special committee" at UMJ brings in an outside(independant) third party outfit who happens to be a proxy advisory firm to give them a thumbs up. Surprised? Nope.

http://www.ursamajorminerals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=461909&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=URSA-Major-Announces-that-Institutional-Shareholder-Services-Recommends-tha...

As for ISS making a recommendation in favour of adoption of the original UMJ slate being a black mark on ISM? I just see it as ISS going along with the status quo and that they are likely banking on the old saying that "investors like certainty".

There's nothing too certain about what the F&M proposal brings forth. Afterall who likes a shake up? It's a change and a leap of faith by UMJ shareholders. Whether they embrace it depends on how well each of these groups presents their arguments for or against. How well each party can do a nice sales job in the persuasion department. Whether that means recruiting extra help in the form of professional proxy advisory outfits or simply re-designing your whole website to look like doomsday looms, all stops will be pulled. Looks more and more like the smear campaigns one sees before the elections.

http://www.ursamajorminerals.com/s/Home.asp

Example:

One board has a battle for survival on their hands. I can't say who will come out on top and therefore I don't have real opinion on it for the UMJ shareholders.

I would like to know how they (ISS) are paid for such services or do they just do this out of general interest for their 1700 clients.

ISS and firms in the same racket makes for good reading in general but here's a couple examples.

http://steventowns.com/2011/04/23/iss-goes-soft-on-ge/

http://www.bnet.com/blog/ceo/do-proxy-service-firms-have-too-much-power/1352