<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Countrywide&#8217;s Corporate Governance: Definitely Subprime</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/10/31/countrywides-corporate-governance-definitely-subprime/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/10/31/countrywides-corporate-governance-definitely-subprime/</link>
	<description>Sponsored by the HLS Corporate Governance Program</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jack Sorokin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/10/31/countrywides-corporate-governance-definitely-subprime/#comment-6129</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Sorokin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 04:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/10/31/countrywides-corporate-governance-def#comment-6129</guid>
		<description>I realize it is a small part of your comments, but I wanted to take exception to your comment that five face-to-face board meetings with the remaining meetings by telephone reflects poor board performance. It seems to me that the meeting pattern described reflects an active and engaged board. Considering the difficulties involved in scheduling what is usually a very busy group of people (and to a lesser extent the logistical problems of holding face-to-face meetings), telephonic meetings offer an efficient way to allow for substantial board involvement on an ongoing basis. Of course, whether the meetings are face-to-face or telephonic, it is still up to the board members to fulfill their obligations by making the effort to be informed, ask questions, and challenge management assumptions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realize it is a small part of your comments, but I wanted to take exception to your comment that five face-to-face board meetings with the remaining meetings by telephone reflects poor board performance. It seems to me that the meeting pattern described reflects an active and engaged board. Considering the difficulties involved in scheduling what is usually a very busy group of people (and to a lesser extent the logistical problems of holding face-to-face meetings), telephonic meetings offer an efficient way to allow for substantial board involvement on an ongoing basis. Of course, whether the meetings are face-to-face or telephonic, it is still up to the board members to fulfill their obligations by making the effort to be informed, ask questions, and challenge management assumptions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
