Company: RNP
Filing Date: 2025-03-07
Form Type: N-CSR
Source: 0001193125-25-049819
Chunk: 104

Company: COHEN & STEERS REIT & PREFERRED & INCOME FUND INC
Filing Date: 2025-03-07
Form: N-CSR
Chunk 104
---
 and in the best interests of the company. Cohen & Steers votes against proposals that would expand indemnification beyond
coverage of legal expenses to coverage of acts, such as gross negligence, that are violations of fiduciary obligations.

Directors’ Liability (non-U.S.)

These proposals ask shareholders to give discharge from responsibility for all
decisions made during the previous financial year. Depending on the country, this resolution may or may not be legally binding, may not release the board from its legal responsibility, and does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of future
shareholder action (although it does make such action more difficult to pursue).

Cohen & Steers will generally vote for the
discharge of directors, including members of the management board and/or supervisory board, unless the board is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties as evidenced by:

| • |     | A lack of oversight or actions by board members that amount to malfeasance or poor supervision, such as 
 operating in private or company interest rather than in shareholder interest;                           |

| • |     | Any legal issues (e.g., civil/criminal) aimed to hold the board liable for past or current actions that           
 constitute a breach of trust, such as price fixing, insider trading, bribery, fraud, or other illegal actions; or |

| • |     | Other egregious governance issues where shareholders are likely to bring legal action against the company or 
 its directors.                                                                                               |

Directors’ Contracts (non-U.S.)

Best market practice about the appropriate length of directors’ service contracts varies by jurisdiction. As such, Cohen &
Steers votes these proposals on a case-by-case basis taking into account the best interests of the company and its shareholders and local market practice.

Compensation Proposals

Votes on Executive Compensation. “Say-on-Pay” votes are determined on a
case-by-case basis taking into account the reasonableness of the company’s compensation structure and the adequacy of the disclosure.

Cohen & Steers generally votes against in circumstances where there are an unacceptable number of problematic pay practices
including:

| • |     | Poor linkage between executive pay and company performance and profitability; |

| • |     | The presence of objectionable structural features in the compensation plan, such as excessive perquisites,           
 golden parachutes, tax-gross up provisions, and automatic benchmarking of pay in the top half of the peer group; and |

| • |     | A lack of proportionality in the plan relative to the company’s size and peer group. |