Nuveen Investment Trust II
   
   
   
 

November 30, 2023

   
         

Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG Fund

 
 

Ticker Symbols: Class A—NWCAX, Class C—NWCCX, Class R6—NWCFX, Class I—NVLIX

   

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus. This SAI relates to, and should be read in conjunction with, the Prospectus dated November 30, 2023 for Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG Fund (the “Fund”), a series of Nuveen Investment Trust II. A Prospectus may be obtained without charge from certain securities representatives, banks and other financial institutions that have entered into sales agreements with Nuveen Securities, LLC (the “Distributor”), or from the Fund, by written request to Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG Fund, c/o Nuveen Funds, P.O. Box 219140, Kansas City, Missouri 64121-9140, or by calling (800) 257-8787.

The audited financial statements for the Fund’s most recent fiscal year appear in the Fund’s Annual Report dated July 31, 2023, which is incorporated herein by reference and is available without charge by calling (800) 257-8787.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

     

General Information

S-

3

Investment Restrictions

S-

3

Investment Policies and Techniques

S-

5

Borrowing

S-

5

Cash Equivalents and Short-Term Investments

S-

6

Derivatives

S-

7

Equity Securities

S-

15

Lending of Portfolio Securities

S-

18

Non-U.S. Securities

S-

18

Other Investment Policies and Techniques

S-

21

Management

S-

25

Board Leadership Structure and Risk Oversight

S-

32

Board Diversification and Trustee Qualifications

S-

35

Board Compensation

S-

39

Share Ownership

S-

41

Sales Loads

S-

41

Service Providers

S-

41

Investment Adviser

S-

41

Sub-Adviser

S-

43

Portfolio Managers

S-

43

Transfer Agent

S-

44

Custodian

S-

44

Distributor

S-

44

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

S-

44

Securities Lending Agent

S-

44

Codes of Ethics

S-

45

Proxy Voting Policies

S-

45

Portfolio Transactions

S-

46

Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings

S-

48

Net Asset Value

S-

49

Shares of Beneficial Interest

S-

49

Tax Matters

S-

52

Federal Income Tax Matters

S-

52

Fund Status

S-

52

Qualification as a Regulated Investment Company

S-

52

Distributions

S-

53

Dividends Received Deduction

S-

53

If You Sell or Redeem Shares

S-

53

Taxation of Capital Gains and Losses

S-

53

Taxation of Certain Ordinary Income Dividends

S-

54

In-Kind Distributions

S-

54

Exchanges

S-

54

Treatment of Fund Expenses

S-

54

Non-U.S. Tax Credit

S-

54

Investments in Certain Non-U.S. Corporations

S-

54

Non-U.S. Investors

S-

55

Capital Loss Carry-Forward

S-

55

Purchase and Redemption of Fund Shares

S-

55

Class A Shares

S-

56

Reduction or Elimination of Up-Front Sales Charge on Class A Shares

S-

56

S-1


     

Class C Shares

S-

58

Reduction or Elimination of Contingent Deferred Sales Charge

S-

59

Class R6 Shares

S-

60

Class I Shares

S-

61

Shareholder Programs

S-

62

Frequent Trading Policy

S-

63

Distribution and Service Plan

S-

64

General Matters

S-

66

Distribution Arrangements

S-

66

Additional Payments to Financial Intermediaries and Other Payments

S-

67

Intermediaries Receiving Additional Payments

S-

69

Financial Statements

S-

70

Appendix A – ISS United States Proxy Voting Guidelines

A-

1

Appendix B – ISS United States Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines

B-

1

     

S-2


GENERAL INFORMATION

The Fund is a non-diversified series of Nuveen Investment Trust II (the “Trust”), an open-end management investment company organized as a Massachusetts business trust on June 27, 1997. Each series of the Trust represents shares of beneficial interest in a separate portfolio of securities and other assets, with its own objective and policies. Currently, seven series of the Trust are authorized and outstanding. The Fund was formerly named Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth Fund. The Fund’s investment adviser is Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC (“Nuveen Fund Advisors” or the “Adviser”). The Fund’s sub-adviser is Winslow Capital Management, LLC (“Winslow Capital” or the “Sub-Adviser”).

Nuveen Fund Advisors and its affiliate, Teachers Advisors, LLC (“TAL”), are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nuveen, LLC, the investment management arm of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (“TIAA”). As a result of their common ownership by Nuveen, LLC and, ultimately, TIAA, Nuveen Fund Advisors and TAL are considered affiliated persons under common control, and the registered investment companies managed by each are considered to be part of the same group of investment companies.

Certain matters under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), which must be submitted to a vote of the holders of the outstanding voting securities of a series, shall not be deemed to have been effectively acted upon unless approved by the holders of a majority of the outstanding voting shares of each series affected by such matter.

INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

The investment objective and certain investment policies of the Fund are described in the Prospectus for the Fund. The Fund, as a fundamental policy, may not, without the approval of the holders of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting shares:

(1) Borrow money, except as permitted by the 1940 Act and exemptive orders granted under the 1940 Act.

(2) Act as an underwriter of another issuer’s securities, except to the extent that the Fund may be deemed to be an underwriter within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.

(3) Make loans, except as permitted by the 1940 Act and exemptive orders granted under the 1940 Act.

(4) Purchase or sell physical commodities, unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments; but this restriction shall not prohibit the Fund from investing in options on commodity indices, commodity futures contracts and options thereon, commodity-related swap agreements, other commodity-related derivative instruments, and investment companies that provide exposure to commodities.

(5) Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prohibit the Fund from purchasing or selling securities or other instruments backed by real estate or of issuers engaged in real estate activities).

(6) Issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

(7) Purchase the securities of any issuer if, as a result, 25% or more of the Fund’s total assets would be invested in the securities of issuers whose principal business activities are in the same industry; except that this restriction shall not be applicable to securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or any agency or instrumentality thereof.

Except with respect to the limitation set forth in number (1) above, the foregoing restrictions and limitations will apply only at the time of purchase of securities, and the percentage limitations will not be considered violated unless an excess or deficiency occurs or exists immediately after and as a result of an acquisition of securities, unless otherwise indicated.

For purposes of applying the limitations set forth in numbers (1) and (6) above, under the 1940 Act as currently in effect, the Fund is not permitted to issue senior securities, except that the Fund may borrow from any bank if immediately after such borrowing the value of the Fund’s total assets is at least 300% of the principal amount of all of the Fund’s borrowings (i.e., the principal amount of the borrowings may not exceed 33⅓% of the Fund’s total assets). In the event that such asset coverage shall at any time fall below 300%, the Fund shall, within three calendar days thereafter (not including Sundays and holidays),

S-3


reduce the amount of its borrowings to an extent that the asset coverage of such borrowing shall be at least 300%. No exemptive orders have been issued with respect to the limitation set forth in number (1).

For purposes of applying the limitation set forth in number (3) above, there are no limitations with respect to unsecured loans made by the Fund to an unaffiliated party. However, if the Fund loans its portfolio securities, the obligation on the part of the Fund to return collateral upon termination of the loan could be deemed to involve the issuance of a senior security within the meaning of Section 18(f) of the 1940 Act. In order to avoid violation of Section 18(f), the Fund may not make a loan of portfolio securities if, as a result, more than one-third of its total asset value (at market value computed at the time of making a loan) would be on loan. No exemptive orders have been issued with respect to the limitation set forth in number (3).

For purposes of applying the limitation set forth in number (7) above, issuers of the following securities will not be considered to be members of any industry: securities of the U.S. government and its agencies or instrumentalities; except as set forth in the following sentence, tax-exempt securities of state, territory, possession or municipal governments and their authorities, agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions; and repurchase agreements collateralized by any such obligations. To the extent that the income from a municipal bond is derived principally from the assets and revenues of non-governmental users, the securities will be deemed to be from the industry of that non-governmental user. To the extent the Fund invests in other investment companies, it will consider the investments of the underlying investment companies when determining compliance with the limitation set forth in number (7) above, to the extent the Fund has sufficient information about such investments. For purposes of this limitation, all sovereign debt of a single country will be considered investments in a single industry.

Where a security is guaranteed by a governmental entity or some other facility, such as a bank guarantee or letter of credit, such a guarantee or letter of credit would be considered a separate security and would be treated as an issue of such government, other entity or bank.

The foregoing fundamental investment policies, together with the investment objective of the Fund, cannot be changed without approval by holders of a “majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting shares.” As defined in the 1940 Act, this means the vote of (i) 67% or more of the Fund’s shares present at a meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the Fund’s shares are present or represented by proxy, or (ii) more than 50% of the Fund’s shares, whichever is less.

In addition to the foregoing fundamental investment policies, the Fund is also subject to the following non-fundamental restrictions and policies, which may be changed by the Board of Trustees. The Fund may not:

(1) Acquire any illiquid investment if, immediately after the acquisition, the Fund would have invested more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid investments.

(2) Acquire any securities of registered open-end investment companies or registered unit investment trusts in reliance on subparagraph (F) or subparagraph (G) of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act.

(3) Invest directly in futures, options on futures and swaps to the extent that the Adviser would be required to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as a commodity pool operator. See “Investment Policies and Techniques—Derivatives—Limitations on the Use of CFTC-Regulated Futures, Options on Futures and Swaps.”

For purposes of number (1) above, the Fund will monitor portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis and, in the event that more than 15% of the Fund’s net assets are invested in illiquid investments, the Fund will reduce such holdings to at or below the 15% limit within a reasonable period of time. The term “illiquid investments” has the same meaning as given in Rule 22e-4 under the 1940 Act and associated guidance.

The Fund has adopted a non-fundamental investment policy pursuant to Rule 35d-1 under the 1940 Act (the “Name Policy”) whereby the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of the sum of its net assets and the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes in equity securities of companies with large capitalizations at the time of purchase. As a result, the Fund must provide shareholders with a notice meeting the requirements of Rule 35d-1(c) at least 60 days prior to any change of its Name Policy. The Fund will consider both direct investments and indirect investments (e.g., investments in other investment companies, derivatives and synthetic instruments with economic characteristics similar to the direct investments that meet the Name Policy) when determining compliance with the Name Policy. For purposes of the Name Policy, the Fund will value eligible derivatives at fair value or market value instead of notional value.

S-4


INVESTMENT POLICIES AND TECHNIQUES

The following information supplements the discussion of the Fund’s investment objective, principal investment strategies, policies and techniques that appears in the Prospectus for the Fund. Additional information concerning principal investment strategies of the Fund, and other investment strategies that may be used by the Fund, is set forth below in alphabetical order.

If a percentage limitation on investments by the Fund stated in this SAI or its Prospectus is adhered to at the time of an investment, a later increase or decrease in percentage resulting from changes in asset value will not be deemed to violate the limitation except in the case of the limitations on borrowing.

References in this section to the Adviser also apply, to the extent applicable, to the Sub-Adviser of the Fund.

Borrowing

Joint Credit Agreement

The Fund, along with certain other funds managed by the Adviser (“Participating Funds”), is a party to a 364-day, approximately $2.7 billion credit agreement with a group of lenders (the “Credit Agreement”), which expires in June 2024, unless extended or renewed. The Fund may borrow under the Credit Agreement to meet shareholder redemptions and for other lawful temporary purposes. Borrowing results in interest expense and being a Participating Fund results in other fees and expenses, which may increase the Fund’s net expenses and reduce the Fund’s return. In addition, borrowing by the Fund may create leverage by increasing the Fund’s investment exposure. This will result in any changes in the Fund’s net asset value, either positive or negative, being greater than they would have been if the Fund had not borrowed. Participating Funds have been allocated different first priority portions of the committed amount of the credit facility based primarily on the expected likelihood and extent of the need to borrow under the Credit Agreement. Administration, legal, arrangement, upfront and undrawn fees under the Credit Agreement are allocated among Participating Funds based upon these first priority portions of the aggregate commitment available to them and other factors deemed relevant by the Adviser and the Board of each Participating Fund, while fees on any amounts drawn by a Participating Fund under the Credit Agreement are borne by that Participating Fund.

Inter-Fund Borrowing and Lending

The SEC has granted an exemptive order permitting registered open-end and closed-end Nuveen Funds to participate in an inter-fund lending facility whereby the Nuveen Funds may directly lend to and borrow money from each other for temporary purposes (e.g., to satisfy redemption requests or when a sale of securities “fails,” resulting in an unanticipated cash shortfall) (the “Inter-Fund Program”). The closed-end Nuveen Funds will participate only as lenders, and not as borrowers, in the Inter-Fund Program because such closed-end funds rarely, if ever, need to borrow cash to meet redemptions. The Inter-Fund Program is subject to a number of conditions, including, among other things, the requirements that (1) no Nuveen Fund may borrow or lend money through the Inter-Fund Program unless it receives a more favorable interest rate than is typically available from a bank or other financial institution for a comparable transaction; (2) no Nuveen Fund may borrow on an unsecured basis through the Inter-Fund Program unless the Nuveen Fund’s outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the inter-fund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets; provided that if the borrowing Nuveen Fund has a secured borrowing outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another Nuveen Fund, the inter-fund loan must be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value; (3) if a Nuveen Fund’s total outstanding borrowings immediately after an inter-fund borrowing would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Nuveen Fund may borrow through the inter-fund loan on a secured basis only; (4) no Nuveen Fund may lend money if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the Inter-Fund Program to exceed 15% of its net assets at the time of the loan; (5) a Nuveen Fund’s inter-fund loans to any one Nuveen Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Nuveen Fund’s net assets; (6) the duration of inter-fund loans will be limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more than seven days; and (7) each inter-fund loan may be called on one business day’s notice by a lending Nuveen Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Nuveen Fund. In addition, a Nuveen Fund may participate in the Inter-Fund Program only if and to the extent that such participation is consistent with the Nuveen Fund’s investment objective(s) and investment policies. The Board of Trustees of the Nuveen Funds is responsible for overseeing the Inter-Fund Program.

S-5


The limitations detailed above and the other conditions of the SEC exemptive order permitting the Inter-Fund Program are designed to minimize the risks associated with Inter-Fund Program for both the lending fund and the borrowing fund. However, no borrowing or lending activity is without risk. When the Fund borrows money from another Nuveen Fund, there is a risk that the loan could be called on one day’s notice or not renewed, in which case the Fund may have to borrow from a bank at a higher rate or take other actions to payoff such loan if an inter-fund loan is not available from another Nuveen Fund. Any delay in repayment to a lending fund could result in a lost investment opportunity or additional borrowing costs.

Cash Equivalents and Short-Term Investments

The Fund may hold assets in cash or cash equivalents, money market funds and short-term taxable fixed income securities in such proportions as warranted by prevailing market conditions and the Fund’s principal investment strategies. For temporary defensive purposes or during periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund may invest up to 100% of its net assets in such holdings. During such periods, the Fund may not be able to achieve its investment objective. The Fund may only invest in short-term taxable fixed income securities with a maturity of one year or less and whose issuers have a long-term rating of at least A- or higher by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“Standard & Poor’s”), A3 or higher by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) or A- or higher by Fitch, Inc. (“Fitch”). Short-term taxable fixed income securities are defined to include, without limitation, the following:

(1) U.S. Government Securities. The Fund may invest in U.S. government securities, including bills, notes and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. government agencies or instrumentalities. U.S. government agency securities include securities issued by (a) the Federal Housing Administration, Farmers Home Administration, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Small Business Administration, and the Government National Mortgage Association, whose securities are supported by the full faith and credit of the United States; (b) the Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, whose securities are supported by the right of the agency to borrow from the U.S. Treasury; (c) the Federal National Mortgage Association, whose securities are supported by the discretionary authority of the U.S. government to purchase certain obligations of the agency or instrumentality; and (d) the Student Loan Marketing Association, whose securities are supported only by its credit. While the U.S. government provides financial support to such U.S. government-sponsored agencies or instrumentalities, no assurance can be given that it always will do so since it is not so obligated by law. The U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities do not guarantee the market value of their securities, and consequently, the value of such securities may fluctuate. In addition, the Fund may invest in sovereign debt obligations of non-U.S. countries. A sovereign debtor’s willingness or ability to repay principal and interest in a timely manner may be affected by a number of factors, including its cash flow situation, the extent of its non-U.S. reserves, the availability of sufficient non-U.S. exchange on the date a payment is due, the relative size of the debt service burden to the economy as a whole, the sovereign debtor’s policy toward principal international lenders and the political constraints to which it may be subject.

(2) Certificates of Deposit. The Fund may invest in certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association. Such certificates are for a definite period of time, earn a specified rate of return, and are normally negotiable. If such certificates of deposit are non-negotiable, they will be considered illiquid investments and be subject to the Fund’s 15% restriction on investments in illiquid investments. Pursuant to the certificate of deposit, the issuer agrees to pay the amount deposited plus interest to the bearer of the certificate on the date specified thereon. Under current FDIC regulations, the maximum insurance payable as to any one certificate of deposit is $250,000; therefore, certificates of deposit purchased by the Fund may not be fully insured. The Fund may only invest in certificates of deposit issued by U.S. banks with at least $1 billion in assets.

(3) Bankers’ Acceptances. The Fund may invest in bankers’ acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions. Generally, an acceptance is a time draft drawn on a bank by an exporter or an importer to obtain a stated amount of funds to pay for specific merchandise. The draft is then “accepted” by a bank that, in effect, unconditionally guarantees to pay the face value of the instrument on its maturity date. The acceptance may then be held by the accepting bank as an asset or it may be sold in the secondary market at the going rate of interest for a specific maturity.

S-6


(4) Repurchase Agreements. The Fund may invest in repurchase agreements which involve purchases of debt securities. In such an action, at the time the Fund purchases the security, it simultaneously agrees to resell and redeliver the security to the seller, who also simultaneously agrees to buy back the security at a fixed price and time. This assures a predetermined yield for the Fund during its holding period since the resale price is always greater than the purchase price and reflects an agreed-upon market rate. Such actions afford an opportunity for the Fund to invest temporarily available cash. The Fund may enter into repurchase agreements only with respect to obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities; certificates of deposit; or bankers’ acceptances in which the Fund may invest. Repurchase agreements may be considered loans to the seller, collateralized by the underlying securities. The risk to the Fund is limited to the ability of the seller to pay the agreed-upon sum on the repurchase date; in the event of default, the repurchase agreement provides that the Fund is entitled to sell the underlying collateral. If the value of the collateral declines after the agreement is entered into, however, and if the seller defaults under a repurchase agreement when the value of the underlying collateral is less than the repurchase price, the Fund could incur a loss of both principal and interest. The portfolio managers monitor the value of the collateral at the time the action is entered into and at all times during the term of the repurchase agreement. The portfolio managers do so in an effort to determine that the value of the collateral always equals or exceeds the agreed-upon repurchase price to be paid to the Fund. If the seller were to be subject to a federal bankruptcy proceeding, the ability of the Fund to liquidate the collateral could be delayed or impaired because of certain provisions of the bankruptcy laws.

(5) Bank Time Deposits. The Fund may invest in bank time deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of interest. There may be penalties for the early withdrawal of such time deposits, in which case the yields of these investments will be reduced.

(6) Commercial Paper. The Fund may invest in commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured promissory notes, including variable rate master demand notes issued by corporations to finance their current operations. Master demand notes are direct lending arrangements between the Fund and a corporation. There is no secondary market for the notes. However, they are redeemable by the Fund at any time. The portfolio managers will consider the financial condition of the corporation (e.g., earning power, cash flow and other liquidity ratios) and will continuously monitor the corporation’s ability to meet all of its financial obligations, because the Fund’s liquidity might be impaired if the corporation were unable to pay principal and interest on demand. The Fund may only invest in commercial paper rated A-2 or higher by Standard & Poor’s, Prime-2 or higher by Moody’s or F2 or higher by Fitch, or unrated commercial paper which is, in the opinion of the portfolio managers, of comparable quality.

Derivatives

Subject to the limitations set forth below under “Limitations on the Use of CFTC-Regulated Futures, Options on Futures and Swaps,” the Fund may use derivative instruments as described below. Generally, a derivative is a financial contract the value of which depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate or index. Derivatives generally take the form of contracts under which the parties agree to payments between them based upon the performance of a wide variety of underlying references, such as stocks, bonds, loans, commodities, interest rates, currency exchange rates, and various domestic and foreign indices.

The Fund may use derivatives for a variety of reasons, including as a substitute for investing directly in securities, as part of a hedging strategy (that is, for the purpose of reducing risk to the Fund), or for other purposes related to the management of the Fund. Derivatives permit the Fund to increase or decrease the level of risk, or change the character of the risk, to which its portfolio is exposed in much the same way as the Fund can increase or decrease the level of risk, or change the character of the risk, of its portfolio by making investments in specific securities. However, derivatives may entail investment exposures that are greater than their cost would suggest. As a result, a small investment in derivatives could have a large impact on the Fund’s performance.

While transactions in some derivatives may be effected on established exchanges, many other derivatives are privately negotiated and entered into in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market with a single counterparty. When exchange-traded derivatives are purchased and sold, a clearing agency associated with the exchange stands between each buyer and seller and effectively guarantees performance of each contract, either on a limited basis through a guaranty fund or to the full extent of the clearing agency’s balance sheet. Transactions in OTC derivatives not subject to a clearing requirement have no such

S-7


protection. Each party to an uncleared OTC derivative bears the risk that its direct counterparty will default. In addition, OTC derivatives are generally less liquid than exchange-traded derivatives because they often can only be closed out with the other party to the transaction.

The use of derivative instruments is subject to applicable regulations of the SEC, the CFTC, various state regulatory authorities and, with respect to exchange-traded derivatives, the several exchanges upon which they are traded. Under Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act, a registered investment company’s derivatives exposure, which includes short positions and certain when-issued and delayed-delivery transactions for this purpose, is limited through a value-at-risk test and Rule 18f-4 requires the adoption and implementation of a derivatives risk management program for certain derivatives users. However, subject to certain conditions, limited derivatives users (as defined in Rule 18f-4) are not subject to the full requirements of Rule 18f-4. In connection with adopting Rule 18f-4, the SEC eliminated the asset segregation framework arising from prior SEC guidance for covering derivatives and certain financial instruments. In addition, under Rule 18f-4, the Fund is permitted to invest in when-issued securities, and the transaction will be deemed not to involve a senior security, provided that (i) the Fund intends to physically settle the transaction and (ii) the transaction will settle within 35 days of its trade date (the “Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision”). The Fund may otherwise engage in such transactions that do not meet the conditions of the Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision so long as the Fund treats any such transaction as a “derivatives transaction” for purposes of compliance with the rule. Rule 18f-4 could limit the Fund’s ability to engage in certain derivatives transactions and/or increase the costs of such derivatives transactions, which could adversely affect the value or performance of the Fund. Changes in the value of a derivative may also create margin delivery or settlement payment obligations for the Fund. In addition, the Fund’s ability to use derivative instruments may be limited by tax considerations.

The particular derivative instruments the Fund can use are described below. The Fund’s portfolio managers may decide not to employ some or all of these instruments, and there is no assurance that any derivatives strategy used by the Fund will succeed. The Fund may employ new derivative instruments and strategies when they are developed, if those investment methods are consistent with the Fund’s investment objective and are permissible under applicable regulations governing the Fund.

Options Transactions

The Fund may purchase put and call options on specific securities (including groups or "baskets" of specific securities), stock indices, and/or foreign currencies. In addition, the Fund may write put and call options on such financial instruments.

Options on Securities. The Fund may purchase put and call options on securities. A put option on a security gives the purchaser of the option the right (but not the obligation) to sell, and the writer of the option the obligation to buy, the underlying security at a stated price (the “exercise price”) at any time before the option expires. A call option on a security gives the purchaser the right (but not the obligation) to buy, and the writer the obligation to sell, the underlying security at the exercise price at any time before the option expires. The purchase price for a put or call option is the “premium” paid by the purchaser for the right to sell or buy.

The Fund may purchase put options to hedge against a decline in the value of its portfolio. By using put options in this way, the Fund would reduce any profit it might otherwise have realized in the underlying security by the amount of the premium paid for the put option and by transaction costs. In similar fashion, the Fund may purchase call options to protect against an increase in the price of securities that the Fund anticipates purchasing in the future, a practice sometimes referred to as “anticipatory hedging.” The premium paid for the call option plus any transaction costs will reduce the benefit, if any, realized by the Fund upon exercise of the option, and, unless the price of the underlying security rises sufficiently, the option may expire unexercised.

Options on Stock Indices. The Fund may purchase put and call options on stock indices. An option on a stock index gives the holder the right to receive, upon exercise of the option, an amount of cash if the closing value of the underlying stock index is greater than, in the case of a call, or less than, in the case of a put, the exercise price of the option. This amount of cash is equal to the difference between the closing price of the index and the exercise price of the option expressed in dollars times a specified multiple (the “multiplier”). The writer of the option is obligated, for the premium received, to make delivery of this amount. Settlements for stock index options are always in cash.

Options on Currencies. The Fund may purchase put and call options on foreign currencies. A foreign currency option provides the option buyer with the right to buy or sell a stated amount of foreign currency at the exercise price at a specified date or during the option period. A call option gives its owner the right,

S-8


but not the obligation, to buy the currency, while a put option gives its owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell the currency. The option seller (writer) is obligated to fulfill the terms of the option sold if it is exercised. However, either seller or buyer may close its position during the option period in the secondary market for such options at any time prior to expiration.

A foreign currency call option rises in value if the underlying currency appreciates. Conversely, a foreign currency put option rises in value if the underlying currency depreciates. While purchasing a foreign currency option may protect the Fund against an adverse movement in the value of a foreign currency, it would limit the gain which might result from a favorable movement in the value of the currency. For example, if the Fund were holding securities denominated in an appreciating foreign currency and had purchased a foreign currency put to hedge against a decline in the value of the currency, it would not have to exercise its put. In such an event, however, the amount of the Fund’s gain would be offset in part by the premium paid for the option. Similarly, if the Fund entered into a contract to purchase a security denominated in a foreign currency and purchased a foreign currency call to hedge against a rise in the value of the currency between the date of purchase and the settlement date, the Fund would not need to exercise its call if the currency instead depreciated in value. In such a case, the Fund could acquire the amount of foreign currency needed for settlement in the spot market at a lower price than the exercise price of the option.

Writing Options. The Fund may write (sell) put and call options. These transactions would be undertaken principally to produce additional income. The Fund receives a premium from writing options which it retains whether or not the option is exercised. The Fund may write straddles consisting of a combination of a call and a put written on the same underlying instrument.

Expiration or Exercise of Options. If an option purchased by the Fund expires unexercised, the Fund realizes a capital loss equal to the premium paid. If an option written by the Fund expires unexercised, the Fund realizes a capital gain equal to the premium received at the time the option was written. Prior to the earlier of exercise or expiration, an exchange traded option may be closed out by an offsetting purchase or sale of an option of the same series (type, exchange, underlying security, currency or index, exercise price, and expiration). There can be no assurance, however, that a closing purchase or sale transaction can be effected when the Fund desires.

The Fund may sell put or call options it has previously purchased, which could result in a net gain or loss depending on whether the amount realized on the sale is more or less than the premium and other transaction costs paid on the put or call option which is sold. Prior to exercise or expiration, an option may be closed out by an offsetting purchase or sale of an option of the same series. The Fund will realize a capital gain from a closing purchase transaction if the cost of the closing option is less than the premium received from writing the option, or, if it is more, the Fund will realize a capital loss. If the premium received from a closing sale transaction is more than the premium paid to purchase the option, the Fund will realize a capital gain or, if it is less, the Fund will realize a capital loss. The principal factors affecting the market value of a put or a call option include supply and demand, interest rates, the current market price of the underlying security, currency or index in relation to the exercise price of the option, the volatility of the underlying security, currency or index, and the time remaining until the expiration date.

Futures

The Fund may engage in futures transactions. The Fund may buy and sell futures contracts that relate to (1) interest rates, (2) foreign currencies, (3) stock indices, and (4) individual stocks. The Fund may only enter into futures contracts which are standardized and traded on a U.S. or foreign exchange, board of trade or similar entity, or quoted on an automated quotation system.

A futures contract is an agreement between two parties to buy and sell a security, index, interest rate or currency (each a “financial instrument”) for a set price on a future date. Certain futures contracts, such as futures contracts relating to individual securities, call for making or taking delivery of the underlying financial instrument. However, these contracts generally are closed out before delivery by entering into an offsetting purchase or sale of a matching futures contract. Other futures contracts, such as futures contracts on interest rates and indices, do not call for making or taking delivery of the underlying financial instrument, but rather are agreements pursuant to which two parties agree to take or make delivery of an amount of cash equal to the difference between the value of the financial instrument at the close of the last trading day of the contract and the price at which the contract was originally written. These contracts also may be settled by entering into an offsetting futures contract.

Unlike when the Fund purchases or sells a security, no price is paid or received by the Fund upon the purchase or sale of a futures contract. Initially, the Fund will be required to deposit with its futures broker

S-9


(also known as a futures commission merchant (“FCM”)) an amount of cash or securities equal to a specified percentage of the contract amount. This amount is known as initial margin. The margin deposit is intended to ensure completion of the contract. Minimum initial margin requirements are established by the futures exchanges and may be revised. In addition, FCMs may establish margin deposit requirements that are higher than the exchange minimums. Cash held as margin is generally invested by the FCM in high-quality instruments permitted under CFTC regulations, with returns retained by the FCM and interest paid to the Fund on the cash at an agreed-upon rate. The Fund will also receive any interest paid from coupon-bearing securities, such as Treasury securities, held in margin accounts. Subsequent payments to and from the FCM, called variation margin, will be made on a daily basis as the price of the underlying financial instrument fluctuates, making the futures contract more or less valuable, a process known as marking the contract to market. Changes in variation margin are recorded by the Fund as unrealized gains or losses. At any time prior to expiration of the futures contract, the Fund may elect to close the position by taking an opposite position that will operate to terminate its position in the futures contract. A final determination of variation margin is then made, additional cash is required to be paid by or released to the Fund, and the Fund realizes a gain or loss. In the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of an FCM that holds margin on behalf of the Fund, the Fund may be entitled to the return of margin owed to it only in proportion to the amount received by the FCM’s other customers, potentially resulting in losses to the Fund. Futures transactions also involve brokerage costs.

Most U.S. futures exchanges limit the amount of fluctuation permitted in futures contract prices during a single trading day. The daily limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price at the end of a trading session. Once the daily limit has been reached in a particular type of futures contract, no trades may be made on that day at a price beyond that limit. The daily limit governs only price movement during a particular trading day and therefore does not limit potential losses, because the limit may prevent the liquidation of unfavorable positions. Futures contract prices have occasionally moved to the daily limit for several consecutive trading days with little or no trading, thereby preventing prompt liquidation of futures positions and subjecting some futures traders to substantial losses.

Options on Futures

The Fund may purchase or write put and call options on futures contracts and write straddles, which consist of a call and put option on the same futures contract. A futures option gives the holder the right, in return for the premium paid, to assume a long position (call) or short position (put) in a futures contract at a specified exercise price prior to the expiration of the option. Upon exercise of a call option, the holder acquires a long position in the futures contract and the writer is assigned the opposite short position. In the case of a put option, the opposite is true. Prior to exercise or expiration, a futures option may be closed out by an offsetting purchase or sale of a futures option of the same series.

The Fund may use options on futures contracts in connection with hedging strategies. The writing of a call option or the purchasing of a put option on a futures contract constitutes a partial hedge against declining prices of the securities which are deliverable upon exercise of the futures contract. If the futures price at expiration of a written call option is below the exercise price, the Fund will retain the full amount of the option premium which provides a partial hedge against any decline that may have occurred in the Fund’s holdings of securities. If the futures price when the option is exercised is above the exercise price, however, the Fund will incur a loss, which may be offset, in whole or in part, by the increase in the value of the securities held by the Fund that were being hedged. Writing a put option or purchasing a call option on a futures contract serves as a partial hedge against an increase in the value of the securities the Fund intends to acquire.

As with investments in futures contracts, the Fund is required to deposit and maintain margin with respect to put and call options on futures contracts written by it.

Forward Currency Contracts and other Foreign Currency Transactions

The Fund may enter into forward currency contracts. A forward currency contract involves an obligation to purchase or sell a specific currency at a future date, which may be any fixed number of days from the date of the contract agreed upon by the parties, at a price set at the time of the contract. These contracts are traded directly between currency traders (usually large commercial banks) and their customers. Unlike futures contracts, which are standardized contracts, forward contracts can be specifically drawn to meet the needs of the parties that enter into them. The parties to a forward currency contract may agree to offset or terminate the contract before its maturity, or may hold the contract to

S-10


maturity and complete the contemplated exchange. Because forward contracts are not traded on an exchange, the Fund is subject to the credit and performance risk of the counterparties to such contracts.

The following, among others, are types of currency management strategies involving forward contracts that may be used by the Fund. The Fund also may use currency futures contracts and options thereon, put and call options on foreign currencies and currency swaps for the same purposes.

Transaction Hedges. When the Fund enters into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security denominated in a foreign currency, or when it anticipates receiving dividend payments in a foreign currency, the Fund might wish to lock in the U.S. dollar price of the security or the U.S. dollar equivalent of the dividend payments. To do so, the Fund could enter into a forward contract for the purchase or sale of the amount of foreign currency involved in the underlying transaction at a fixed amount of U.S. dollars per unit of the foreign currency. This is known as a “transaction hedge.” A transaction hedge will protect the Fund against a loss from an adverse change in the currency exchange rate during the period between the date on which the security is purchased or sold or on which the payment is declared, and the date on which the payment is made or received. Forward contracts to purchase or sell a foreign currency may also be used by the Fund in anticipation of future purchases or sales of securities denominated in a foreign currency, even if the specific investments have not yet been selected by the Sub-Adviser. This strategy is sometimes referred to as “anticipatory hedging.”

Position Hedges. The Fund could also use forward contracts to lock in the U.S. dollar value of portfolio positions. This is known as a “position hedge.” When the Fund believes that a foreign currency might suffer a substantial decline against the U.S. dollar, it could enter into a forward contract to sell an amount of that foreign currency approximating the value of some or all of the Fund’s portfolio securities denominated in that foreign currency. When the Fund believes that the U.S. dollar might suffer a substantial decline against a foreign currency, it could enter into a forward contract to buy that foreign currency for a fixed dollar amount. Alternatively, the Fund could enter into a forward contract to sell a different foreign currency for a fixed U.S. dollar amount if the Fund’s portfolio managers believe that the U.S. dollar value of that foreign currency will fall whenever there is a decline in the U.S. dollar value of the currency in which portfolio securities of the Fund are denominated. This is referred to as a “cross hedge.”

Shifting Currency Exposure. The Fund may also enter into forward contracts to shift its investment exposure from one currency into another. This may include shifting exposure from U.S. dollars to foreign currency or from one foreign currency to another foreign currency. This strategy tends to limit exposure to the currency sold, and increase exposure to the currency that is purchased, much as if the Fund had sold a security denominated in one currency and purchased an equivalent security denominated in another currency.

Swap Transactions

The Fund may enter into equity, interest rate, currency and credit default swap agreements.

The Fund may enter into swap transactions for any purpose consistent with its investment objective and strategies, such as for the purpose of attempting to obtain or preserve a particular return or spread at a lower cost than obtaining a return or spread through purchases and/or sales of instruments in other markets, to protect against currency fluctuations, to protect against an increase in the price of securities the Fund anticipates purchasing at a later date, to reduce risk arising from the ownership of a particular instrument, or to gain exposure to certain securities, reference rates, sectors or markets.

Swap agreements are two party contracts entered into primarily by institutional investors for a specified period of time. In a standard swap transaction, two parties agree to exchange the returns (or differentials in rates of return) earned or realized on a particular predetermined asset, reference rate or index. The gross returns to be exchanged or swapped between the parties are generally calculated with respect to a notional amount, e.g., the return on or increase in value of a particular dollar amount invested at a particular interest rate or in a basket of securities representing a particular index. The notional amount of the swap agreement generally is only used as a basis upon which to calculate the obligations that the parties to the swap agreement have agreed to exchange. The Fund’s current obligations under a net swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owed to the Fund).

Equity Swaps. In a typical equity swap, one party agrees to pay another party the return on a stock, stock index or basket of stocks in return for a specified interest rate. By entering into an equity index swap, for example, the index receiver can gain exposure to stocks making up the index of securities without actually purchasing those stocks. Equity index swaps involve not only the risk associated with investment in the securities represented in the index, but also the risk that the performance of such

S-11


securities, including dividends, will not exceed the return on the interest rate that the Fund will be committed to pay.

Interest Rate Swaps. Interest rate swaps are financial instruments that involve the exchange of one type of interest rate for another type of interest rate cash flow on specified dates in the future. Some of the different types of interest rate swaps are “fixed-for-floating rate swaps,” “termed basis swaps” and “index amortizing swaps.” Fixed-for-floating rate swaps involve the exchange of fixed interest rate cash flows for floating rate cash flows. Termed basis swaps entail cash flows to both parties based on floating interest rates, where the interest rate indices are different. Index amortizing swaps are typically fixed-for-floating swaps where the notional amount changes if certain conditions are met. Like a traditional investment in a debt security, the Fund could lose money by investing in an interest rate swap if interest rates change adversely.

Currency Swaps. A currency swap is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to make interest rate payments in one currency and the other promises to make interest rate payments in another currency. The Fund may enter into a currency swap when it has one currency and desires a different currency. Typically the interest rates that determine the currency swap payments are fixed, although occasionally one or both parties may pay a floating rate of interest. Unlike an interest rate swap, however, the principal amounts are exchanged at the beginning of the contract and returned at the end of the contract. Changes in non-U.S. exchange rates and changes in interest rates may negatively affect currency swaps.

Credit Default Swaps. A credit default swap is a bilateral contract that enables an investor to buy or sell protection against a defined-issuer credit event. The Fund may enter into credit default swap agreements either as a buyer or a seller. The Fund may buy protection to attempt to mitigate the risk of default or credit quality deterioration in one or more of its individual holdings or in a segment of the fixed income securities market to which it has exposure, or to take a “short” position in individual bonds or market segments which it does not own. The Fund may sell protection in an attempt to gain exposure to the credit quality characteristics of particular bonds or market segments without investing directly in those bonds or market segments.

As the buyer of protection in a credit default swap, the Fund will pay a premium (by means of an upfront payment or a periodic stream of payments over the term of the agreement) in return for the right to deliver a referenced bond or group of bonds to the protection seller and receive the full notional or par value (or other agreed upon value) upon a default (or similar event) by the issuer(s) of the underlying referenced obligation(s). If no default occurs, the protection seller would keep the stream of payments and would have no further obligation to the Fund. Thus, the cost to the Fund would be the premium paid with respect to the agreement. If a credit event occurs, however, the Fund may elect to receive the full notional value of the swap in exchange for an equal face amount of deliverable obligations of the reference entity that may have little or no value. The Fund bears the risk that the protection seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations.

If the Fund is a seller of protection in a credit default swap and no credit event occurs, the Fund would generally receive an up-front payment or a periodic stream of payments over the term of the swap. If a credit event occurs, however, generally the Fund would have to pay the buyer the full notional value of the swap in exchange for an equal face amount of deliverable obligations of the reference entity that may have little or no value. As the protection seller, the Fund effectively adds economic leverage to its portfolio because, in addition to being subject to investment exposure on its total net assets, the Fund is subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap. Thus, the Fund bears the same risk as it would by buying the reference obligations directly, plus the additional risks related to obtaining investment exposure through a derivative instrument discussed below under “Risks Associated with Swap Transactions.”

Risks Associated with Swap Transactions. The use of swap transactions is a highly specialized activity which involves strategies and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio security transactions. If the Sub-Adviser is incorrect in its forecasts of default risks, market spreads or other applicable factors the investment performance of the Fund would diminish compared with what it would have been if these techniques were not used. As the protection seller in a credit default swap, the Fund effectively adds economic leverage to its portfolio because, in addition to being subject to investment exposure on its total net assets, the Fund is subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap. The Fund may only close out a swap or other two-party contract with its particular counterparty, and may only transfer a position with the consent of that counterparty. In addition, the price at which the Fund may close out such a two party contract may not correlate with the price change in the underlying

S-12


reference asset. If the counterparty defaults, the Fund will have contractual remedies, but there can be no assurance that the counterparty will be able to meet its contractual obligations or that the Fund will succeed in enforcing its rights. It also is possible that developments in the derivatives market, including potential government regulation, could adversely affect the Fund’s ability to terminate existing swap or other agreements or to realize amounts to be received under such agreements.

Interest Rate Caps, Collars and Floors

The Fund may enter into interest rate caps, floors and collars. Caps and floors have an effect similar to buying or writing options. In a typical cap or floor agreement, one party agrees to make payments only under specified circumstances, usually in return for payment of a fee by the other party. For example, the buyer of an interest rate cap obtains the right to receive payments to the extent that a specified interest rate exceeds an agreed-upon level. The seller of an interest rate floor is obligated to make payments to the extent that a specified interest rate falls below an agreed-upon level. An interest rate collar involves selling a cap and purchasing a floor or vice versa to protect the Fund against interest rate movements exceeding given minimum or maximum levels.

Limitations on the Use of CFTC-Regulated Futures, Options on Futures and Swaps

The Fund will limit its direct investments in CFTC-regulated futures, options on futures and swaps (“CFTC Derivatives”) to the extent necessary for the Adviser to claim the exclusion from regulation as a commodity pool operator with respect to the Fund under CFTC Rule 4.5, as such rule may be amended from time to time. Under Rule 4.5 as currently in effect, the Fund will limit its trading activity in CFTC Derivatives (excluding activity for “bona fide hedging purposes,” as defined by the CFTC) such that it meets one of the following tests:

· Aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish its positions in CFTC Derivatives do not exceed 5% of the liquidation value of the Fund’s portfolio, after taking into account unrealized profits and losses on such positions; or

· Aggregate net notional value of its positions in CFTC Derivatives does not exceed 100% of the liquidation value of the Fund’s portfolio, after taking into account unrealized profits and losses on such positions.

With respect to the Fund, the Adviser has filed a notice of eligibility for exclusion from the definition of the term commodity pool operator under the Commodity Exchange Act and therefore is not subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool operator thereunder.

The requirements for qualification as a regulated investment company may also limit the extent to which the Fund may invest in CFTC Derivatives. See “Tax Matters—Qualification as a Regulated Investment Company.”

Federal Income Tax Treatment of Futures Contracts and Options

The Fund’s transactions in futures contracts and options will be subject to special provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), that, among other things, may affect the character of gains and losses realized by the Fund (i.e., may affect whether gains or losses are ordinary or capital, or short-term or long-term), may accelerate recognition of income to the Fund and may defer Fund losses. These rules could, therefore, affect the character, amount and timing of distributions to shareholders. These provisions also (a) will require the Fund to mark-to-market certain types of the positions in its portfolio (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out) and (b) may cause the Fund to recognize income without receiving cash with which to make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement for qualifying to be taxed as a regulated investment company and the distribution requirement for avoiding excise taxes.

Risks and Special Considerations Concerning Derivatives

The use of derivative instruments involves certain general risks and considerations as described below.

1) Market Risk. Market risk is the risk that the value of the underlying assets may go up or down. Adverse movements in the value of an underlying asset can expose the Fund to losses. The successful use of derivative instruments depends upon a variety of factors, particularly the portfolio managers' ability to predict movements in the relevant markets, which may require different skills than predicting changes in the prices of individual securities. There can be no assurance that any particular strategy adopted will succeed.

S-13


2) Counterparty Risk. Counterparty risk is the risk that a loss may be sustained as a result of the failure of a counterparty to comply with the terms of a derivative instrument. The counterparty risk for exchange-traded derivatives is generally less than for OTC derivatives, since generally a clearing agency, which is the issuer or counterparty to each exchange-traded instrument, provides a guarantee of performance. For many OTC instruments, there is no similar clearing agency guarantee and there is less regulation or supervision of transactions. In all transactions, the Fund will bear the risk that the counterparty will default, and this could result in a loss of the expected benefit of the derivative transactions and possibly other losses to the Fund. The Fund will enter into derivatives transactions only with counterparties that its portfolio managers reasonably believe are capable of performing under the contract.

3) Correlation Risk. Correlation risk is the risk that there might be an imperfect correlation, or even no correlation, between price movements of a derivative instrument and price movements of investments being hedged. When a derivative transaction is used to completely hedge another position, changes in the market value of the combined position (the derivative instrument plus the position being hedged) result from an imperfect correlation between the price movements of the two instruments. With a perfect hedge, the value of the combined position remains unchanged with any change in the price of the underlying asset. With an imperfect hedge, the value of the derivative instrument and its hedge are not perfectly correlated. For example, if the value of a derivative instrument used in a short hedge (such as writing a call option, buying a put option or selling a futures contract) increased by less than the decline in value of the hedged investments, the hedge would not be perfectly correlated. This might occur due to factors unrelated to the value of the investments being hedged, such as speculative or other pressures on the markets in which these instruments are traded. The effectiveness of hedges using instruments on indices will depend, in part, on the degree of correlation between price movements in the index and the price movements in the investments being hedged.

4) Liquidity Risk. Liquidity risk is the risk that a derivative instrument cannot be sold, closed out or replaced quickly at or very close to its fundamental value. Generally, exchange contracts are very liquid because the exchange clearinghouse is the counterparty of every contract. OTC transactions are less liquid than exchange-traded derivatives since they often can only be closed out with the other party to the transaction. The Fund might maintain segregated accounts and/or make margin payments when it takes positions in derivative instruments involving obligations to third parties (i.e., instruments other than purchase options). If the Fund is unable to close out its positions in such instruments, it might be required to continue to maintain such assets or accounts or make such payments until the position expires, matures or is closed out. These requirements might impair the Fund’s ability to sell a security or make an investment at a time when it would otherwise be favorable to do so, or require that the Fund sell a portfolio security at a disadvantageous time. The Fund’s ability to sell or close out a position in an instrument prior to expiration or maturity depends upon the existence of a liquid secondary market or, in the absence of such a market, the ability and willingness of the counterparty to enter into a transaction closing out the position. There is no assurance that any derivatives position can be sold or closed out at a time and price that is favorable to the Fund. The Fund must comply with the SEC rule related to the use of derivatives and certain other transactions when engaging in the transactions discussed above. See “Derivatives” above.

5) Legal Risk. Legal risk is the risk of loss caused by the unenforceability of a party’s obligations under the derivative. While a party seeking price certainty agrees to surrender the potential upside in exchange for downside protection, the party taking the risk is looking for a positive payoff. Despite this voluntary assumption of risk, a counterparty that has lost money in a derivative transaction may try to avoid payment by exploiting various legal uncertainties about certain derivative products.

6) Systemic or “Interconnection” Risk. Systemic or interconnection risk is the risk that a disruption in the financial markets will cause difficulties for all market participants. In other words, a disruption in one market will spill over into other markets, perhaps creating a chain reaction. Much of the OTC derivatives market takes place among the OTC dealers themselves, thus creating a large interconnected web of financial obligations. This interconnectedness raises the possibility that a default by one large dealer could create losses for other dealers and destabilize the entire market for OTC derivative instruments.

7) Leverage Risk. Leverage risk is the risk that the Fund may be more volatile than if it had not been leveraged due to leverage’s tendency to exaggerate the effect of any increase or decrease in the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities. The use of leverage may also cause the Fund to liquidate portfolio

S-14


positions when it may not be advantageous to do so to satisfy its obligations or to meet segregation requirements.

8) Regulatory Risk. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required the SEC, the CFTC, and other federal financial regulators to develop an expanded regulatory framework for derivatives. Certain of the implementing regulations have not yet been finalized. Thus, the ultimate impact of the rulemakings is still unknown, but has the potential to increase the costs of using derivatives, may limit the availability of some forms of derivatives or Nuveen Asset Management’s or the Fund’s ability to use derivatives in pursuit of its investment objectives, and may adversely affect the performance of some derivative instruments used. Moreover, governmental authorities outside of the U.S. have passed, proposed or may propose in the future legislation similar to the Dodd-Frank Act, which could increase the costs of participating in, or otherwise adversely impact the liquidity of, the swaps markets. Accordingly, the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act, including on the derivative instruments in which the Fund may invest, is not yet certain.

Equity Securities

Under normal market conditions, the Fund primarily invests in equity securities, which include common stocks, preferred securities, warrants to purchase common stocks or preferred securities, convertible securities, participatory notes, interests in real estate investment trusts, common and preferred units of master limited partnerships, and other securities with equity characteristics.

Common Stocks

Common stocks represent units of ownership in a company. Common stocks usually carry voting rights and earn dividends. Unlike preferred securities, dividends on common stocks are not prescribed in advance but are declared at the discretion of a company’s board.

While investing in stocks allows shareholders to participate in the benefits of owning a company, such shareholders must accept the risks of ownership. Unlike bondholders, who have preference to a company’s earnings and cash flow, common stockholders are entitled only to the residual amount after a company meets its other obligations. For this reason, the value of a company’s stock will usually react more strongly to actual or perceived changes in the company’s financial condition or prospects than its debt obligations. Stockholders of a company that fares poorly can lose money.

Stock markets tend to move in cycles with short or extended periods of rising and falling stock prices. The value of a company’s stock may fall because of:

· Factors that directly relate to that company, such as decisions made by its management or lower demand for the company’s products or services;

· Factors affecting an entire industry, such as increases in production costs; and

· Changes in financial market conditions that are relatively unrelated to the company or its industry, such as changes in interest rates, currency exchange rates or inflation rates.

An investment in common stocks of issuers with small or medium market capitalizations generally involves greater risk and price volatility than an investment in common stocks of larger, more established companies. This increased risk may be due to the greater business risks of their small or medium size, limited markets and financial resources, narrow product lines and frequent lack of management depth. The securities of small and medium capitalization companies are often traded in the over-the-counter market, and might not be traded in volumes typical of securities traded on a national securities exchange. Thus, the securities of small and medium capitalization companies are likely to be less liquid and subject to more abrupt or erratic market movements than securities of larger, more established companies.

Preferred Securities

Like common stocks, preferred securities are also units of ownership in a company, but preferred securities normally have preference over common stocks in the payment of dividends and the liquidation of the company. In all other respects, however, preferred securities are subordinated to the liabilities of the issuer. Unlike common stocks, preferred securities are generally not entitled to vote on corporate matters. Types of preferred securities include adjustable-rate preferred securities, fixed dividend preferred securities, perpetual preferred securities and sinking fund preferred securities. Generally, the market value of preferred securities with a fixed dividend rate and no conversion element varies inversely with interest rates and perceived credit risk.

S-15


Because preferred securities are generally junior to most other forms of debt securities and other obligations of the issuer, deterioration in the credit quality of the issuer will cause greater changes in the value of a preferred security than in a more senior debt security with similar stated yield characteristics.

Warrants

The Fund may invest in warrants if, after giving effect thereto, not more than 5% of its net assets will be invested in warrants other than warrants acquired in units or attached to other securities. Investing in warrants is purely speculative in that they have no voting rights, pay no dividends, and have no rights with respect to the assets of the corporation issuing them. Warrants are issued by the issuer of a security and provide their holder the option to purchase that security upon the warrants’ exercise at a specific price for a specific period of time. They do not represent ownership of the securities but only the right to buy them. The prices of warrants do not necessarily parallel the prices of the underlying securities.

Convertible Securities

Convertible securities are hybrid securities that combine the investment characteristics of bonds and common stocks. Convertible securities typically consist of debt securities or preferred securities that may be converted within a specified period of time (typically for the entire life of the security) into a certain amount of common stock or other equity security of the same or a different issuer at a predetermined price. They also include debt securities with warrants or common stock attached and derivatives combining the features of debt securities and equity securities. Convertible securities entitle the holder to receive interest paid or accrued on debt, or dividends paid or accrued on preferred securities, until the security matures or is redeemed, converted or exchanged.

The market value of a convertible security generally is a function of its “investment value” and its “conversion value.” A security’s “investment value” represents the value of the security without its conversion feature (i.e., a comparable non-convertible fixed income security). The investment value is determined by, among other things, reference to its credit quality and the current value of its yield to maturity or probable call date. At any given time, investment value is dependent upon such factors as the general level of interest rates, the yield of similar non-convertible securities, the financial strength of the issuer and the seniority of the security in the issuer’s capital structure. A security’s “conversion value” is determined by multiplying the number of shares the holder is entitled to receive upon conversion or exchange by the current price of the underlying security. If the conversion value of a convertible security is significantly below its investment value, the convertible security will trade like non-convertible debt or a preferred security in the sense that its market value will not be influenced greatly by fluctuations in the market price of the underlying security into which it can be converted. Instead, the convertible security’s price will tend to move in the opposite direction from interest rates. Conversely, if the conversion value of a convertible security is significantly above its investment value, the market value of the convertible security will be more heavily influenced by fluctuations in the market price of the underlying stock. In that case, the convertible security’s price may be as volatile as that of the common stock. Because both interest rate and market movements can influence its value, a convertible security is not generally as sensitive to interest rates as a similar fixed income security, nor is it generally as sensitive to changes in share price as its underlying stock.

The Fund’s investments in convertible securities, particularly securities that are convertible into securities of an issuer other than the issuer of the convertible security, may be illiquid. The Fund’s investments in convertible securities may at times include securities that have a mandatory conversion feature, pursuant to which the securities convert automatically into common stock or other equity securities (of the same or a different issuer) at a specified date and a specified conversion ratio, or that are convertible at the option of the issuer. For issues where the conversion of the security is not at the option of the holder, the Fund may be required to convert the security into the underlying common stock even at times when the value of the underlying common stock or other equity security has declined substantially.

In addition, some convertible securities are often rated below investment-grade or are not rated, and therefore may be considered speculative investments. The credit rating of a company’s convertible securities is generally lower than that of its conventional debt securities. Convertible securities are normally considered “junior” securities—that is, the company usually must pay interest on its conventional corporate debt before it can make payments on its convertible securities. Some convertible securities are particularly sensitive to interest rate changes when their predetermined conversion price is much higher than the issuing company’s common stock.

S-16


Participatory Notes

The Fund may invest in participatory notes issued by banks or broker-dealers that are designed to replicate the performance of certain non-U.S. companies traded on a non-U.S. exchange. Participatory notes are a type of equity-linked derivative which generally are traded over-the-counter. Even though a participatory note is intended to reflect the performance of the underlying equity securities on a one-to-one basis so that investors will not normally gain or lose more in absolute terms than they would have made or lost had they invested in the underlying securities directly, the performance results of participatory notes will not replicate exactly the performance of the issuers or markets that the notes seek to replicate due to transaction costs and other expenses. Investments in participatory notes involve risks normally associated with a direct investment in the underlying securities. In addition, participatory notes are subject to counterparty risk, which is the risk that the broker-dealer or bank that issues the notes will not fulfill its contractual obligation to complete the transaction with the Fund. Participatory notes constitute general unsecured, unsubordinated contractual obligations of the banks or broker-dealers that issue them, and the Fund is relying on the creditworthiness of such banks or broker-dealers and has no rights under a participatory note against the issuers of the securities underlying such participatory notes. There can be no assurance that the trading price or value of participatory notes will equal the value of the underlying value of the equity securities they seek to replicate.

Real Estate Investment Trusts

Real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) are publicly traded corporations or trusts that specialize in acquiring, holding, and managing residential, commercial or industrial real estate. A REIT is not taxed at the entity level on income distributed to its shareholders or unitholders if it distributes to shareholders or unitholders at least 90% of its taxable income for each taxable year and complies with regulatory requirements relating to its organization, ownership, assets and income.

REITs generally can be classified as equity REITs, mortgage REITs and hybrid REITs. An equity REIT invests the majority of its assets directly in real property and derives its income primarily from rents and from capital gains on real estate appreciation which are realized through property sales. A mortgage REIT invests the majority of its assets in real estate mortgage loans and services its income primarily from interest payments. A hybrid REIT combines the characteristics of an equity REIT and a mortgage REIT.

Investing in REITs would subject the Fund to risks associated with the real estate industry. The real estate industry has been subject to substantial fluctuations and declines on a local, regional and national basis in the past and may continue to be in the future. Real property values and income from real property may decline due to general and local economic conditions, overbuilding and increased competition, increases in property taxes and operating expenses, changes in zoning laws, casualty or condemnation losses, regulatory limitations on rents, changes in neighborhoods and in demographics, increases in market interest rates, or other factors. Factors such as these may adversely affect companies which own and operate real estate directly, companies which lend to such companies, and companies which service the real estate industry.

The Fund is also subject to risks associated with direct investments in REITs. Equity REITs will be affected by changes in the values of and income from the properties they own, while mortgage REITs may be affected by the credit quality of the mortgage loans they hold. In addition, REITs are dependent on specialized management skills and on their ability to generate cash flow for operating purposes and to make distributions to shareholders or unitholders. REITs may have limited diversification and are subject to risks associated with obtaining financing for real property, as well as to the risk of self-liquidation. REITs also can be adversely affected by their failure to qualify for tax-free pass-through treatment of their income under the Code or their failure to maintain an exemption from registration under the 1940 Act. By investing in REITs indirectly through the Fund, a shareholder bears not only a proportionate share of the expenses of the Fund, but also may indirectly bear similar expenses of some of the REITs in which it invests.

Master Limited Partnerships

Equity securities in which the Fund may invest include master limited partnerships (“MLPs”). An MLP is an entity, most commonly a limited partnership, that is taxed as a partnership, publicly traded and listed on a national securities exchange. Holders of common units of MLPs typically have limited control and limited voting rights as compared to holders of a corporation’s common shares. Preferred units issued by MLPs are not typically listed or traded on an exchange. Holders of preferred units can be entitled to a wide range of voting and other rights. MLPs are limited by the Code to only apply to enterprises that

S-17


engage in certain businesses, mostly pertaining to the use of natural resources, such as petroleum and natural gas extraction and transportation, although some other enterprises may also qualify as MLPs.

Lending of Portfolio Securities

In order to generate additional income, the Fund may lend portfolio securities representing up to one-third of the value of its total assets to broker-dealers, banks or other institutional borrowers of securities that the Adviser has determined are creditworthy. The securities lending agent will generally bear the risk that a borrower may default on its obligation to return loaned securities, however the Fund bears the risk that the securities lending agent may default on its contractual obligations to the Fund. The Fund also bears the market risk with respect to the investment of the cash collateral used to secure the loan. The Fund may lose money on its investment of cash collateral or may fail to earn sufficient income on its investments to meet its obligations to the borrower. The Fund will pay a portion of the income earned on other lending transactions to the placing broker and may pay administrative and custodial fees in connection with these loans.

In these loan arrangements, the Fund will receive cash collateral equal to not less than 100% of the value of the securities loaned as determined at the time of loan origination. If the market value of the loaned securities increases, the borrower must furnish additional collateral to the Fund. During the time portfolio securities are on loan, the borrower pays the Fund any dividends or interest paid on the securities. Loans are subject to termination at any time by the Fund or the borrower. While the Fund does not have the right to vote securities on loan, it would terminate the loan and regain the right to vote if that were considered important with respect to the investment.

When the Fund lends portfolio securities to a borrower, payments in lieu of dividends made by the borrower to the Fund will not constitute “qualified dividends” taxable at the same rate as long-term capital gains, even if the actual dividends would have constituted qualified dividends had the Fund held the securities. See “Taxation.”

Non-U.S. Securities

The Fund may invest in equity securities issued by non-U.S. companies. Investments in securities of non-U.S. companies involve risks in addition to the usual risks inherent in domestic investments, including currency risk. The value of a non-U.S. security in U.S. dollars tends to decrease when the value of the U.S. dollar rises against the non-U.S. currency in which the security is denominated and tends to increase when the value of the U.S. dollar falls against such currency.

Non-U.S. securities are affected by the fact that in many countries there is less publicly available information about issuers than is available in the reports and ratings published about companies in the United States and such issuers may not be subject to uniform accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards. Other risks inherent in non-U.S. investments include expropriation; confiscatory taxation; withholding taxes on dividends and interest; less extensive regulation of non-U.S. brokers, securities markets and issuers; diplomatic developments; and political or social instability. Non-U.S. economies may differ favorably or unfavorably from the U.S. economy in various respects, and many non-U.S. securities are less liquid and their prices tend to be more volatile than comparable U.S. securities. From time to time, non-U.S. securities may be difficult to liquidate rapidly without adverse price effects.

The Fund may also invest in non-U.S. securities by purchasing depositary receipts, including American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”) or other securities representing indirect ownership interests in the securities of non-U.S. companies, including New York Shares. Generally, ADRs, in registered form, are denominated in U.S. dollars and are designated for use in the U.S. securities markets, while EDRs and GDRs are typically in bearer form and may be denominated in non-U.S. currencies and are designed for use in European and other markets. ADRs are receipts typically issued by a U.S. bank or trust company evidencing ownership of the underlying non-U.S. security. ADRs, EDRs and GDRs are deemed to have the same classification as the underlying securities they represent, except that ADRs, EDRs and GDRs shall be treated as indirect non-U.S. investments. Thus, an ADR, EDR or GDR representing ownership of common stock will be treated as common stock. ADRs, EDRs and GDRs do not eliminate all of the risks associated with directly investing in the securities of non-U.S. companies, such as changes in non-U.S. currency exchange rates. However, by investing in ADRs rather than directly in non-U.S. companies’ stock, the Fund avoids currency risks during the settlement period.

Other types of depositary receipts include American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”), Global Depositary Certificates (“GDCs”) and International Depositary Receipts (“IDRs”). ADSs are shares issued under a

S-18


deposit agreement representing the underlying ordinary shares that trade in the issuer’s home market. An ADR, described above, is a certificate that represents a number of ADSs. GDCs and IDRs are typically issued by a non-U.S. bank or trust company, although they may sometimes also be issued by a U.S. bank or trust company. GDCs and IDRs are depositary receipts that evidence ownership of underlying securities issued by either a non-U.S. or a U.S. corporation.

Depositary receipts may be available through “sponsored” or “unsponsored” facilities. A sponsored facility is established jointly by a depositary and the issuer of the security underlying the receipt. An unsponsored facility may be established by a depositary without participation by the issuer of the security underlying the receipt. There are greater risks associated with holding unsponsored depositary receipts. For example, if the Fund holds an unsponsored depositary receipt, it will generally bear all of the costs of establishing the unsponsored facility. In addition, the depositary of an unsponsored facility frequently is under no obligation to distribute shareholder communications received from the issuer of the deposited security. Whether a sponsored or unsponsored facility, there is no assurance that either would pass through to the holders of the receipts voting rights with respect to the deposited securities.

In considering whether to invest in the securities of a non-U.S. company, the portfolio managers consider such factors as the characteristics of the particular company, differences between economic trends, and the performance of securities markets in the United States and other countries. The portfolio managers also consider factors relating to the general economic, governmental and social conditions of the country or countries where the company is located.

Securities transactions conducted outside the United States may not be regulated as rigorously as in the United States, may not involve a clearing mechanism and related guarantees, and are subject to the risk of governmental actions affecting trading in, or the prices of, non-U.S. securities, currencies and other instruments. The value of such positions also could be adversely affected by (i) other complex non-U.S. political, legal and economic factors, (ii) lesser availability than in the United States of data on which to make trading decisions, (iii) delays in the Fund’s ability to act upon economic events occurring in non-U.S. markets during non-business hours in the United States, (iv) the imposition of different exercise and settlement terms and procedures and the margin requirements than in the United States, (v) currency exchange rate changes, and (vi) lower trading volume and liquidity.

Emerging Markets Risk

The Fund may invest in equity securities issued by companies located in emerging markets. Emerging market countries are generally in the initial stages of their industrialization cycles with low per capita income. The markets of emerging markets countries are generally more volatile than the markets of developed countries with more mature economies. They generally do not have the level of market efficiency and strict standards in accounting and securities regulation to be on par with advanced economies, but emerging markets will typically have a physical financial infrastructure, including banks, a stock exchange and a unified currency. Investments in emerging markets come with much greater risk due to political instability, armed conflicts, domestic infrastructure problems, currency volatility and limited investment opportunities (many large companies may still be “state-run” or private). Also, local securities exchanges may not offer liquid markets for outside investors. Additionally, the degree of cooperation between issuers in emerging market countries with foreign and U.S. financial regulators may vary significantly. The type and severity of sanctions and other similar measures, including counter sanctions and other retaliatory actions, that may be imposed could vary broadly in scope, and their impact is highly uncertain. The imposition of sanctions could, among other things, cause a decline in the value and/or liquidity of securities issued by the sanctioned country or companies located in or economically tied to the sanctioned country and increase market volatility and disruption in the sanctioned country and throughout the world. Sanctions and other similar measures could limit or prevent the Fund from buying and selling securities (in the sanctioned country and other markets), significantly delay or prevent the settlement of securities transactions, and significantly impact the Fund’s liquidity and performance. All of the risks of investing in non-U.S. securities described above are heightened by investing in emerging markets countries.

Currency Risk

By investing in non-U.S. securities, the Fund will be subject to currency risk, which is the risk that an increase in the U.S. dollar relative to the non-U.S. currency will reduce returns or portfolio value. Generally, when the U.S. dollar rises in value relative to a non-U.S. currency, the Fund’s investment in securities denominated in that currency will lose value because its currency is worth fewer U.S. dollars. On the other hand, when the value of the U.S. dollar falls relative to a non-U.S. currency, the Fund’s

S-19


investments denominated in that currency will tend to increase in value because that currency is worth more U.S. dollars. The exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and non-U.S. currencies depend upon such factors as supply and demand in the currency exchange markets, international balance of payments, governmental intervention, speculation and other economic and political conditions. Although the Fund values its assets daily in U.S. dollars, the Fund may not convert its holdings of non-U.S. currencies to U.S. dollars on a daily basis. The Fund may incur conversion costs when it converts its holdings to another currency. Non-U.S. exchange dealers may realize a profit on the difference between the price at which the Fund buys and sells currencies. The Fund may engage in non-U.S. currency exchange transactions in connection with its portfolio investments. The Fund conducts its non-U.S. currency exchange transactions either on a spot (i.e., cash) basis at the spot rate prevailing in the non-U.S. currency exchange market or through forward contracts to purchase or sell non-U.S. contracts. The Fund may also be subject to currency risk through investments in ADRs and other non-U.S. securities denominated in U.S. dollars.

Additional Market Disruption Risk

In late February 2022, Russia launched a large scale military attack on Ukraine. The invasion significantly amplified already existing geopolitical tensions among Russia, Ukraine, Europe, NATO and other western nations, including the U.S. In response to the military action by Russia, various countries, including the U.S., the United Kingdom, and European Union issued broad-ranging economic sanctions against Russia. Such sanctions included, among other things, a prohibition on doing business with certain Russian companies, large financial institutions, officials and oligarchs; a commitment by certain countries and the European Union to remove selected Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (“SWIFT”), the electronic banking network that connects banks globally; and restrictive measures to prevent the Russian Central Bank from undermining the impact of the sanctions. In particular, U.S. sanctions prohibit any “new investment” in Russia which is defined to include any new purchases of Russian securities. U.S. persons also are required to freeze securities issued by certain Russian entities identified on the List of Specially Designated Nationals, which includes several large publicly traded Russian banks and other companies. Russia has issued various countermeasures that affect the ability of non-Russian persons to trade in Russian securities. Additional sanctions may be imposed in the future. Such sanctions may adversely impact, among other things, the Russian economy and various sectors of the global economy, including but not limited to, the financials, energy, metals and mining, engineering and defense sectors. The sanctions and any related boycotts, tariffs, and financial restrictions imposed on Russia’s government, companies and certain individuals may cause a decline in the value and liquidity of Russian securities; weaken the value of the ruble; downgrade the country’s credit rating; freeze Russian securities and/or funds invested in prohibited assets and impair the ability to trade in Russian securities and/or other assets; and have other adverse consequences on the Russian government, economy, companies and region. Further, several large corporations and U.S. states have announced plans to divest interests or otherwise curtail business dealings with certain Russian businesses.

The ramifications of the hostilities and sanctions, however, may not be limited to Russia and Russian companies but may spill over to and negatively impact other regional and global economic markets (including Europe and the United States), companies in other countries (particularly those that have done business with Russia) and on various sectors, industries and markets for securities and commodities globally, such as oil and natural gas. Accordingly, the actions discussed above and the potential for a wider conflict could increase financial market volatility, cause severe negative effects on regional and global economic markets, industries, and companies and have a negative effect on the Fund’s investments and performance beyond any direct exposure to Russian issuers or those of adjoining geographic regions. In addition, Russia may take retaliatory actions and other countermeasures, including cyberattacks and espionage against other countries and companies around the world, which may negatively impact such countries and the companies in which the Fund invests.

The extent and duration of the military action or future escalation of such hostilities, the extent and impact of existing and future sanctions, market disruptions and volatility, and the result of any diplomatic negotiations cannot be predicted. These and any related events could have a significant impact on Fund performance and the value of an investment in the Fund, particularly with respect to Russian exposure.

S-20


Other Investment Policies and Techniques

Illiquid Investments

The Fund may invest in illiquid investments (i.e., investments that the Fund reasonably expects cannot be sold or disposed of in current market conditions in seven calendar days or less without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the investment). For purposes of this restriction, illiquid investments include, but are not limited to, restricted securities (securities the disposition of which is restricted under the federal securities laws) and repurchase agreements with maturities in excess of seven days. However, the Fund will not acquire illiquid investments if, as a result, such securities would comprise more than 15% of the value of the Fund’s net assets. The Board of Trustees or its delegate has the ultimate authority to determine, to the extent permissible under the federal securities laws, which securities are liquid or illiquid for purposes of this 15% limitation. The Board of Trustees has delegated to the Adviser the day-to-day determination of the illiquidity of any portfolio security, although it has retained oversight over and ultimate responsibility for such determinations. The Adviser works with and to a large extent relies on the expertise and advice of the Sub-Adviser in making these liquidity determinations. Although no definitive liquidity criteria are used, the Board of Trustees has directed the Adviser to look to such factors as (i) the nature of the market for a security (including the institutional private resale market; the frequency of trades and quotes for the security; the number of dealers willing to purchase or sell the security; and the amount of time normally needed to dispose of the security, the method of soliciting offers and the mechanics of transfer), (ii) the terms of certain securities or other instruments allowing for the disposition to a third party or the issuer thereof (e.g., certain repurchase obligations and demand instruments), and (iii) other permissible relevant facts.

Restricted securities may be sold only in privately negotiated transactions or in a public offering with respect to which a registration statement is in effect under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Where registration is required, the Fund may be obligated to pay all or part of the registration expenses and a considerable period may elapse between the time of the decision to sell and the time the Fund may be permitted to sell a security under an effective registration statement. If, during such a period, adverse market conditions were to develop, the Fund might obtain a less favorable price than that which prevailed when it decided to sell. Illiquid investments will be priced at fair value as determined in good faith by the Board of Trustees or its delegate.

Initial Public Offerings (“IPO”)

The Fund may invest a portion of its assets in securities of companies offering shares in IPOs. IPOs may have a magnified performance impact on the Fund with a small asset base. The impact of IPOs on the Fund’s performance likely will decrease as the Fund’s asset size increases, which could reduce the Fund’s total returns. IPOs may not be consistently available to the Fund for investing, particularly as the Fund’s asset base grows. Because IPO shares frequently are volatile in price, the Fund may hold IPO shares for a very short period of time. This may increase the turnover of the Fund and may lead to increased expenses for the Fund, such as commissions and transaction costs. By selling shares, the Fund may realize taxable gains it will subsequently distribute to shareholders. In addition, the market for IPO shares can be speculative and/or inactive for extended periods of time. The limited number of shares available for trading in some IPOs may make it more difficult for the Fund to buy or sell significant amounts of shares without an unfavorable impact on prevailing prices. Holders of IPO shares (including the Fund) can be affected by substantial dilution in the value of their shares, by sales of additional shares and by concentration of control in existing management and principal shareholders.

The Fund’s investment in IPO shares may include the securities of unseasoned companies (companies with less than three years of continuous operations), which present risks considerably greater than common stocks of more established companies. These companies may have limited operating histories and their prospects for profitability may be uncertain. These companies may be involved in new and evolving businesses and may be vulnerable to competition and changes in technology, markets and economic conditions. These companies may also be more dependent on key managers and third parties and may have limited product lines.

Investment Companies and Other Pooled Investment Vehicles

The Fund may invest in other investment companies, such as open-end funds, closed-end funds, unit investment trusts, and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs) registered under the 1940 Act. Under the 1940 Act, the Fund’s investment in such securities is generally limited to 3% of the total voting stock of any one investment company; 5% of the Fund’s total assets with respect to any one investment company; and 10% of the Fund’s total assets in the aggregate. The Fund’s investments in other investment companies

S-21


may include money market mutual funds. Investments in money market funds are not subject to the percentage limitations set forth above. Registered investment companies may invest in an underlying fund in excess of these percentage limits imposed by the 1940 Act in reliance on certain exemptions, such as Rule 12d1-4 under the 1940 Act. When the Fund serves as an underlying fund in reliance on Rule 12d1-4, or in reliance on Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act while relying on Rule 12d1-4 to invest in other investment companies, the Fund’s ability to invest in other investment companies and private funds will generally be limited to 10% of the Fund’s assets.

ETFs in which the Fund may invest are a type of index fund bought and sold on a securities exchange. An ETF trades like common stock and represents a portfolio of securities designed to track a particular market index. ETFs can give exposure to all or a portion of the U.S. market, a foreign market, a region, a commodity, a currency, or to any other index that an ETF tracks. The risks of owning an ETF generally reflect the risks of owning the underlying securities they are designed to track, although lack of liquidity in an ETF could result in it being more volatile and ETFs have management fees that increase their costs. An ETF may fail to accurately track the returns of the market segment or index that it is designed to track, and the price of an ETF’s shares may fluctuate. In addition, because they, unlike traditional mutual funds, are traded on an exchange, ETFs are subject to the following risks: (i) the performance of the ETF may not replicate the performance of the underlying index that it is designed to track; (ii) the market price of the ETF’s shares may trade at a premium or discount to the ETF’s net asset value; (iii) an active trading market for an ETF may not develop or be maintained; and (iv) there is no assurance that the requirements of the exchange necessary to maintain the listing of the ETF will continue to be met or remain unchanged. Trading in an ETF may be halted if the trading in one or more of the ETF’s underlying securities is halted, which could result in the ETF being more volatile. In the event substantial market or other disruptions affecting ETFs should occur in the future, the liquidity and value of the Fund’s shares could also be substantially and adversely affected.

If the Fund invests in other investment companies or pooled investment vehicles, Fund shareholders will bear not only their proportionate share of the Fund’s expenses, but also, indirectly, the similar expenses of the underlying investment companies or pooled investment vehicles. Shareholders would also be exposed to the risks associated not only with the Fund, but also with the portfolio investments of the underlying investment companies or pooled investment vehicles. Shares of certain closed-end funds may at times be acquired at market prices representing premiums to their net asset values. Shares acquired at a premium to their net asset value may be more likely to subsequently decline in price, resulting in a loss to the Fund and its shareholders.

Over-the-Counter Market

The Fund may invest in over-the-counter securities. In contrast to the securities exchanges, the over-the-counter market is not a centralized facility that limits trading activity to securities of companies which initially satisfy certain defined standards. Generally, the volume of trading in an unlisted or over-the-counter security is less than the volume of trading in a listed security. This means that the depth of market liquidity of some securities in which the Fund invests may not be as great as that of other securities and, if the Fund were to dispose of such a security, it might have to offer the securities at a discount from recent prices, or sell the securities in small lots over an extended period of time.

Private Investments in Public Equity

The Fund may purchase equity securities in a private placement that are issued by issuers who have outstanding, publicly-traded equity securities of the same class (“private investments in public equity” or “PIPES”). Shares in PIPES generally are not registered with the SEC until after a certain time period from the date the private sale is completed. This restricted period can last many months. Until the public registration process is completed, PIPES are restricted as to resale and the Fund cannot freely trade the securities. Generally, such restrictions cause the PIPES to be illiquid during this time. See “Investment Policies and Techniques – Other Investment Policies and Techniques – Illiquid Investments” for a description of the risks of investing in illiquid investments. PIPES may contain provisions that the issuer will pay specified financial penalties to the holder if the issuer does not publicly register the restricted equity securities within a specified period of time, but there is no assurance that the restricted equity securities will be publicly registered, or that the registration will remain in effect.

Short Sales Against the Box

When the Fund’s portfolio managers believe that the price of a particular security held by the Fund may decline, it may make “short sales against the box” to hedge the unrealized gain on such security. Selling short against the box involves selling a security which the Fund owns for delivery at a specified

S-22


date in the future. The Fund will limit its transactions in short sales against the box to 5% of its net assets. In addition, the Fund will limit its transactions such that the value of the securities of any issuer in which it is short will not exceed the lesser of 2% of the value of the Fund’s net assets or 2% of the securities of any class of the issuer. If, for example, the Fund bought 100 shares of ABC at $40 per share in January and the price appreciates to $50 in March, the Fund might “sell short” the 100 shares at $50 for delivery the following July. Thereafter, if the price of the stock declines to $45, it will realize the full $1,000 gain rather than the $500 gain it would have received had it sold the stock in the market. On the other hand, if the price appreciates to $55 per share, the Fund would be required to sell at $50 and thus receive a $1,000 gain rather than the $1,500 gain it would have received had it sold the stock in the market. The Fund may also be required to pay a premium for short sales which would partially offset any gain.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies

The Fund may invest in equity securities of special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”). Also known as a “blank check company,” a SPAC is a company with no commercial operations that is formed solely to raise capital from investors for the purpose of acquiring one or more existing private companies. SPACs often have pre-determined time frames to make an acquisition (typically two years) or the SPAC will liquidate. The Fund may purchase units or shares of SPACs that have completed an IPO on a secondary market, during a SPAC’s IPO or through a PIPES offering. See “Investment Policies and Techniques – Other Investment Policies and Techniques – Initial Public Offerings” and “Investment Policies and Techniques – Other Investment Policies and Techniques – Private Investments in Public Equity” for information about these types of offerings.

Unless and until an acquisition is completed, a SPAC generally invests its assets in U.S. government securities, money market securities and cash. Because SPACs have no operating history or ongoing business other than seeking acquisitions, the value of their securities is particularly dependent on the ability of the entity’s management to identify and complete a profitable acquisition. There is no guarantee that the SPACs in which the Fund invests will complete an acquisition or that any acquisitions that are completed will be profitable. Public stockholders of SPACs such as the Fund may not be afforded a meaningful opportunity to vote on a proposed initial business combination because certain stockholders, including stockholders affiliated with the management of the SPAC, may have sufficient voting power, and a financial incentive, to approve such a transaction without support from public stockholders. As a result, a SPAC may complete a business combination even though a majority of its public stockholders do not support such a combination. Some SPACs may pursue acquisitions only within certain industries or regions, which may increase the volatility of their prices.

The private companies that SPACs acquire are often unseasoned and lack a trading history, a track record of reporting to investors and widely available research coverage. Securities of SPAC-derived companies are thus subject to extreme price volatility and speculative trading. In addition, the ownership of many SPAC-derived companies often includes large holdings by venture capital and private equity investors who seek to sell their shares in the public market in the months following a business combination transaction when shares restricted by lock-up are released, causing even greater price volatility and possible downward pressure during the time that locked-up shares are released.

When-Issued or Delayed-Delivery Transactions

The Fund may from time to time purchase securities on a “when-issued” or other delayed-delivery basis. The price of securities purchased on a when-issued basis is fixed at the time the commitment to purchase is made, but delivery and payment for the securities take place at a later date. Normally, the settlement date occurs within 45 days of the purchase. During the period between the purchase and settlement, no payment is made by the Fund to the issuer and no interest is accrued on debt securities and no dividend income is earned on equity securities. Forward commitments involve a risk of loss if the value of the security to be purchased declines prior to the settlement date. This risk is in addition to the risk of decline in value of the Fund’s other assets. Although when-issued securities may be sold prior to the settlement date, the Fund intends to purchase such securities with the purpose of actually acquiring them. At the time the Fund makes the commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued basis, it will record the transaction and reflect the value of the security in determining its net asset value. The Fund does not believe that net asset value will be adversely affected by purchases of securities on a when-issued basis.

The Fund may be required to designate on its books or maintain in a segregated account cash and liquid securities equal in value to commitments for when-issued securities. When the time comes to pay for when-issued securities, the Fund will meet its obligations from then-available cash flow, sale of the

S-23


segregated securities, sale of other securities or, although it would not normally expect to do so, from the sale of the when-issued securities themselves (which may have a market value greater or less than the Fund’s payment obligation).

S-24


MANAGEMENT

The management of the Trust, including general supervision of the duties performed for the Fund by the Adviser under the Management Agreement, is the responsibility of the Board of Trustees. The number of trustees of the Trust is ten, all of whom are not interested persons (referred to herein as “independent trustees”). None of the independent trustees has ever been a trustee, director or employee of, or consultant to, the Adviser or its affiliates. The names, business addresses and years of birth of the trustees and officers of the Fund, their principal occupations and other affiliations during the past five years, the number of portfolios each trustee oversees and other directorships they hold are set forth below. Except as noted in the table below, the trustees of the Trust are directors or trustees, as the case may be, of 133 Nuveen-sponsored registered investment companies (the “Nuveen Funds”), which include 67 open-end mutual funds (the “Nuveen Mutual Funds”), 47 closed-end funds and 19 exchange-traded funds.

             

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office
and Length of
Time Served
with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years

Number of
Portfolios
in Fund
Complex
Overseen by
Trustee

Other
Directorships
Held by
Trustee
During Past
Five Years

Independent Trustees*:

 
     

 

   

Jack B. Evans
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1948

Trustee

Term—Indefinite**
Length of Service—
Since 1999

Chairman (since 2019), formerly, President (1996-2019), The Hall-Perrine Foundation (private philanthropic corporation); Life Trustee of Coe College; formerly, Director, Public Member, American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (2015-2020); Director (1997-2003), Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; President and Chief Operating Officer (1972-1995), SCI Financial Group, Inc. (regional financial services firm); Member and President Pro Tem of the Board of Regents for the State of Iowa University System (2007-2013); Director (1996-2015), The Gazette Company (media and publishing).

133

Formerly, Director and Chairman (2009-2021), United Fire Group, a publicly held company; Director (2000-2004), Alliant Energy.

     

 

   

William C. Hunter
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1948

Trustee

Term—Indefinite***
Length of Service—
Since 2004

Dean Emeritus, formerly, Dean (2006-2012), Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa; past Director (2005-2015) and past President (2010-2014) of Beta Gamma Sigma, Inc., The International Business Honor Society; formerly, Director (1997-2007), Credit Research Center at Georgetown University; formerly, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Finance (2003-2006), School of Business at the University of Connecticut; previously, Senior Vice President and Director of Research (1995-2003) at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

133

Director (since 2009) of Wellmark, Inc.; formerly, Director (2004-2018) of Xerox Corporation.

S-25


           

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office
and Length of
Time Served
with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years

Number of
Portfolios
in Fund
Complex
Overseen by
Trustee

Other
Directorships
Held by
Trustee
During Past
Five Years

     

 

   

Amy B. R. Lancellotta
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1959

Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2021

Formerly, Managing Director, Independent Directors Council (IDC) (supports the fund independent director community and is part of the Investment Company Institute (ICI), which represents regulated investment companies) (2006-2019); formerly, various positions with ICI (1989-2006); President (since 2023) and Member (since 2020) of the Board of Directors, Jewish Coalition Against Domestic Abuse (JCADA).

133

None

     

 

   

Joanne T. Medero
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1954

Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2021

Formerly, Managing Director, Government Relations and Public Policy (2009-2020) and Senior Advisor to the Vice Chairman (2018-2020), BlackRock, Inc. (global investment management firm); formerly, Managing Director, Global Head of Government Relations and Public Policy, Barclays Group (IBIM) (investment banking, investment management and wealth management businesses) (2006-2009); formerly, Managing Director, Global General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Barclays Global Investors (global investment management firm) (1996-2006); formerly, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (law firm) (1993-1995); formerly, General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (government agency overseeing U.S. derivatives markets) (1989-1993); formerly, Deputy Associate Director/Associate Director for Legal and Financial Affairs, Office of Presidential Personnel, The White House (1986-1989); Member of the Board of Directors, Baltic-American Freedom Foundation (seeks to provide opportunities for citizens of the Baltic states to gain education and professional development through exchanges in the U.S.) (since 2019).

133

None

S-26


           

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office
and Length of
Time Served
with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years

Number of
Portfolios
in Fund
Complex
Overseen by
Trustee

Other
Directorships
Held by
Trustee
During Past
Five Years

     

 

   

Albin F. Moschner
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1952

Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2016

Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Northcroft Partners, LLC (management consulting) (since 2012); previously, held positions at Leap Wireless International, Inc. (consumer wireless services), including Consultant (2011-2012), Chief Operating Officer (2008-2011) and Chief Marketing Officer (2004-2008); formerly, President, Verizon Card Services division of Verizon Communications, Inc. (telecommunication services) (2000-2003); formerly, President, One Point Services at One Point Communications (telecommunication services) (1999-2000); formerly, Vice Chairman of the Board, Diba, Incorporated (internet technology provider) (1996-1997); formerly, various executive positions (1991-1996) and Chief Executive Officer (1995-1996) of Zenith Electronics Corporation (consumer electronics).

133

Formerly, Chairman (2019) and Director (2012-2019), USA Technologies, Inc., a provider of solutions and services to facilitate electronic payment transactions; formerly, Director, Wintrust Financial Corporation (1996-2016).

     

 

   

John K. Nelson
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1962

Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2013

Member of Board of Directors of Core12 LLC (private firm which develops branding, marketing and communications strategies for clients) (since 2008); served on The President's Council of Fordham University (2010-2019) and previously a Director of the Curran Center for Catholic American Studies (2009-2018); formerly, senior external advisor to the Financial Services practice of Deloitte Consulting LLP (2012-2014); former Chair of the Board of Trustees of Marian University (2010-2014 as trustee, 2011-2014 as Chair); formerly Chief Executive Officer of ABN AMRO Bank N.V., North America, and Global Head of the Financial Markets Division (2007-2008), with various executive leadership roles in ABN AMRO Bank N.V. between 1996 and 2007.

133

None

     

 

   
           
           
           
     

 

   

S-27


             

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office
and Length of
Time Served
with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years

Number of
Portfolios
in Fund
Complex
Overseen by
Trustee

Other
Directorships
Held by
Trustee
During Past
Five Years

           

Matthew Thornton III
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1958

Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2020

Formerly, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (2018-2019), FedEx Freight Corporation, a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) (provider of transportation, e-commerce and business services through its portfolio of companies); formerly, Senior Vice President, U.S. Operations (2006-2018), Federal Express Corporation, a subsidiary of FedEx; formerly, Member of the Board of Directors (2012-2018), Safe Kids Worldwide® (a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing childhood injuries).

133

Member of the Board of Directors (since 2014), The Sherwin-Williams Company (develops, manufactures, distributes and sells paints, coatings and related products); Member of the Board of Directors (since 2020), Crown Castle International (provider of communications infrastructure).

     

 

   

Terence J. Toth
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1959

Chair of
the Board and Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2008

Formerly, Co-Founding Partner, Promus Capital (investment advisory firm) (2008-2017); formerly, Director, Quality Control Corporation (manufacturing) (2012-2021); formerly, Director, Fulcrum IT Service LLC (information technology services firm to government entities) (2010-2019); formerly, Director, LogicMark LLC (health services) (2012-2016); formerly, Director, Legal & General Investment Management America, Inc. (asset management) (2008-2013); formerly, CEO and President, Northern Trust Global Investments (financial services) (2004-2007); Executive Vice President, Quantitative Management & Securities Lending (2000-2004); prior thereto, various positions with Northern Trust Company (financial services) (since 1994); Chair of the Board of the Kehrein Center for the Arts (philanthropy) (since 2021); Member, Catalyst Schools of Chicago Board (since 2008) and Mather Foundation Board (philanthropy) (since 2012), formerly, Chair of its Investment Committee (2017-2022); formerly, Member, Chicago Fellowship Board (philanthropy) (2005-2016); formerly, Member, Northern Trust Mutual Funds Board (2005-2007), Northern Trust Global Investments Board (2004-2007), Northern Trust Japan Board (2004-2007), Northern Trust Securities Inc. Board (2003-2007) and Northern Trust Hong Kong Board (1997-2004).

133

None

S-28


           

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office
and Length of
Time Served
with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years

Number of
Portfolios
in Fund
Complex
Overseen by
Trustee

Other
Directorships
Held by
Trustee
During Past
Five Years

     

 

   

Margaret L. Wolff
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1955

Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2016

Formerly, Of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Mergers & Acquisitions Group) (legal services) (2005-2014); Member of the Board of Trustees of New York-Presbyterian Hospital (since 2005); Member (since 2004), formerly, Chair (2015-2022) of the Board of Trustees of The John A. Hartford Foundation (philanthropy dedicated to improving the care of older adults); formerly, Member (2005-2015) and Vice Chair (2011-2015) of the Board of Trustees of Mt. Holyoke College.

133

Formerly, Member of the Board of Directors (2013-2017) of Travelers Insurance Company of Canada and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (each, a part of Travelers Canada, the Canadian operation of The Travelers Companies, Inc.).

     

 

   

Robert L. Young
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1963

Trustee

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2017

Formerly, Chief Operating Officer and Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (financial services) (2010-2016); formerly, President and Principal Executive Officer (2013-2016), and Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (2005-2010), of J.P. Morgan Funds; formerly, Director and various officer positions for J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly, JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc. and formerly, One Group Administrative Services) and JPMorgan Distribution Services, Inc. (financial services) (formerly, One Group Dealer Services, Inc.) (1999-2017).

133

None


* As described in proxy materials delivered to fund shareholders in October 2023, in addition to the retirements of Mr. Evans and Dr. Hunter on December 31, 2023, the composition of the Board is anticipated to change effective January 1, 2024. Additional information concerning the changes will be forthcoming.

** Mr. Evans will retire from the Board as of December 31, 2023.

*** Dr. Hunter will retire from the Board as of December 31, 2023.

S-29


       

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office and Length of Time
Served with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years

Officers of the Trust:

 
       

Brett E. Black
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1972

Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2022

Managing Director, Chief Compliance Officer of Nuveen (since 2022); formerly, Vice President (2014-2022), Chief Compliance Officer and Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer (2017-2022), Deputy Chief Compliance Officer (2014-2017) of BMO Funds, Inc.

       

Mark J. Czarniecki
901 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
1979

Vice President and Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2013

Managing Director (since 2022), formerly, Vice President (2016-2022), and Assistant Secretary (since 2016) of Nuveen Securities, LLC; Managing Director (since 2022), formerly, Vice President (2017-2022) and Assistant Secretary (since 2017) of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC; Managing Director and Associate General Counsel (since January 2022), formerly, Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Nuveen (2013-2021); Managing Director (since 2022), formerly, Vice President (2018-2022), Assistant Secretary and Associate General Counsel (since 2018) of Nuveen Asset Management, LLC; Managing Director, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Teachers Advisors, LLC and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (since 2023).

       

Diana R. Gonzalez
8500 Andrew Carnegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
1978

Vice President and Assistant Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2017

Vice President and Assistant Secretary of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC (since 2017); Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Nuveen Asset Management, LLC (since 2022); Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Teachers Advisors, LLC and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (since 2023); Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Nuveen (since 2017); formerly, Associate General Counsel of Jackson National Asset Management (2012-2017).

       

Nathaniel T. Jones
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1979

Vice President and Treasurer

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2016

Senior Managing Director (since 2021), formerly, Managing Director (2017-2021), Senior Vice President (2016-2017) of Nuveen; Managing Director (since 2015) of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC; Chartered Financial Analyst.

       

Brian H. Lawrence
8500 Andrew Carnegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
1982

Vice President and Assistant Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2023

Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Nuveen (since 2023); Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary (since 2023) of Teachers Advisors, LLC and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC; formerly, Corporate Counsel of Franklin Templeton (2018-2022).

       

Tina M. Lazar
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1961

Vice President

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2002

Managing Director (since 2017), formerly, Senior Vice President (2014-2017) of Nuveen Securities, LLC.

       

Brian J. Lockhart
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1974

Vice President

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2019

Senior Managing Director (since 2021), formerly, Managing Director (2017-2021), Vice President (2010-2017) of Nuveen, Head of Investment Oversight (since 2017), formerly, Team Leader of Manager Oversight (2015-2017); Managing Director (since 2019), of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC; Chartered Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Risk Manager.

S-30


       

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office and Length of Time
Served with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years

       

John M. McCann
8500 Andrew Carnegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
1975

Vice President and Assistant Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2022

Managing Director (since 2021), General Counsel and Secretary (since 2023), formerly, Assistant Secretary (2021-2023) of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC; Managing Director, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Nuveen Asset Management, LLC (since 2021); Managing Director (since 2021) and Assistant Secretary (since 2016) of TIAA SMA Strategies LLC; Managing Director (since 2019, formerly, Vice President and Director), Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of College Retirement Equities Fund, TIAA Separate Account VA-1, TIAA-CREF Funds and TIAA-CREF Life Funds; Managing Director (since 2018), formerly, Vice President and Director, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Teacher Advisors LLC and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC; Managing Director (since 2022), formerly, Vice President (2017-2022), Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary (since 2011) of Nuveen Alternative Advisors LLC; General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Covariance Capital Management, Inc. (2014-2017).

       

Kevin J. McCarthy
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1966

Vice President and Assistant Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2007

Executive Vice President (since 2022) and Secretary and General Counsel (since 2016) of Nuveen Investments, Inc., formerly, Senior Managing Director (2017-2022); Executive Vice President (since 2023) and Assistant Secretary (since 2008) of Nuveen Securities, LLC, formerly, Senior Managing Director (2017-2023); Executive Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since 2023) of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC, formerly, Senior Managing Director (2017-2023), Secretary (2016-2023) and Co-General Counsel (2011-2020); Executive Vice President (since 2023) and Secretary (since 2016) of Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, formerly, Senior Managing Director (2017-2023) and Associate General Counsel (2011-2020); Executive Vice President (since 2021) and Secretary (since 2023) of Teachers Advisors, LLC, formerly, General Counsel and Assistant Secretary; Executive Vice President (since 2017) and Secretary (since 2023) of TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC, formerly, General Counsel and Assistant Secretary (2017-2023; formerly, Vice President (2007-2021) and Secretary (2016-2021) of NWQ Investment Management Company, LLC and Santa Barbara Asset Management, LLC; Vice President and Secretary of Winslow Capital Management, LLC (since 2010); Executive Vice President (since 2023) and Secretary (since 2016) of Nuveen Alternative Investments, LLC, formerly, Senior Managing Director (2017-2023).

       

Jon Scott Meissner
8500 Andrew Carnegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
1973

Vice President and Assistant Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2019

Managing Director, Mutual Fund Tax and Expense Administration (since 2022), formerly, Managing Director of Mutual Fund Tax and Financial Reporting groups (2017-2022) at Nuveen; Managing Director (since 2019) of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC; Managing Director (since 2021), formerly, Senior Director (2016-2021) of Teachers Advisors, LLC and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC; Managing Director, Mutual Fund and Tax Expense Administration (since 2022), formerly, Senior Director Mutual Fund Taxation (2015-2022) to the TIAA-CREF Funds, the TIAA-CREF Life Funds, the TIAA Separate Account VA-1 and the CREF Accounts; has held various positions with TIAA since 2004.

       

Justin M. Pfaff
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1981

Chief Administrative Officer

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2023

Managing Director, Advisory Product, Nuveen (since 2016); Chartered Financial Analyst.

       

William A. Siffermann
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1975

Vice President

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2017

Managing Director (since 2017), formerly Senior Vice President (2016-2017) of Nuveen.

S-31


       

Name, Business Address
and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held
with the Trust

Term of Office and Length of Time
Served with the Trust

Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years

       

E. Scott Wickerham
8500 Andrew Carnegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
1973

Vice President and Controller

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2019

Senior Managing Director, Head of Public Investment Finance of Nuveen (since 2019), formerly, Managing Director; Senior Managing Director (since 2019) of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC; Senior Managing Director (since 2022) of Nuveen Asset Management, LLC; Senior Managing Director of Teachers Advisors, LLC (since 2021) and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (since 2016); Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Treasurer (since 2017) of the TIAA-CREF Funds, the TIAA-CREF Life Funds, the TIAA Separate Account VA-1 and the Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer (since 2020) and Treasurer (since 2017) to the CREF Accounts; has held various positions with TIAA since 2006.

       

Mark L. Winget
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
1968

Vice President and Assistant Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2008

Vice President and Assistant Secretary of Nuveen Securities, LLC (since 2008); Vice President and Assistant Secretary of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC (since 2019); Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Teachers Advisors, LLC and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (since 2023) and Nuveen Asset Management, LLC (since 2020); Vice President (since 2010) and Associate General Counsel (since 2019) of Nuveen.

       

Rachael M. Zufall
8500 Andrew Carnegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
1973

Vice President and Assistant Secretary

Term—Indefinite
Length of Service—
Since 2022

Managing Director and Assistant Secretary (since 2023) of Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC; Managing Director (since 2017), Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary (since 2014) of the CREF Accounts, TIAA Separate Account VA-1, TIAA-CREF Funds and TIAA-CREF Life Funds; Managing Director (since 2017), Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary (since 2011) of Teachers Advisors, LLC and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC; Managing Director of Nuveen, LLC and of TIAA (since 2017).

Board Leadership Structure and Risk Oversight

The Board of Directors or the Board of Trustees (as the case may be, each is referred to hereafter as the “Board” or “Board of Trustees” and the directors or trustees of the Nuveen Funds, as applicable, are each referred to herein as “trustees”) oversees the operations and management of the Nuveen Funds, including the duties performed for the Nuveen Funds by the Adviser. The Board has adopted a unitary board structure. A unitary board consists of one group of trustees who serve on the board of every fund in the Nuveen Fund complex. In adopting a unitary board structure, the trustees seek to provide effective governance through establishing a board, the overall composition of which will, as a body, possess the appropriate skills, diversity (including, among other things, gender, race and ethnicity), independence and experience to oversee the Nuveen Funds’ business. With this overall framework in mind, when the Board, through its Nominating and Governance Committee discussed below, seeks nominees for the Board, the trustees consider, not only the candidate’s particular background, skills and experience, among other things, but also whether such background, skills and experience enhance the Board’s diversity and at the same time complement the Board given its current composition and the mix of skills and experiences of the incumbent trustees. The Nominating and Governance Committee believes that the Board generally benefits from diversity of background (including, among other things, gender, race and ethnicity), skills, experience and views among its members, and considers this a factor in evaluating the composition of the Board, but has not adopted any specific policy on diversity or any particular definition of diversity.

The Board believes the unitary board structure enhances good and effective governance, particularly given the nature of the structure of the investment company complex. Funds in the same complex generally are served by the same service providers and personnel and are governed by the same regulatory scheme which raises common issues that must be addressed by the trustees across the fund complex (such as compliance, valuation, liquidity, brokerage, trade allocation or risk management). The Board believes it is more efficient to have a single board review and oversee common policies and procedures which increases the Board’s knowledge and expertise with respect to the many aspects of fund operations that are complex-wide in nature. The unitary structure also enhances the Board’s influence and oversight over the investment adviser and other service providers.

S-32


In an effort to enhance the independence of the Board, the Board also has a Chair that is an independent trustee. The Board recognizes that a chair can perform an important role in setting the agenda for the Board, establishing the boardroom culture, establishing a point person on behalf of the Board for fund management, and reinforcing the Board’s focus on the long-term interests of shareholders. The Board recognizes that a chair may be able to better perform these functions without any conflicts of interests arising from a position with fund management. Accordingly, the trustees have elected Mr. Toth to serve as the independent Chair of the Board. Specific responsibilities of the Chair include: (i) presiding at all meetings of the Board and of the shareholders; (ii) seeing that all orders and resolutions of the trustees are carried into effect; and (iii) maintaining records of and, whenever necessary, certifying all proceedings of the trustees and the shareholders.

Although the Board has direct responsibility over various matters (such as advisory contracts and underwriting contracts), the Board also exercises certain of its oversight responsibilities through several committees that it has established and which report back to the full Board. The Board believes that a committee structure is an effective means to permit trustees to focus on particular operations or issues affecting the Nuveen Funds, including risk oversight. More specifically, with respect to risk oversight, the Board has delegated matters relating to valuation, compliance and investment risk to certain committees (as summarized below). In addition, the Board believes that the periodic rotation of trustees among the different committees allows the trustees to gain additional and different perspectives of a Nuveen Fund’s operations. The Board has established seven standing committees: the Executive Committee, the Dividend Committee, the Audit Committee, the Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee, the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Investment Committee and the Open-End Funds Committee. The Board may also from time to time create ad hoc committees to focus on particular issues as the need arises. The membership and functions of the standing committees are summarized below. For more information on the Board, please visit www.nuveen.com/fundgovernance.

The Executive Committee, which meets between regular meetings of the Board, is authorized to exercise all of the powers of the Board. The members of the Executive Committee are Mr. Toth, Chair, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Young. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Executive Committee did not meet.

The Audit Committee assists the Board in the oversight and monitoring of the accounting and reporting policies, processes and practices of the Nuveen Funds, and the audits of the financial statements of the Nuveen Funds; the quality and integrity of the financial statements of the Nuveen Funds; the Nuveen Funds’ compliance with legal and regulatory requirements relating to the Nuveen Funds’ financial statements; the independent auditors’ qualifications, performance and independence; and the pricing procedures of the Nuveen Funds and the Adviser’s internal valuation group. It is the responsibility of the Audit Committee to select, evaluate and replace any independent auditors (subject only to Board and, if applicable, shareholder ratification) and to determine their compensation. The Audit Committee is also responsible for, among other things, overseeing the valuation of securities comprising the Nuveen Funds’ portfolios. Subject to the Adviser’s general supervision of such actions through its role as valuation designee, the Audit Committee addresses any valuation issues, oversees the Nuveen Funds’ pricing procedures and actions taken by the Adviser’s internal valuation group which provides regular reports to the committee, reviews any issues relating to the valuation of the Nuveen Funds’ securities brought to its attention and considers the risks to the Nuveen Funds in assessing the possible resolutions to these matters. The Audit Committee may also consider any financial risk exposures for the Nuveen Funds in conjunction with performing its functions.

To fulfill its oversight duties, the Audit Committee receives annual and semi-annual reports and has regular meetings with the external auditors for the Nuveen Funds and the Adviser’s internal audit group. The Audit Committee also may review in a general manner the processes the Board or other Board committees have in place with respect to risk assessment and risk management as well as compliance with legal and regulatory matters relating to the Nuveen Funds’ financial statements. The committee operates under a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. Members of the Audit Committee shall be independent (as set forth in the charter) and free of any relationship that, in the opinion of the trustees, would interfere with their exercise of independent judgment as an Audit Committee member. The members of the Audit Committee are Mr. Nelson, Chair, Mr. Evans, Mr. Moschner, Ms. Wolff and Mr. Young, each of whom is an independent trustee of the Nuveen Funds. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Audit Committee met four times.

The Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for seeking, identifying and recommending to the Board qualified candidates for election or appointment to the Board. In addition, the

S-33


Nominating and Governance Committee oversees matters of corporate governance, including the evaluation of Board performance and processes, the assignment and rotation of committee members, and the establishment of corporate governance guidelines and procedures, to the extent necessary or desirable, and matters related thereto. Although the unitary and committee structure has been developed over the years and the Nominating and Governance Committee believes the structure has provided efficient and effective governance, the committee recognizes that as demands on the Board evolve over time (such as through an increase in the number of funds overseen or an increase in the complexity of the issues raised), the committee must continue to evaluate the Board and committee structures and their processes and modify the foregoing as may be necessary or appropriate to continue to provide effective governance. Accordingly, the Nominating and Governance Committee has a separate meeting each year to, among other things, review the Board and committee structures, their performance and functions, and recommend any modifications thereto or alternative structures or processes that would enhance the Board’s governance of the Nuveen Funds.

In addition, the Nominating and Governance Committee, among other things, makes recommendations concerning the continuing education of trustees; monitors performance of legal counsel and other service providers; establishes and monitors a process by which security holders are able to communicate in writing with members of the Board; and periodically reviews and makes recommendations about any appropriate changes to trustee compensation. In the event of a vacancy on the Board, the Nominating and Governance Committee receives suggestions from various sources, including shareholders, as to suitable candidates. Suggestions should be sent in writing to William Siffermann, Manager of Fund Board Relations, Nuveen, LLC, 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606. The Nominating and Governance Committee sets appropriate standards and requirements for nominations for new trustees and reserves the right to interview any and all candidates and to make the final selection of any new trustees. In considering a candidate’s qualifications, each candidate must meet certain basic requirements, including relevant skills and experience, time availability (including the time requirements for due diligence meetings to sub-advisers and service providers) and, if qualifying as an independent trustee candidate, independence from the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser, the Distributor and other service providers, including any affiliates of these entities. These skill and experience requirements may vary depending on the current composition of the Board, since the goal is to ensure an appropriate range of skills, diversity and experience, in the aggregate. Accordingly, the particular factors considered and weight given to these factors will depend on the composition of the Board and the skills and backgrounds of the incumbent trustees at the time of consideration of the nominees. All candidates, however, must meet high expectations of personal integrity, independence, governance experience and professional competence. All candidates must be willing to be critical within the Board and with management and yet maintain a collegial and collaborative manner toward other Board members. The committee operates under a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. This committee is composed of the independent trustees of the Nuveen Funds. Accordingly, the members of the Nominating and Governance Committee are Mr. Toth, Chair, Mr. Evans, Dr. Hunter, Ms. Lancellotta, Ms. Medero, Mr. Moschner, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thornton, Ms. Wolff and Mr. Young. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Nominating and Governance Committee met seven times.

The Dividend Committee is authorized to declare distributions on the Nuveen Funds’ shares, including, but not limited to, regular and special dividends, capital gains and ordinary income distributions. The members of the Dividend Committee are Mr. Young, Chair, Ms. Lancellotta, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Thornton. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Dividend Committee met five times.

The Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee (the “Compliance Committee”) is responsible for the oversight of compliance issues, risk management and other regulatory matters affecting the Nuveen Funds that are not otherwise the jurisdiction of the other committees. The Board has adopted and periodically reviews policies and procedures designed to address the Nuveen Funds’ compliance and risk matters. As part of its duties, the Compliance Committee reviews the policies and procedures relating to compliance matters and recommends modifications thereto as necessary or appropriate to the full Board; develops new policies and procedures as new regulatory matters affecting the Nuveen Funds arise from time to time; evaluates or considers any comments or reports from examinations from regulatory authorities and responses thereto; and performs any special reviews, investigations or other oversight responsibilities relating to risk management, compliance and/or regulatory matters as requested by the Board.

In addition, the Compliance Committee is responsible for risk oversight, including, but not limited to, the oversight of general risks related to investments which are not reviewed by other committees, such as

S-34


liquidity and derivatives usage; risks related to product structure elements, such as leverage; techniques that may be used to address the foregoing risks, such as hedging and swaps and Fund operational risk and risks related to the overall operation of the Nuveen enterprise and, in each case, the controls designed to address or mitigate such risks. In assessing issues brought to the committee’s attention or in reviewing a particular policy, procedure, investment technique or strategy, the Compliance Committee evaluates the risks to the Nuveen Funds in adopting a particular approach compared to the anticipated benefits to the Nuveen Funds and their shareholders. In fulfilling its obligations, the Compliance Committee meets on a quarterly basis, and at least once a year in person. The Compliance Committee receives written and oral reports from the Nuveen Funds’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) and meets privately with the CCO at each of its quarterly meetings. The CCO also provides an annual report to the full Board regarding the operations of the Nuveen Funds’ and other service providers’ compliance programs as well as any recommendations for modifications thereto. Matters not addressed at the committee level are addressed directly by the full Board. The committee operates under a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. The members of the Compliance Committee are Ms. Wolff, Chair, Dr. Hunter, Ms. Lancellotta, Ms. Medero, Mr. Thornton and Mr. Toth. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Compliance Committee met four times.

The Investment Committee is responsible for the oversight of Nuveen Fund performance, investment risk management and other portfolio-related matters affecting the Nuveen Funds which are not otherwise the jurisdiction of the other Board committees. As part of such oversight, the Investment Committee reviews each Nuveen Fund’s investment performance and investment risks, which may include, but is not limited to, an evaluation of Nuveen Fund performance relative to investment objectives, benchmarks and peer group; a review of risks related to portfolio investments, such as exposures to particular issuers, market sectors, or types of securities, as well as consideration of other factors that could impact or are related to Nuveen Fund performance; and an assessment of Nuveen Fund objectives, policies and practices as such may relate to Nuveen Fund performance. In assessing issues brought to the committee’s attention or in reviewing an investment policy, technique or strategy, the Investment Committee evaluates the risks to the Nuveen Funds in adopting or recommending a particular approach or resolution compared to the anticipated benefits to the Nuveen Funds and their shareholders.

In fulfilling its obligations, the Investment Committee receives quarterly reports from the investment oversight and the investment risk groups at Nuveen. Such groups also report to the full Board on a quarterly basis and the full Board participates in further discussions with fund management at its quarterly meetings regarding matters relating to Nuveen Fund performance and investment risks, including with respect to the various drivers of performance and Nuveen Fund use of leverage and hedging. Accordingly, the Board directly and/or in conjunction with the Investment Committee oversees the investment performance and investment risk management of the Nuveen Funds. The Investment Committee operates under a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. This committee is composed of the independent trustees of the Nuveen Funds. Accordingly, the members of the Investment Committee are Dr. Hunter, Chair, Mr. Evans, Ms. Lancellotta, Ms. Medero, Mr. Moschner, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Toth, Ms. Wolff and Mr. Young. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Investment Committee met two times.

The Open-End Funds Committee is responsible for assisting the Board in the oversight and monitoring of the Nuveen Funds that are registered as open-end management investment companies (“Open-End Funds”). The committee may review and evaluate matters related to the formation and the initial presentation to the Board of any new Open-End Fund and may review and evaluate any matters relating to any existing Open-End Fund. The committee operates under a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. The members of the Open-End Funds Committee are Mr. Moschner, Chair, Ms. Medero, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Toth and Mr. Young. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Open-End Funds Committee met four times.

Board Diversification and Trustee Qualifications

In determining that a particular trustee was qualified to serve on the Board, the Board has considered each trustee’s background, skills, experience and other attributes in light of the composition of the Board with no particular factor controlling. The Board believes that trustees need to have the ability to critically review, evaluate, question and discuss information provided to them, and to interact effectively with Fund management, service providers and counsel, in order to exercise effective business judgment in the performance of their duties, and the Board believes each trustee satisfies this standard. An effective trustee may achieve this ability through his or her educational background; business, professional training or practice; public service or academic positions; experience from service as a board member or

S-35


executive of investment funds, public companies or significant private or not-for-profit entities or other organizations; and/or other life experiences. Accordingly, set forth below is a summary of the experiences, qualifications, attributes, and skills that led to the conclusion, as of the date of this document, that each trustee should continue to serve in that capacity. References to the experiences, qualifications, attributes and skills of trustees are pursuant to requirements of the SEC, do not constitute holding out of the Board or any trustee as having any special expertise or experience and shall not impose any greater responsibility or liability on any such person or on the Board by reason thereof.

Jack B. Evans

Mr. Evans has served as Chairman (since 2019) and President (1996-2019) of the Hall-Perrine Foundation, a private philanthropic corporation. Mr. Evans was formerly President and Chief Operating Officer (1972-1995) of the SCI Financial Group, Inc., a regional financial services firm headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He was a member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago from 1997 to 2003 as well as a Director of Alliant Energy from 2000 to 2004 and Member and President Pro Tem of the Board of Regents for the State of Iowa University System from 2007 to 2013. Mr. Evans is a Life Trustee of Coe College and formerly served as Chairman of the Board of United Fire Group from 2009 to 2021, served as a Director and Public Member of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2020 and served on the Board of The Gazette Company from 1996 to 2015. He has a Bachelor of Arts from Coe College and an M.B.A. from the University of Iowa.

William C. Hunter

Dr. Hunter became Dean Emeritus of the Henry B. Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa in 2012, after having served as Dean of the College since July 2006. He had been Dean and Distinguished Professor of Finance at the University of Connecticut School of Business from 2003 to 2006. From 1995 to 2003, he was the Senior Vice President and Director of Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He has held faculty positions at Emory University, Atlanta University, the University of Georgia and Northwestern University. He has consulted with numerous foreign central banks and official agencies in Europe, Asia, Central America and South America. He has been a Director of Wellmark, Inc. since 2009. He is a past Director (2005-2015) and a past President (2010-2014) of Beta Gamma Sigma, Inc., The International Business Honor Society and a past Director (2004-2018) of the Xerox Corporation. Dr. Hunter received his PhD (1978) and MBA (1970) from Northwestern University and his BS from Hampton University (1970).

Amy B.R. Lancellotta

After 30 years of service, Ms. Lancellotta retired at the end of 2019 from the Investment Company Institute (ICI), which represents regulated investment companies on regulatory, legislative and securities industry initiatives that affect funds and their shareholders. From November 2006 until her retirement, Ms. Lancellotta served as Managing Director of ICI’s Independent Directors Council (IDC), which supports fund independent directors in fulfilling their responsibilities to promote and protect the interests of fund shareholders. At IDC, Ms. Lancellotta was responsible for all ICI and IDC activities relating to the fund independent director community. In conjunction with her responsibilities, Ms. Lancellotta advised and represented IDC, ICI, independent directors and the investment company industry on issues relating to fund governance and the role of fund directors. She also directed and coordinated IDC’s education, communication, governance and policy initiatives. Prior to serving as Managing Director of IDC, Ms. Lancellotta held various other positions with ICI beginning in 1989. Before joining ICI, Ms. Lancellotta was an associate at two Washington, D.C. law firms. In addition, she has been President, since 2023, and a member, since 2020, of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Coalition Against Domestic Abuse (JCADA), an organization that seeks to end power-based violence, empower survivors and ensure safe communities. Ms. Lancellotta received a B.A. degree from Pennsylvania State University in 1981 and a J.D. degree from the National Law Center, George Washington University (currently known as George Washington University Law School) in 1984.

Joanne T. Medero

Ms. Medero has over 30 years of financial services experience and, most recently, from December 2009 until her retirement in July 2020, she was a Managing Director in the Government Relations and Public Policy Group at BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock). From July 2018 to July 2020, she was also Senior Advisor to BlackRock’s Vice Chairman, focusing on public policy and corporate governance issues. In 1996, Ms. Medero joined Barclays Global Investors (BGI), which merged with BlackRock in 2009. At BGI, she was a Managing Director and served as Global General Counsel and Corporate Secretary until 2006. Then, from 2006 to 2009, Ms. Medero was a Managing Director and Global Head of Government

S-36


Relations and Public Policy at Barclays Group (IBIM), where she provided policy guidance and directed legislative and regulatory advocacy programs for the investment banking, investment management and wealth management businesses. Before joining BGI, Ms. Medero was a Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP from 1993 to 1995, where she specialized in derivatives and financial markets regulation issues. Additionally, she served as General Counsel of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from 1989 to 1993 and, from 1986 to 1989, she was Deputy Associate Director/Associate Director for Legal and Financial Affairs at The White House Office of Presidential Personnel. Further, from 2006 to 2010, Ms. Medero was a member of the CFTC Global Markets Advisory Committee and she has been actively involved in financial industry associations, serving as Chair of the Steering Committee of the SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) Asset Management Group (2016-2018) and Chair of the CTA (Commodity Trading Advisor), CPO (Commodity Pool Operator) and Futures Committee of the Managed Funds Association (2010-2012). Ms. Medero also chaired the Corporations, Antitrust and Securities Practice Group of The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy (from 2010 to 2022 and 2000 to 2002). In addition, since 2019, she has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Baltic-American Freedom Foundation, which seeks to provide opportunities for citizens of the Baltic States to gain education and professional development through exchanges in the United States. Ms. Medero received a B.A. degree from St. Lawrence University in 1975 and a J.D. degree from the National Law Center, George Washington University (currently known as George Washington University Law School) in 1978.

Albin F. Moschner

Mr. Moschner is a consultant in the wireless industry and, in July 2012, founded Northcroft Partners, LLC, a management consulting firm that provides operational, management and governance solutions. Prior to founding Northcroft Partners, LLC, Mr. Moschner held various positions at Leap Wireless International, Inc., a provider of wireless services, where he was a consultant from February 2011 to July 2012, Chief Operating Officer from July 2008 to February 2011, and Chief Marketing Officer from August 2004 to June 2008. Before he joined Leap Wireless International, Inc., Mr. Moschner was President of the Verizon Card Services division of Verizon Communications, Inc. from 2000 to 2003, and President of One Point Services at One Point Communications from 1999 to 2000. Mr. Moschner also served at Zenith Electronics Corporation as Director, President and Chief Executive Officer from 1995 to 1996, and as Director, President and Chief Operating Officer from 1994 to 1995. Mr. Moschner was Chairman of the Board (2019) and a member of the Board of Directors (2012-2019) of USA Technologies, Inc. and, from 1996 until 2016, he was a member of the Board of Directors of Wintrust Financial Corporation. In addition, he is emeritus (since 2018) of the Advisory Boards of the Kellogg School of Management (1995-2018) and the Archdiocese of Chicago Financial Council (2012-2018). Mr. Moschner received a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electrical Engineering from The City College of New York in 1974 and a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Syracuse University in 1979.

John K. Nelson

Mr. Nelson is on the Board of Directors of Core12, LLC (since 2008), a private firm that develops branding, marketing, and communications strategies for clients. Mr. Nelson has extensive experience in global banking and markets, having served in several senior executive positions with ABN AMRO Holdings N.V. and its affiliated entities and predecessors, including LaSalle Bank Corporation from 1996 to 2008, ultimately serving as Chief Executive Officer of ABN AMRO N.V. North America. During his tenure at the bank, he also served as Global Head of its Financial Markets Division, which encompassed the bank's Currency, Commodity, Fixed Income, Emerging Markets, and Derivatives businesses. He was a member of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States and during his tenure with ABN AMRO served as the bank's representative on various committees of The Bank of Canada, European Central Bank, and The Bank of England. Mr. Nelson previously served as a senior, external advisor to the financial services practice of Deloitte Consulting LLP (2012-2014). At Fordham University, he served as a director of The President's Council (2010- 2019) and previously served as a director of The Curran Center for Catholic American Studies (2009-2018). He served as a trustee and Chairman of The Board of Trustees of Marian University (2011-2013). Mr. Nelson is a graduate of Fordham University, holding a BA in Economics and an MBA in Finance.

Matthew Thornton III

Mr. Thornton has over 40 years of broad leadership and operating experience from his career with FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”), which, through its portfolio of companies, provides transportation, e-commerce and business services. In November 2019, Mr. Thornton retired as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of FedEx Freight Corporation (FedEx Freight), a subsidiary of FedEx, where,

S-37


from May 2018 until his retirement, he had been responsible for day-to-day operations, strategic guidance, modernization of freight operations and delivering innovative customer solutions. From September 2006 to May 2018, Mr. Thornton served as Senior Vice President, U.S. Operations at Federal Express Corporation (FedEx Express), a subsidiary of FedEx. Prior to September 2006, Mr. Thornton held a range of positions of increasing responsibility with FedEx, including various management positions. In addition, Mr. Thornton currently (since 2014) serves on the Board of Directors of The Sherwin-Williams Company, where he is a member of the Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and the Board of Directors of Crown Castle International (since 2020), where he is a member of the Strategy Committee and the Compensation Committee. Formerly (2012-2018), he was a member of the Board of Directors of Safe Kids Worldwide®, a non-profit organization dedicated to the prevention of childhood injuries. Mr. Thornton is a member (since 2014) of the Executive Leadership Council (ELC), the nation’s premier organization of global black senior executives. He is also a member of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD). Mr. Thornton has been recognized by Black Enterprise on its 2017 list of the Most Powerful Executives in Corporate America and by Ebony on its 2016 Power 100 list of the world’s most influential and inspiring African Americans. Mr. Thornton received a B.B.A. degree from the University of Memphis in 1980 and an M.B.A. from the University of Tennessee in 2001.

Terence J. Toth

Mr. Toth, the Nuveen Funds’ Independent Chair, was a Co-Founding Partner of Promus Capital (2008-2017). From 2012 to 2021, he was a Director of Quality Control Corporation, from 2010 to 2019, he was a Director of Fulcrum IT Service LLC and from 2012 to 2016, he was a Director of LogicMark LLC. From 2008 to 2013, he was a Director of Legal & General Investment Management America, Inc. From 2004 to 2007, he was Chief Executive Officer and President of Northern Trust Global Investments, and Executive Vice President of Quantitative Management & Securities Lending from 2000 to 2004. He also formerly served on the Board of the Northern Trust Mutual Funds. He joined Northern Trust in 1994 after serving as Managing Director and Head of Global Securities Lending at Bankers Trust (1986 to 1994) and Head of Government Trading and Cash Collateral Investment at Northern Trust from 1982 to 1986. He currently serves as Chair of the Board of the Kehrein Center for the Arts (since 2021) and is on the Board of Catalyst Schools of Chicago (since 2008). He is on the Mather Foundation Board (since 2012) and was Chair of its Investment Committee from 2017 to 2022. Mr. Toth graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Illinois, and received his MBA from New York University. In 2005, he graduated from the CEO Perspectives Program at Northwestern University.

Margaret L. Wolff

Ms. Wolff retired from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in 2014 after more than 30 years of providing client service in the Mergers & Acquisitions Group. During her legal career, Ms. Wolff devoted significant time to advising boards and senior management on U.S. and international corporate, securities, regulatory and strategic matters, including governance, shareholder, fiduciary, operational and management issues. From 2013 to 2017, she was a Board member of Travelers Insurance Company of Canada and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (each of which is a part of Travelers Canada, the Canadian operation of The Travelers Companies, Inc.). Ms. Wolff has been a trustee of New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 2005 and, since 2004, she has served as a trustee of The John A. Hartford Foundation (a philanthropy dedicated to improving the care of older adults) where she formerly served as Chair from 2015 to 2022. From 2005 to 2015, she was a trustee of Mt. Holyoke College and served as Vice Chair of the Board from 2011 to 2015. Ms. Wolff received her Bachelor of Arts from Mt. Holyoke College and her Juris Doctor from Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Robert L. Young

Mr. Young has more than 30 years of experience in the investment management industry. From 1997 to 2017, he held various positions with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (“J.P. Morgan Investment”) and its affiliates (collectively, “J.P. Morgan”). Most recently, he served as Chief Operating Officer and Director of J.P. Morgan Investment (from 2010 to 2016) and as President and Principal Executive Officer of the J.P. Morgan Funds (from 2013 to 2016). As Chief Operating Officer of J.P. Morgan Investment, Mr. Young led service, administration and business platform support activities for J.P. Morgan’s domestic retail mutual fund and institutional commingled and separate account businesses, and co-led these activities for J.P. Morgan’s global retail and institutional investment management businesses. As President of the J.P. Morgan Funds, Mr. Young interacted with various service providers to these funds, facilitated the relationship between such funds and their boards, and was directly involved in establishing board agendas, addressing regulatory matters, and establishing policies and procedures. Before joining J.P. Morgan, Mr. Young, a former Certified Public Accountant (CPA), was a Senior

S-38


Manager (Audit) with Deloitte & Touche LLP (formerly, Touche Ross LLP), where he was employed from 1985 to 1996. During his tenure there, he actively participated in creating, and ultimately led, the firm’s midwestern mutual fund practice. Mr. Young holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in Accounting from the University of Dayton and, from 2008 to 2011, he served on the Investment Committee of its Board of Trustees.

Board Compensation

The following table shows, for each independent trustee, (1) the aggregate compensation (including deferred amounts), as well as any amounts related to special, ad hoc committees that are temporary in nature and not expected to be long-term, ongoing compensation, paid by the Fund for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, (2) the amount of total compensation paid by the Fund that has been deferred, and (3) the total compensation (including deferred amounts), as well as any amounts related to special, ad hoc committees that are temporary in nature and not expected to be long-term, ongoing compensation, paid to each trustee by the Nuveen Funds during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023. Pursuant to the Board’s deferred compensation plan, a portion of the independent trustees’ compensation may be deferred and treated as though an equivalent dollar amount has been invested in shares of one or more eligible Nuveen Funds. The amount of total compensation that has been deferred provided below represents the total deferred fees payable from the Fund.

                                         

Name of Trustee    

                       

Aggregate
Compensation
From Fund

     

Amount of Total
Compensation that
Has Been Deferred

     

Total Compensation
From Nuveen Funds
Paid to Trustee

 

Jack B. Evans 

$

1,941

 

$

196

 

$

401,392

 

William C. Hunter 

 

1,936

   

   

396,000

 

Amy B. R. Lancellotta 

 

1,810

   

585

   

380,912

 

Joanne T. Medero 

 

1,809

   

890

   

381,942

 

Albin F. Moschner 

 

2,105

   

   

445,500

 

John K. Nelson 

 

1,999

   

   

374,850

 

Judith M. Stockdale1 

 

1,772

   

1,379

   

371,893

 

Carole E. Stone2 

 

1,567

   

486

   

330,940

 

Matthew Thornton III 

 

1,843

   

   

395,000

 

Terence J. Toth 

 

2,700

   

   

554,750

 

Margaret L. Wolff 

 

2,004

   

984

   

424,262

 

Robert L. Young 

 

2,161

   

1,575

   

481,387

 

1 Ms. Stockdale retired as Trustee of the Nuveen Funds on December 31, 2022.

2 Ms. Stone retired as Trustee of the Nuveen Funds on December 31, 2022.

Prior to January 1, 2023, independent trustees received a $205,000 annual retainer, plus they received (a) a fee of $7,000 per day for attendance in person or by telephone at regularly scheduled meetings of the Board; (b) a fee of $3,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at special, non-regularly scheduled Board meetings where in-person attendance was required and $3,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required; (c) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Audit Committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $2,250 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required; (d) a fee of $5,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required; (e) a fee of $1,250 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Dividend Committee meetings; (f) a fee of $500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at all other committee meetings ($1,000 for shareholder meetings) where in-person attendance was required and $250 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such committee meetings (excluding shareholder meetings) where in-person attendance was not required, and $100 per meeting when the Executive Committee acted as pricing committee for IPOs, plus, in each case, expenses incurred in attending such meetings, provided that no fees were received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings were held; and (g) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Open-End Funds Committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required; provided that no fees were received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings were held. In addition to the payments described above, the Chair of the Board received

S-39


$125,000, and the chairpersons of the Audit Committee, the Dividend Committee, the Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee, the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Open-End Funds Committee received $20,000 each as additional retainers. Independent trustees also received a fee of $3,500 per day for site visits to entities that provide services to the Nuveen Funds on days on which no Board meeting was held. When ad hoc committees are organized, the Nominating and Governance Committee at the time of formation determined compensation to be paid to the members of such committee; however, in general, such fees were $1,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at ad hoc committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $500 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required. Any compensation paid to the independent directors as members of ad hoc committees is temporary in nature and not expected to be long-term, ongoing compensation. The annual retainer, fees and expenses were allocated among the Nuveen Funds on the basis of relative net assets, although management may have, in its discretion, established a minimum amount to be allocated to each fund. In certain instances fees and expenses were allocated only to those Nuveen Funds that were discussed at a given meeting. In certain circumstances, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board may have held in-person meetings by telephonic or videographic means and were compensated at the in-person rate.

Effective January 1, 2023, independent trustees receive a $210,000 annual retainer, plus they receive (a) a fee of $7,250 per day for attendance at regularly scheduled meetings of the Board; (b) a fee of $4,000 per meeting for attendance at special, non-regularly scheduled Board meetings; (c) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance at Audit Committee meetings, Open-End Fund Committee meetings and Investment Committee Meetings; (d) a fee of $5,000 per meeting for attendance at Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee meetings; (e) a fee of $1,250 per meeting for attendance at Dividend Committee meetings; and (f) a fee of $500 per meeting for attendance at all other committee meetings, and $100 per meeting when the Executive Committee acts as pricing committee for IPOs, plus, in each case, expenses incurred in attending such meetings, provided that no fees are received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings are held. In addition to the payments described above, the Chair of the Board receives $140,000, and the chairpersons of the Audit Committee, the Dividend Committee, the Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee, the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Open-End Funds Committee and the Investment Committee receive $20,000 each as additional retainers. Independent trustees also receive a fee of $5,000 per day for site visits to entities that provide services to the Nuveen Funds on days on which no Board meeting is held. Per meeting fees for unscheduled Committee meetings or meetings of Ad Hoc or Special Assignment Committees will be determined by the Chair of such Committee based on the complexity or time commitment associated with the particular meeting. The annual retainer, fees and expenses are allocated among the Nuveen Funds on the basis of relative net assets, although management may, in its discretion, establish a minimum amount to be allocated to each fund. In certain instances fees and expenses will be allocated only to those Nuveen Funds that are discussed at a given meeting.

The Trust does not have a retirement or pension plan. The Trust is a participant in a deferred compensation plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”) that permits any independent trustee to elect to defer receipt of all or a portion of his or her compensation as an independent trustee. The deferred compensation of a participating trustee is credited to a book reserve account of the participating Nuveen Funds when the compensation would otherwise have been paid to the trustee. The value of the trustee’s deferral account at any time is equal to the value that the account would have had if contributions to the account had been invested and reinvested in shares of one or more of the eligible Nuveen Funds. An independent trustee may elect to receive distributions in a lump sum or over a period of five years. No participating Nuveen Fund will be liable for any other fund’s obligations to make distributions under the Deferred Compensation Plan.

The Fund has no employees. Each officer of the Trust serves without any compensation from the Fund. The CCO’s compensation, which is composed of base salary and incentive compensation, is paid by the Adviser, with review and input by the Board. The Fund reimburses the Adviser for an allocable portion of the Adviser’s cost of the CCO’s incentive compensation.

S-40


Share Ownership

The information in the table below discloses the dollar ranges of (i) each trustee’s beneficial ownership in the Fund, and (ii) each trustee’s aggregate beneficial ownership in all funds within the Nuveen Funds complex, including in each case the value of fund shares elected by the trustee in the trustees’ deferred compensation plan, based on the value of fund shares as of December 31, 2022:

           

Name of Trustee

   

Dollar Range of
Equity Securities
In the Fund

 

Aggregate Dollar Range
of Equity Securities in
All Registered
Investment Companies
Overseen by Trustee in
Family of
Investment Companies

Jack B. Evans 

 

Over $100,000

 

Over $100,000

William C. Hunter 

 

$0

 

Over $100,000

Amy B. R. Lancellotta 

 

$0

 

$50,001-$100,000

Joanne T. Medero 

 

$0

 

Over $100,000

Albin F. Moschner 

 

$0

 

Over $100,000

John K. Nelson 

 

$0

 

Over $100,000

Matthew Thornton III 

 

$0

 

Over $100,000

Terence J. Toth 

 

Over $100,000

 

Over $100,000

Margaret L. Wolff 

 

$0

 

Over $100,000

Robert L. Young 

 

Over $100,000

 

Over $100,000

As of November 2, 2023, the officers and trustees of the Trust, in the aggregate, owned less than 1% of the shares of the Fund.

As of November 2, 2023, none of the independent trustees or their immediate family members owned, beneficially, or of record, any securities in (i) an investment adviser or principal underwriter of the Fund or (ii) a person (other than a registered investment company) directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with an investment adviser or principal underwriter of the Fund.

Sales Loads

Trustees of the Trust and certain other Fund affiliates may purchase the Fund's Class R6 or Class I shares. See the Fund's Prospectus for details.

SERVICE PROVIDERS

Investment Adviser

Nuveen Fund Advisors, located at 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, serves as the investment adviser of the Fund, with responsibility for the overall management of the Fund. The Adviser is also responsible for managing the Fund’s business affairs and providing day-to-day administrative services to the Fund. The Adviser has selected its affiliate, Winslow Capital, located at 4400 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, to serve as sub-adviser to manage the investment portfolio of the Fund. For additional information regarding the management services performed by the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser, see “Who Manages the Fund” in the Prospectus.

The Adviser is an affiliate of the Distributor, which is located at 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. The Distributor is the principal underwriter for the Nuveen Mutual Funds, and has served as co-managing underwriter for the shares of the Nuveen Closed-End Funds. The Adviser and the Distributor are subsidiaries of Nuveen, LLC, the investment management arm of TIAA.

For the management services and facilities furnished by the Adviser, the Fund has agreed to pay an annual management fee at a rate set forth in the Prospectus under “Who Manages the Fund.”

The Fund’s management fee is divided into two components—a complex-level fee based on the aggregate amount of all eligible Nuveen Fund assets and a specific fund-level fee based only on the amount of assets within the Fund. This pricing structure enables Fund shareholders to benefit from growth in the assets within the Fund as well as from growth in the amount of complex-wide assets managed by the Adviser. Under no circumstances will this pricing structure result in the Fund paying management fees at a rate higher than would otherwise have been applicable had the complex-wide management fee structure not been implemented.

S-41


The Fund has agreed to pay an annual fund-level management fee, payable monthly, based upon the average daily net assets of the Fund as set forth in the Prospectus.

The annual complex-level management fee for the Fund, payable monthly, which is additive to the fund-level fee, is based on the aggregate amount of total eligible assets managed for all Nuveen-branded closed-end funds and Nuveen Mutual Funds as stated in the table below:

       

Complex-Level Asset

   

Effective Rate at

Breakpoint Level*       

   

Breakpoint Level

$55 billion 

 

0.2000%

$56 billion 

 

0.1996%

$57 billion 

 

0.1989%

$60 billion 

 

0.1961%

$63 billion 

 

0.1931%

$66 billion 

 

0.1900%

$71 billion 

 

0.1851%

$76 billion 

 

0.1806%

$80 billion 

 

0.1773%

$91 billion 

 

0.1691%

$125 billion 

 

0.1599%

$200 billion 

 

0.1505%

$250 billion 

 

0.1469%

$300 billion 

 

0.1445%

* The complex-level fee is calculated based upon the aggregate daily “eligible assets” of all Nuveen-branded closed-end funds and Nuveen Mutual Funds. Except as described below, eligible assets include the net assets of all Nuveen-branded closed-end funds and Nuveen Mutual Funds organized in the United States. Eligible assets do not include assets attributable to investments in other Nuveen Funds or assets in excess of a determined amount (originally $2 billion) added to the Nuveen Fund complex in connection with Nuveen Fund Advisors’ assumption of the management of the former First American Funds effective January 1, 2011, but do include certain assets of certain Nuveen Mutual Funds that were reorganized into funds advised by an affiliate of Nuveen Fund Advisors during the 2019 calendar year. Eligible assets include closed-end fund assets managed by the Adviser that are attributable to financial leverage. For these purposes, financial leverage includes the closed-end funds’ use of preferred stock and borrowings and certain investments in the residual interest certificates (also called inverse floating rate securities) in tender option bond (TOB) trusts, including the portion of assets held by a TOB trust that has been effectively financed by the trust’s issuance of floating rate securities, subject to an agreement by the Adviser as to certain funds to limit the amount of such assets for determining eligible assets in certain circumstances.

The Fund’s complex-level fee rate will not exceed the maximum overall complex-level fee rate of 0.2000%. As of September 30, 2023, the Fund’s effective complex-level fee rate was 0.1719%.

The following tables set forth the management fees (net of fee waivers and expense reimbursements) paid by the Fund and the fees waived and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser for the specified periods.

                                 
 

Management Fees Paid to the
Adviser Net of Fee Waivers and
Expense Reimbursements

 
 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2021

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2022

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2023

 
 

$  3,716,748

 

$  3,747,172

 

$  2,934,090

 
                                 
 

Fee Waivers and Expense
Reimbursements from
the Adviser

 
 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2021

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2022

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2023

 
 

$  1,819,259

 

$  1,438,149

 

$  1,301,712

 

In addition to the Adviser’s management fee, the Fund also pays a portion of the Trust’s general administrative expenses allocated in proportion to the net assets of the Fund. All fees and expenses are accrued daily and deducted before payment of dividends to investors.

S-42


Sub-Adviser

The Adviser has selected its affiliate, Winslow Capital, to serve as sub-adviser to manage the investment portfolio of the Fund. The Adviser pays Winslow Capital a portfolio management fee out of the advisory fee paid to the Adviser for its services to the Fund.

Portfolio Managers

Justin H. Kelly, CFA, Patrick M. Burton, CFA, Stephan C. Petersen and Steven M. Hamill, CFA, have primary responsibility for the day-to-day implementation of the investment strategies of the Fund.

Compensation

In an effort to retain key personnel, Winslow Capital has structured compensation plans for portfolio managers and other key personnel that it believes are competitive with other investment management firms. The compensation plan is recommended by members of the Winslow Capital Executive Committee with the final decision resting with Justin H. Kelly. Winslow Capital’s compensation plan is designed to align manager compensation with investors’ goals by rewarding portfolio managers who meet the long-term objective of consistent, superior investment results, measured by the performance of the product.

The Executive Committee establishes salaries at competitive levels, verified through industry surveys, to attract and maintain the best professional and administrative personnel. Portfolio manager compensation packages are independent of advisory fees collected on any given client account under management. In addition, an incentive bonus is paid annually to the employees based upon each individual’s performance, client results and the profitability of the firm. Finally, eligible employees of Winslow Capital, including the portfolio managers, have received profits interests in the firm which entitle their holders to participate in the firm’s growth over time.

Other Accounts Managed

In addition to the Fund, as of July 31, 2023, the portfolio managers were also primarily responsible for the day-to-day portfolio management of the following accounts:

                 

Portfolio Manager

Type of Account Managed

Number of Accounts

Assets (millions)

Number of Accounts with Performance- Based Fees

Assets of Accounts with Performance-Based Fees
(millions)

 
             

NUVEEN WINSLOW LARGE-CAP GROWTH ESG FUND

 
   

Justin H. Kelly

Registered Investment Companies

6

$14,798.00

0

$0

 

Other Pooled Investment Vehicles

3

$3,696.00

0

$0

 

Other Accounts

1,197

$6,162.00

3

$232.00

           

Patrick M. Burton

Registered Investment Companies

6

$14,798.00

0

$0

 

Other Pooled Investment Vehicles

3

$3,696.00

0

$0

 

Other Accounts

1,197

$6,162.00

3

$232.00

           

Stephan C. Petersen

Registered Investment Companies

1

$6.00

0

$0

 

Other Pooled Investment Vehicles

1

$198.00

0

$0

 

Other Accounts

0

$0

0

$0

           

Steven M. Hamill

Registered Investment Companies

6

$14,798.00

0

$0

 

Other Pooled Investment Vehicles

3

$3,696.00

0

$0

 

Other Accounts

1,197

$6,162.00

3

$232

             

Conflicts of Interest

The portfolio managers’ simultaneous management of the Fund and the other accounts noted above may present actual or apparent conflicts of interest with respect to the allocation and aggregation of securities orders placed on behalf of the Fund and the other accounts. To address potential conflicts of interest, Winslow Capital has adopted various policies and procedures to provide for equitable treatment of trading activity and to ensure that investment opportunities are allocated in a fair and appropriate manner. In addition, Winslow Capital has adopted a Code of Ethics that recognizes the manager’s obligation to treat all of its clients, including the Fund, fairly and equitably. These policies and procedures and the Code of Ethics are designed to restrict the portfolio managers from favoring one client over another. There is no guarantee that the policies and procedures and the Code of Ethics will be successful in every instance.

S-43


Beneficial Ownership of Securities

The following table indicates as of July 31, 2023 the value, within the indicated range, of shares beneficially owned by each portfolio manager in the Fund. For purposes of this table, the following letters indicate the range listed next to each letter:

         

A

- $0

 

B

- $1 - $10,000

     

C

- $10,001 - $50,000

     

D

- $50,001 - $100,000

     

E

- $100,001 - $500,000

     

F

- $500,001 - $1,000,000

     

G

- More than $1 million

     
         

Portfolio Manager

   

Dollar Range of Equity Securities
Beneficially Owned in Fund
Managed

 

Justin H. Kelly 

   

G

 

Patrick M. Burton 

   

E

 

Stephan C. Petersen 

   

A

 

Steven M. Hamill 

   

G

 

Transfer Agent

The Fund's transfer, shareholder services, and dividend paying agent is SS&C Global Investor & Distribution Solutions, Inc. (“SS&C GIDS”), P.O. Box 219140, Kansas City, Missouri 64121-9140.

Custodian

The custodian of the assets of the Fund is State Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street”), One Congress Street, Suite 1, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2016. The custodian performs custodial, fund accounting and portfolio accounting services.

Distributor

Nuveen Securities, LLC, 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, serves as the distributor for the Fund's shares pursuant to a “best efforts” arrangement as provided by a Distribution Agreement dated August 1, 1998 (the “Distribution Agreement”). Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, the Fund appointed the Distributor to be its agent for the distribution of the Fund's shares on a continuous offering basis.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), One North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, independent registered public accounting firm, has been selected as auditors for the Fund. In addition to audit services, PwC provides assistance on accounting, tax and related matters.

Securities Lending Agent

State Street serves as the securities lending agent to the Fund. Pursuant to a Securities Lending Agreement and in accordance with procedures established by the Board of Trustees, State Street effects loans of Fund securities to any firm on a list of approved borrowers, negotiates loan terms, monitors the value of the loaned securities and collateral, requests additional collateral as necessary, manages reinvestment of collateral in a pooled cash collateral reinvestment vehicle, arranges for the return of loaned securities to the Fund, and maintains records and prepares reports regarding loans that are made and the income derived therefrom. For the services provided, a securities lending agent will receive fees and/or compensation from the Fund, which may include a portion of the income generated from securities lending activities.

The following table provides the dollar amounts of income and fees and/or compensation related to the Fund's securities lending activities during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023:

S-44


         

Gross income from securities lending activities

$

38,295

 

Fees and/or compensation paid by the Fund for securities lending activities and related services:

     
 

Fees paid to Securities Lending Agent from a revenue split

 

(257

)

 

Fees paid for any cash collateral management service (including fees deducted from a pooled cash collateral reinvestment vehicle) that are not included in the revenue split

 

(332

)

 

Administrative fees not included in the revenue split

 

 
 

Indemnification fees not included in the revenue split

 

 
 

Rebate (paid to borrower)

 

(34,747

)

 

Other fees not included in the revenue split

 

 

Aggregate fees/compensation for securities lending activities

 

(35,336

)

Net income from securities lending activities

$

2,959

 

CODES OF ETHICS

The Fund, the Adviser, Winslow Capital and the Distributor have adopted codes of ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act and with respect to the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser, Rule 204A-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), addressing personal securities transactions and other conduct by investment personnel and access persons who may have access to information about the Fund's securities transactions. The codes are intended to address potential conflicts of interest that can arise in connection with personal trading activities of such persons. Persons subject to the codes are generally permitted to engage in personal securities transactions, including investing in securities eligible for investment by the Fund, subject to certain prohibitions, which may include prohibitions on investing in certain types of securities, pre-clearance requirements, blackout periods, annual and quarterly reporting of personal securities holdings and limitations on personal trading of initial public offerings. Violations of the codes are subject to review by the Board of Trustees and could result in severe penalties.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

The Fund has delegated authority to the Adviser to vote proxies for securities held by the Fund, and the Adviser has in turn delegated that responsibility to the Sub-Adviser. The Adviser’s proxy voting policy establishes minimum standards for the exercise of proxy voting authority by the Sub-Adviser.

Winslow Capital, pursuant to Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act, has adopted Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures pursuant to which it has undertaken to vote all proxies or other beneficial interests in an equity security prudently and solely in the best long-term economic interest of its advisory clients and their beneficiaries, considering all relevant factors and without undue influence from individuals or groups who may have an economic interest in the outcome of a proxy vote.

Winslow Capital will vote all proxies appurtenant to shares of corporate stock held by a plan or account with respect to which it serves as investment manager, unless the investment management contract expressly precludes Winslow Capital, as investment manager, from voting such proxy.

Winslow Capital has delegated the authority to vote proxies in accordance with its Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures to Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), a third party proxy-voting agency. Winslow Capital subscribes to ISS’s Implied Consent service feature. As ISS research is completed, the ISS Account Manager executes the ballots as Winslow Capital’s agent according to the vote recommendations and consistent with the applicable ISS Proxy Voting Guidelines. If new material public information becomes available after ISS recommends a vote or ISS finds that a report contains a material error, ISS issues a proxy alert to inform Winslow Capital of any corrections and, if necessary, any resulting changes in the vote recommendations. In casting its vote, Winslow Capital reviews any updated information from ISS.

Winslow Capital retains the ability to override any vote if it disagrees with ISS’s vote recommendation, and always maintains the option to review and amend votes before they are cast up until the proxy submission deadline, except in the case of a conflict of interest. When there is an apparent conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, e.g., where Winslow Capital may receive fees from a company for advisory or other services at the same time that Winslow Capital has investments in the stock of that company, Winslow Capital will follow the vote recommendation of ISS. Winslow Capital retains documentation of all amended votes.

S-45


Although Winslow Capital has affiliates that provide investment advisory, broker-dealer, insurance or other financial services, Winslow Capital does not receive non-public information about the business arrangements of such affiliates (except with regard to major distribution partners of its investment products) or the directors, officers and employees of such affiliates. Therefore, Winslow Capital is unable to consider such information when determining whether there are material conflicts of interests.

Winslow Capital has adopted ISS Proxy Voting Guidelines. While these guidelines are not intended to be all-inclusive, they do provide guidance on the Sub-Adviser’s general voting policies. Please see Appendix A for the ISS United States Proxy Voting Guidelines, Appendix B for the ISS United States Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines and ISS’s website at http://www.issgovernance.com/policy-gateway/voting-policies for access to all of the current ISS Proxy Voting Guidelines, including additional proxy voting guidelines that may be used by the Fund.

Voted Proxies. Information regarding how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge by accessing Nuveen’s website at http://www.nuveen.com or the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS

Winslow Capital is responsible for decisions to buy and sell securities for the Fund and for the placement of the Fund’s securities business, the negotiation of the commissions to be paid on brokered transactions, the prices for principal trades in securities, and the allocation of portfolio brokerage and principal business. It is the policy of Winslow Capital to seek the best execution at the best security price available with respect to each transaction, and with respect to brokered transactions, in light of the overall quality of brokerage and research services provided to the adviser and its advisees. The best price to the Fund means the best net price without regard to the mix between purchase or sale price and commission, if any. Purchases may be made from underwriters, dealers, and, on occasion, the issuers. Commissions will be paid on the Fund’s futures and options transactions, if any. The purchase price of portfolio securities purchased from an underwriter or dealer may include underwriting commissions and dealer spreads. The Fund may pay mark-ups on principal transactions. In selecting broker-dealers and in negotiating commissions, the portfolio managers consider, among other things, the firm’s reliability, the quality of its execution services on a continuing basis and its financial condition. Brokerage will not be allocated based on the sale of the Fund’s shares.

On behalf of the Fund, Winslow Capital may seek to buy from or sell securities to another fund or account advised by Winslow Capital or an affiliate. Winslow Capital may effect purchases and sales between its clients or clients of its affiliates, including the Fund (referred to herein as “cross trades”), if it believes that such transactions are appropriate based on each party’s investment objectives and guidelines, subject to applicable law and regulation. Cross trades may give rise to potential conflicts of interest for Winslow Capital. On any occasion when the Fund participates in a cross trade, the Fund will comply with procedures adopted pursuant to Rule 17a-7 under the 1940 Act and applicable SEC guidance.

Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 permits an investment adviser, under certain circumstances, to cause an account to pay a broker or dealer who supplies brokerage and research services a commission for effecting the transaction in excess of the amount of commission another broker or dealer would have charged for effecting the transaction. Brokerage and research services include, but are not limited to, (a) furnishing advice as to the value of securities, the advisability of investing, purchasing or selling securities, and the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities; (b) furnishing analyses and reports concerning issuers, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of accounts; and (c) effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental thereto (such as clearance, settlement, and custody).

In light of the above, in selecting brokers, the portfolio managers consider investment and market information and other research, such as economic, securities and performance measurement research, provided by such brokers, and the quality and reliability of brokerage services, including execution capability, performance and financial responsibility. Accordingly, the commissions charged by any such broker may be greater than the amount another firm might charge if the portfolio managers determine in good faith that the amount of such commissions is reasonable in relation to the value of the research information and brokerage services provided by such broker to Winslow Capital or the Fund. Winslow Capital believes that the research information received in this manner provides the Fund with benefits by supplementing the research otherwise available to the Fund. The Investment Management Agreement

S-46


and the Sub-Advisory Agreement provide that such higher commissions will not be paid by the Fund unless Winslow Capital determines in good faith that the amount is reasonable in relation to the services provided. The investment advisory fees paid by the Fund to the Adviser under the Investment Management Agreement and the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to Winslow Capital under the Sub-Advisory Agreement are not reduced as a result of receipt by either the Adviser or Winslow Capital of research services.

Winslow Capital places portfolio transactions for other advisory accounts managed by it. Research services furnished by firms through which the Fund effects its securities transactions may be used by Winslow Capital in servicing all of its accounts; not all of such services may be used by Winslow Capital in connection with the Fund. Winslow Capital believes it is not possible to measure separately the benefits from research services to each of the accounts (including the Fund) managed by it. Because the volume and nature of the trading activities of the accounts are not uniform, the amount of commissions in excess of those charged by another broker paid by each account for brokerage and research services will vary. However, Winslow Capital believes such costs to the Fund will not be disproportionate to the benefits received by the Fund on a continuing basis. Winslow Capital seeks to allocate portfolio transactions equitably whenever concurrent decisions are made to purchase or sell securities by the Fund and another advisory account. In some cases, this procedure could have an adverse effect on the price or the amount of securities available to the Fund. In making such allocations between the Fund and other advisory accounts, the main factors considered by Winslow Capital are the respective investment objectives, the relative size of portfolio holdings of the same or comparable securities, the availability of cash for investment and the size of investment commitments generally held.

The Board of the Nuveen Funds and the Adviser have agreed that the Adviser will compensate the Fund for all of its soft dollar costs. This arrangement may only be changed with Board approval. Additionally, the Adviser will report to the Board, or a designated Committee of the Board, at least annually regarding soft dollar usage by the Fund, including soft dollars attributable to the Fund.

The following table sets forth the aggregate brokerage commissions paid by the Fund for the specified periods:

                               

Aggregate Brokerage Commissions Paid by the Fund

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2021

     

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2022

     

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2023

 

$160,010  

   

$245,489  

     

$229,962  

 

Brokerage commissions paid by the Fund may vary substantially from year to year as a result of changing asset levels throughout the year, portfolio turnover rates, differences in shareholder purchase and redemption activity, varying market conditions and other factors.

All soft dollar costs paid by the Fund during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, were fully compensated by the Adviser.

During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Fund has acquired the securities of its regular brokers or dealers as defined in Rule 10b-1 under the 1940 Act or of the parents of the brokers or dealers. The following table sets forth those brokers or dealers and states the value of the Fund’s aggregate holdings of the securities of each issuer as of close of the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023:

             

Broker/Dealer

 

Issuer

 

Aggregate Fund
Holdings of
Broker/Dealer

or Parent (as of
July 31, 2023)

Morgan Stanley & Co.

 

Morgan Stanley

   

$8,200,114

 

Under the 1940 Act, the Fund may not purchase portfolio securities from any underwriting syndicate of which the Distributor is a member except under certain limited conditions set forth in Rule 10f-3. The Rule sets forth requirements relating to, among other things, the terms of a security purchased by the Fund, the amount of securities that may be purchased in any one issue and the assets of the Fund that may be invested in a particular issue. In addition, purchases of securities made pursuant to the terms of the Rule must be approved at least quarterly by the Board of Trustees, including a majority of the independent trustees.

S-47


DISCLOSURE OF PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS

The Nuveen Mutual Funds have adopted a portfolio holdings disclosure policy that governs the dissemination of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. In accordance with this policy, the Fund may provide portfolio holdings information to third parties no earlier than the time a report is filed with the SEC that is required to contain such information or one day after the information is posted on the Fund’s publicly accessible website, www.nuveen.com. A complete list of portfolio holdings information is generally made available on the Fund's website ten business days after the end of the month. Additionally, the Fund publishes on the website a list of its top ten holdings as of the end of each month, approximately two to five business days after the end of the month for which the information is current. This information will remain available on the website at least until the Fund files with the SEC its Form N-CSR or Form N-PORT for the period that includes the date as of which the website information is current.

Additionally, the Fund may disclose portfolio holdings information that has not been included in a filing with the SEC or posted on the Fund’s website (i.e., non-public portfolio holdings information) only if there is a legitimate business purpose for doing so and if the recipient is required, either by explicit agreement or by virtue of the recipient’s duties to the Fund as an agent or service provider, to maintain the confidentiality of the information and to not use the information in an improper manner (e.g., personal trading). In this context, portfolio holdings information does not include summary information from which the identity of the Fund’s specific portfolio holdings cannot reasonably be derived. The Fund may disclose on an ongoing basis non-public portfolio holdings information in the normal course of its investment and administrative operations to various service providers, including the Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser, independent registered public accounting firm, custodian, financial printer, proxy voting service(s), borrowers of its securities pursuant to securities lending transactions, and to the legal counsel for the Fund’s independent trustees. Also, the Adviser may transmit to service providers non-public portfolio holdings information to enable the Adviser to perform portfolio attribution analysis using third-party systems and software programs. The Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser may also provide certain portfolio holdings information to broker-dealers from time to time in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or requests for price quotations or bids on one or more securities. In providing this information, reasonable precautions are taken in an effort to avoid potential misuse of the disclosed information, including limitations on the scope of the portfolio holdings information disclosed, when appropriate. The Fund, the Adviser, and the Sub-Adviser do not receive compensation or other consideration in exchange for the disclosure of portfolio holdings.

Non-public portfolio holdings information may be provided to other persons if approved by the Fund’s Chief Administrative Officer or Secretary upon a determination that there is a legitimate business purpose for doing so, the disclosure is consistent with the interests of the Fund, and the recipient is obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the information and not misuse it, which includes a prohibition on trading on such non-public information.

Compliance officers of the Fund and the Adviser and Sub-Adviser periodically monitor overall compliance with the policy to ascertain whether portfolio holdings information is disclosed in a manner that is consistent with the Fund’s policy. Reports are made to the Fund’s Board of Trustees on an annual basis.

There is no assurance that the Fund’s policies on portfolio holdings information will protect the Fund from the potential misuse of portfolio holdings information by individuals or firms in possession of such information.

The following parties currently receive non-public portfolio holdings information regarding one or more of the Nuveen Mutual Funds on an ongoing basis pursuant to the various arrangements described above:

Advent
Adviser Compliance Associates, LLC
Bank of America PriceServe
Barclays Capital, Inc.
Barra
Bloomberg
Broadridge Investor Communication Solutions, Inc.
Broadridge Systems
Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.
Chapman and Cutler LLP
Compliance Solutions Strategies

S-48


Confluence NXT
Donnelley Financial Solutions
Eagle Investment Systems, LLC
Electra Information Systems
Ernst & Young
FactSet Research Systems
Financial Graphic Services
Glass, Lewis & Co.
Houlihan Lokey Financial Advisors, Inc.
ICE Benchmark Administration Limited
ICE Data Services
IHS Markit, Ltd.
ISS
Investortools
KPMG LLP
Lipper Inc.
Moody’s
Morningstar, Inc.
Northern Trust Corp.
Omgeo LLC
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricingDirect Inc.
Refinitiv
Rimes Technologies Corporation
SS&C
Sherpa Funds Technology Pte. Ltd.
State Street Bank and Trust Co.
Strategic Insight
Wolters Kluwer

NET ASSET VALUE

The Fund’s net asset value is determined as set forth in the Prospectus under “General Information—Net Asset Value.”

SHARES OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST

The Board of Trustees of the Trust is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares in one or more series, which may be divided into classes of shares. Currently, there are seven series authorized and outstanding, each of which may be generally divided into different classes of shares designated as Class A shares, Class C shares, Class R6 shares and Class I shares. Each class of shares represents an interest in the same portfolio of investments of the Fund. Each class of shares has equal rights as to voting, redemption, dividends and liquidation, except that each bears different class expenses, including different distribution and service fees, and each has exclusive voting rights with respect to any distribution or service plan applicable to its shares. There are no conversion, preemptive or other subscription rights. The Board of Trustees of the Trust has the right to establish additional series and classes of shares in the future, to change those series or classes and to determine the preferences, voting powers, rights and privileges thereof.

The Trust is not required and does not intend to hold annual meetings of shareholders. Shareholders owning more than 10% of the outstanding shares of the Fund have the right to call a special meeting to remove trustees or for any other purpose.

Under Massachusetts law applicable to Massachusetts business trusts, shareholders of such a trust may, under certain circumstances, be held personally liable as partners for its obligations. However, the Declaration of Trust of the Trust contains an express disclaimer of shareholder liability for acts or obligations of the Trust and requires that notice of this disclaimer be given in each agreement, obligation or instrument entered into or executed by the Trust or the trustees. The Trust’s Declaration of Trust further provides for indemnification out of the assets and property of the Trust for all losses and expenses of any shareholder held personally liable for the obligations of the Trust. Thus, the risk of a shareholder incurring financial loss on account of shareholder liability is limited to circumstances in which both inadequate

S-49


insurance existed and the Trust or the Fund itself was unable to meet its obligations. The Trust believes the likelihood of the occurrence of these circumstances is remote.

The following table sets forth the percentage ownership of each person, who, as of November 2, 2023, owned of record, or is known by the Trust to have owned beneficially, 5% or more of any class of the Fund’s shares.

             

Name of Fund and Class

   

Name and Address of Owner

 

Percentage of
Ownership

Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG Fund
Class A Shares 

 


MLPF&S for the Benefit of its
Customers
Attn Fund Admin
4800 Deer Lake Dr E Fl 3
Jacksonville FL 32246-6484

 


27.58%

 
   

 

     
   

Charles Schwab & Co Inc
Special Custody A/C FBO Customers
Attn Mutual Funds
211 Main Street
San Francisco CA 94105-1901

 

15.83%

 
   

 

     
   

National Financial Services LLC
For the Exclusive Benefit of our
Customers
Attn Mutual Fund Dept 4th Floor
499 Washington Blvd
Jersey City NJ 07310-1995

 

7.30%

 
   

 

     
   

American Enterprise Investment Serv
707 2nd Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55402-2405

 

5.36%

 
   

 

     
   

Edward D Jones & Co
For the Benefit of Customers
12555 Manchester Rd
Saint Louis MO 63131-3710

 

5.17%

 
   

 

     

Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG Fund
Class C Shares 

 


American Enterprise Investment Serv
707 2nd Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55402-2405

 


19.91%

 
   

 

     
   

Raymond James
Omnibus for Mutual Funds
House Acct
Attn: Courtney Waller
880 Carillon Parkway
St Petersburg FL 33716-1102

 

17.71%

 
   

 

     
   

MLPF&S for the Benefit of its
Customers
Attn Fund Admin
4800 Deer Lake Dr E Fl 3
Jacksonville FL 32246-6484

 

9.99%

 
   

 

     
   

LPL Financial
4707 Executive Dr
San Diego CA 92121-3091

 

8.76%

 
   

 

     
   

Charles Schwab & Co Inc
Special Custody A/C FBO Customers
Attn Mutual Funds
211 Main Street
San Francisco CA 94105-1901

 

7.69%

 

S-50


             

Name of Fund and Class

   

Name and Address of Owner

 

Percentage of
Ownership

   

 

     
   

JP Morgan Securities LLC Omnibus
Account for the Exclusive Benefit
Of Customers
4 Chase Metrotech Ctr 3rd Fl
Mutual Fund Department
Brooklyn NY 11245-0003

 

7.30%

 
   

 

     
   

Pershing LLC
1 Pershing Plz
Jersey City NJ 07399-0001

 

7.05%

 
   

 

     
   

National Financial Services LLC
For the Exclusive Benefit of our
Customers
Attn Mutual Fund Dept 4th Floor
499 Washington Blvd
Jersey City NJ 07310-1995

 

5.16%

 
   

 

     

Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG Fund
Class R6 Shares 

 


Voya Institutional Trust Company
As Trustee or Custodian Fors
Core Market Retirement Plans
30 Braintree Hill Office Park
Braintree MA 02184-8747

 


42.17%

 
   

 

     
   

Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company
400 Devon Park Drive L23
Wayne PA 19087-1816

 

11.03%

 
   

 

     
   

MLPF&S for the Sole Benefit &
Of its Customers
Attn Fund Admin
4800 Deer Lake Dr E Fl 3
Jacksonville FL 32246-6484

 

8.52%

 
   

 

     
   

Order of St Benedict
2850 Abbey Plaza
PO Box 2222
Collegeville MN 56321-2222

 

7.83%

 
   

 

     
   

Pershing LLC
PO Box 2052
Jersey City NJ 07303-2052

 

7.10%

 
   

 

     
   

Edward D Jones & Co
For the Benefit of Customers
12555 Manchester Rd
Saint Louis MO 63131-3710

 

5.58%

 
   

 

     

Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG Fund
Class I Shares 

 


National Financial Services LLC
For the Exclusive Benefit of our
Customers
Attn Mutual Fund Dept 4th Floor
499 Washington Blvd
Jersey City NJ 07310-1995

 


23.18%

 
   

 

     
   

Charles Schwab & Co Inc
For the Benefit of their Customers
211 Main St
San Francisco CA 94105-1901

 

19.30%

 

S-51


             

Name of Fund and Class

   

Name and Address of Owner

 

Percentage of
Ownership

   

 

     
   

Principal Trust Company FBO
FBO The City of St Louis Pub Emp DC
C/O Fascore LLC
8515 E Orchard Rd 2T2
Greenwood Village CO 80111-5002

 

11.05%

 
   

 

     
   

JP Morgan Chase Bank NA FBO
TIAA-CREF Trust Co as Cust
For IRA Clients
4 Metrotech Ctr
Brooklyn NY 11245-0004

 

9.79%

 
   

 

     
   

Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company
400 Devon Park Drive
Wayne PA 19087-1816

 

5.18%

 

TAX MATTERS

Federal Income Tax Matters

This section summarizes some of the main U.S. federal income tax consequences of owning shares of the Fund. Tax laws and interpretations change frequently, and this summary does not describe all of the tax consequences to all taxpayers. For example, this summary generally does not describe your situation if you are a corporation, a non-U.S. person, a broker-dealer or other investor with special circumstances, or if you are investing through a tax-deferred account, such as an IRA or 401(k) plan. In addition, this section does not describe your state, local or non-U.S. tax consequences. This federal income tax summary is based in part on the advice of counsel to the Fund. The Internal Revenue Service could disagree with any conclusions set forth in this section. In addition, Fund's counsel was not asked to review, and has not reached a conclusion with respect to the federal income tax treatment of the assets to be deposited in the Fund. Consequently, this summary may not be sufficient for you to use for the purpose of avoiding penalties under federal tax law. As with any investment, you should seek advice based on your individual circumstances from your own tax professional.

Fund Status

The Fund intends to qualify as a “regulated investment company” under the federal tax laws. If the Fund qualifies as a regulated investment company and distributes its income as required by the tax law, the Fund generally will not pay federal income taxes. An adverse federal income tax audit of a partnership that the Fund invests in could result in the Fund being required to pay federal income tax or pay a deficiency dividend (without having received additional cash). If the Fund fails for any taxable year to qualify as a regulated investment company for federal income tax purposes, the Fund itself will generally be subject to federal income taxation (which will reduce the amount of Fund income available for distribution) and your tax consequences will be different from those described in this section (for example, all distributions to you will generally be taxed as ordinary income, even if those distributions are derived from capital gains realized by the Fund).

Qualification as a Regulated Investment Company

As a regulated investment company, the Fund generally will not be subject to federal income tax on the portion of its investment company taxable income (as that term is defined in the Code, but without regard to the deduction for dividends paid) and net capital gain (i.e., the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss), if any, that it distributes to shareholders, provided that it distributes at least 90% of its investment company taxable income and 90% of its net tax-exempt interest income for the year (the “Distribution Requirement”) and satisfies certain other requirements of the Code that are generally described below. The Fund also intends to make such distributions as are necessary to avoid the otherwise applicable 4% non-deductible excise tax on certain undistributed earnings.

In addition to satisfying the Distribution Requirement, the Fund must, among other things, derive in each taxable year at least 90% of its gross income from (1) dividends, interest, certain payments with respect to securities loans, gains from the sale or disposition of stock, securities or non-U.S. currencies and other income (including but not limited to gains from options, futures or forward contracts) derived

S-52


with respect to its business of investing in such stock, securities or currencies, and (2) net income derived from an interest in “qualified publicly traded partnerships” (as such term is defined in the Code). The Fund must also satisfy an asset diversification test in order to qualify as a regulated investment company. Under this test, at the close of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year, (1) 50% or more of the value of the Fund’s assets must be represented by cash and cash items (including receivables), United States government securities, securities of other regulated investment companies, and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect of any one issuer, to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the Fund’s assets and not greater than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer and (2) not more than 25% of the value of the Fund’s assets may be invested in securities of (a) any one issuer (other than U.S. government securities or securities of other regulated investment companies), or of two or more issuers which the Fund controls and which are engaged in the same, similar or related trades or businesses or (b) in the securities of one or more “qualified publicly traded partnerships” (as such term is defined in the Code). There are certain exceptions for failure to qualify if the failure is for reasonable cause or is de minimis and certain corrective action is taken and certain tax payments are made by the Fund.

Distributions

Fund distributions are generally taxable. After the end of each year, you will receive a tax statement that separates the Fund’s distributions into three categories: ordinary income distributions, capital gain dividends and returns of capital. Ordinary income distributions are generally taxed at your ordinary tax rate, however, as further discussed below, certain ordinary income distributions received from the Fund may be taxed at the capital gains tax rates. Some portion of the ordinary income distributions that are attributable to dividends received by the Fund from shares in certain real estate investment trusts may be designated by the Fund as eligible for a deduction for qualified business income, provided certain holding period requirements are satisfied. Generally, you will treat all capital gain dividends as long-term capital gains regardless of how long you have owned your shares. To determine your actual tax liability for your capital gain dividends, you must calculate your total net capital gain or loss for the tax year after considering all of your other taxable transactions, as described below. In addition, the Fund may make distributions that represent a return of capital for tax purposes and thus will generally not be immediately taxable to you unless the distribution exceeds your basis in your shares. The tax status of your distributions from the Fund is not affected by whether you reinvest your distributions in additional shares or receive them in cash. The income from the Fund that you must take into account for federal income tax purposes is not reduced by amounts used to pay a deferred sales fee, if any. The tax laws may require you to treat distributions made to you in January as if you had received them on December 31 of the previous year. Income from the Fund may also be subject to a 3.8 percent “Medicare tax.” This tax generally applies to your net investment income if your adjusted gross income exceeds certain threshold amounts, which are $250,000 in the case of married couples filing joint returns and $200,000 in the case of single individuals.

Dividends Received Deduction

A corporation that owns shares generally will not be entitled to the dividends received deduction (“DRD”) with respect to many dividends received from the Fund because the DRD is generally not available for distributions from regulated investment companies. However, certain ordinary income dividends on shares that are attributable to qualifying dividends received by the Fund from certain corporations may be reported by the Fund as being eligible for the DRD.

If You Sell or Redeem Shares

If you sell or redeem your shares, you will generally recognize a taxable gain or loss. To determine the amount of this gain or loss, you must subtract your tax basis in your shares from the amount you receive in the transaction. Your tax basis in your shares is generally equal to the cost of your shares, generally including sales charges. In some cases, however, you may have to adjust your tax basis after you purchase your shares.

Taxation of Capital Gains and Losses

If you are an individual, the maximum marginal stated federal tax rate for net capital gains is generally 20% (15% or 0% for taxpayers with taxable incomes below certain thresholds). Some capital gains, including some portion of your capital gain dividends, might be attributable to the Fund’s interest in a master limited partnership which may be subject to a maximum marginal stated federal income tax rate of 28%, rather than the rates set forth above. In addition, capital gains received from assets held for more than one year that are considered “unrecaptured section 1250 gain” (which may be the case, for example,

S-53


with some capital gains attributable to equity interests in real estate investment trusts that constitute interests in entities treated as real estate investment trusts for federal income tax purposes) are taxed at a maximum stated tax rate of 25%. In the case of capital gain dividends, the determination of which portion of the capital gain dividends, if any, is subject to the 28% tax rate or the 25% tax rate will be made based on the rules prescribed by the United States Treasury. Capital gains may also be subject to the “Medicare tax” described above.

Net capital gain equals net long-term capital gain minus net short-term capital loss for the taxable year. Capital gain or loss is long-term if the holding period for the asset is more than one year and is short-term if the holding period for the asset is one year or less. You must exclude the date you purchase your shares to determine your holding period. However, if you receive a capital gain dividend from the Fund and sell your share at a loss after holding it for six months or less, the loss will be recharacterized as long-term capital loss to the extent of the capital gain dividend received. The tax rates for capital gains realized from assets held for one year or less are generally the same as for ordinary income. The Code treats certain capital gains as ordinary income in special situations.

An election may be available to you to defer recognition of the gain attributable to a capital gain dividend if you make certain qualifying investments within a limited time. You should talk to your tax advisor about the availability of this deferral election and its requirements.

Taxation of Certain Ordinary Income Dividends

Ordinary income dividends received by an individual shareholder from a regulated investment company such as the Fund are generally taxed at the same rates that apply to net capital gain (as discussed above), provided certain holding period requirements are satisfied and provided the dividends are attributable to qualifying dividends received by the Fund itself. Distributions with respect to shares in real estate investment trusts are qualifying dividends only in limited circumstances. The Fund will provide notice to its shareholders of the amount of any distribution which may be taken into account as a dividend which is eligible for the capital gains tax rates.

When the Fund lends portfolio securities to a borrower as described above in “Investment Policies and Techniques—Lending of Portfolio Securities,” payments in lieu of dividends made by the borrower to the Fund will not constitute “qualified dividends” taxable at the same rate as long-term capital gains, even if the actual dividends would have constituted qualified dividends had the Fund held the securities. Such payments in lieu of dividends are taxable as ordinary income.

In-Kind Distributions

Under certain circumstances, as described in the Prospectus, you may receive an in-kind distribution of Fund securities when you redeem shares or when the Fund terminates. This distribution will be treated as a sale for federal income tax purposes and you will generally recognize gain or loss, generally based on the value at that time of the securities and the amount of cash received. The Internal Revenue Service could, however, assert that a loss may not be currently deducted.

Exchanges

If you exchange shares of the Fund for shares of another Nuveen Mutual Fund, the exchange would generally be considered a sale for federal income tax purposes.

Treatment of Fund Expenses

Expenses incurred and deducted by the Fund will generally not be treated as income taxable to you. In some cases, however, you may be required to treat your portion of these Fund expenses as income. You may not be able to deduct some or all of these expenses prior to 2026.

Non-U.S. Tax Credit

If the Fund invests in any non-U.S. securities, the tax statement that you receive may include an item showing non-U.S. taxes the Fund paid to other countries. In this case, dividends taxed to you will include your share of the taxes the Fund paid to other countries. You may be able to deduct or receive a tax credit for your share of these taxes.

Investments in Certain Non-U.S. Corporations

If the Fund holds an equity interest in any “passive foreign investment companies” (“PFICs”), which are generally certain foreign corporations that receive at least 75% of their annual gross income from passive sources (such as interest, dividends, certain rents and royalties or capital gains) or that hold at least 50% of their assets in investments producing such passive income, the Fund could be subject to

S-54


U.S. federal income tax and additional interest charges on gains and certain distributions with respect to those equity interests, even if all the income or gain is timely distributed to its shareholders. The Fund will not be able to pass through to its shareholders any credit or deduction for such taxes. The Fund may be able to make an election that could ameliorate these adverse tax consequences. In this case, the Fund would recognize as ordinary income any increase in the value of such PFIC shares, and as ordinary loss any decrease in such value to the extent it did not exceed prior increases included in income. Under this election, the Fund might be required to recognize in a year income in excess of its distributions from PFICs and its proceeds from dispositions of PFIC stock during that year, and such income would nevertheless be subject to the distribution requirement and would be taken into account for purposes of the 4% excise tax. Dividends paid by PFICs are not treated as qualified dividend income.

Non-U.S. Investors

If you are a non-U.S. investor (i.e., an investor other than a U.S. citizen or resident or a U.S. corporation, partnership, estate or trust), you should be aware that, generally, subject to applicable tax treaties, distributions from the Fund will be characterized as dividends for federal income tax purposes (other than dividends which the Fund properly reports as capital gain dividends) and will be subject to U.S. income taxes, including withholding taxes, subject to certain exceptions described below. However, distributions received by a non-U.S. investor from the Fund that are properly reported by the Fund as capital gain dividends may not be subject to U.S. federal income taxes, including withholding taxes, provided that the Fund makes certain disclosures and certain other conditions are met. Distributions from the Fund that are properly reported by the Fund as an interest-related dividend attributable to certain interest income received by the Fund or as a short-term capital gain dividend attributable to certain net short-term capital gain income received by the Fund may not be subject to U.S. federal income taxes, including withholding taxes when received by certain foreign investors, provided that the Fund makes certain disclosures and certain other conditions are met. These conditions include, but are not limited to, providing valid tax documentation certifying an investor’s non-U.S. status. For tax years after December 31, 2022, amounts paid to or recognized by a non-U.S. affiliate that are excluded from tax under the portfolio interest, capital gain dividends, short-term capital gains or tax-exempt interest dividend exceptions or applicable treaties, may be taken into consideration in determining whether a corporation is an “applicable corporation” subject to a 15% minimum tax on adjusted financial statement income.

Distributions to, and the gross proceeds from dispositions of shares by, (i) certain non-U.S. financial institutions that have not entered into an agreement with the U.S. Treasury to collect and disclose certain information and are not resident in a jurisdiction that has entered into such an agreement with the U.S. Treasury and (ii) certain other non-U.S. entities that do not provide certain certifications and information about the entity’s U.S. owners, may be subject to a U.S. withholding tax of 30%. However, proposed regulations may eliminate the requirement to withhold on payments of gross proceeds from dispositions.

Capital Loss Carry-Forward

When the Fund has a capital loss carry-forward, it does not make capital gain distributions until the loss has been offset or expired. As of July 31, 2023, the Fund had no capital loss carry-forwards available for federal income tax purposes.

PURCHASE AND REDEMPTION OF FUND SHARES

As described in the Prospectus, the Fund provides you with alternative ways of purchasing Fund shares based upon your individual investment needs and preferences.

Each class of shares of the Fund represents an interest in the same portfolio of investments. Each class of shares is identical in all respects except that each class bears its own class expenses, including distribution and administration expenses, and each class has exclusive voting rights with respect to any distribution or service plan applicable to its shares. As a result of the differences in the expenses borne by each class of shares, net income per share, dividends per share and net asset value per share will vary among the Fund’s classes of shares. There are no conversion, preemptive or other subscription rights.

Shareholders of each class will share expenses proportionately for services that are received equally by all shareholders. A particular class of shares will bear only those expenses that are directly attributable to that class, where the type or amount of services received by a class varies from one class to another. For example, class-specific expenses generally will include distribution and service fees for those classes that pay such fees.

S-55


The expenses to be borne by specific classes of shares may include (i) transfer agency fees attributable to a specific class of shares, (ii) printing and postage expenses related to preparing and distributing materials such as shareholder reports, prospectuses and proxy statements to current shareholders of a specific class of shares, (iii) SEC and state securities registration fees incurred by a specific class of shares, (iv) the expense of administrative personnel and services required to support the shareholders of a specific class of shares, (v) litigation or other legal expenses relating to a specific class of shares, (vi) trustees’ fees or expenses incurred as a result of issues relating to a specific class of shares, (vii) accounting expenses relating to a specific class of shares and (viii) any additional incremental expenses subsequently identified and determined to be properly allocated to one or more classes of shares.

Class A Shares

Class A shares may be purchased at a public offering price equal to the applicable net asset value per share plus an up-front sales charge imposed at the time of purchase as set forth in the Prospectus. Shareholders may qualify for a reduced sales charge, or the sales charge may be waived in its entirety, as described below. Class A shares are also subject to an annual service fee of 0.25%. See “Distribution and Service Plan.” Set forth below is an example of the method of computing the offering price of the Class A shares of the Fund. The example assumes a purchase on July 31, 2023 of Class A shares of the Fund aggregating less than $50,000 subject to the schedule of sales charges set forth in the Prospectus at a price based upon the net asset value of the Class A shares.

       

Net asset value per share 

 

$

47.53

Per share sales charge—5.75% of public offering price (6.10% of net asset value per share) 

   

2.90

Per share offering price to the public 

 

$

50.43

The Fund receives the entire net asset value of all Class A shares that are sold. The Distributor retains the full applicable sales charge from which it pays the uniform reallowances shown in the Prospectus to financial intermediaries.

Investors may purchase Class A shares only for Fund accounts held with a financial advisor or other financial intermediary, and not directly with the Fund. In addition, Class A shares may not be available through certain financial intermediaries. Please consult with your financial intermediary to determine whether their policies allow for an investment in Class A shares.

Reduction or Elimination of Up-Front Sales Charge on Class A Shares

The availability of the sales charge reductions and waivers discussed below will depend on the policies of the financial intermediary through which you purchase your shares. Information on intermediaries’ variations from the reductions and waivers discussed below are disclosed in the appendix to the Prospectus titled “Variations in Sales Charge Reductions and Waivers Available Through Certain Intermediaries.” In all instances, it is your responsibility to notify your financial intermediary at the time of purchase of any relationship or other facts qualifying you for sales charge waivers or discounts. In order to obtain waivers and discounts that are not available through your intermediary, you will have to purchase Fund shares through another intermediary.

Rights of Accumulation. You may qualify for a reduced sales charge on a purchase of Class A shares of the Fund (and your financial advisor’s commission will be reduced accordingly) if the amount of your purchase, when added to the value that day of all of your shares of any Nuveen Mutual Fund, falls within the amounts stated in the Class A Sales Charges and Commissions table in “How You Can Buy and Sell Shares” in the Prospectus. You or your financial advisor must notify the Distributor or the Fund’s transfer agent of any cumulative discount whenever you plan to purchase Class A shares of the Fund that you wish to qualify for a reduced sales charge.

Letter of Intent. You may qualify for a reduced sales charge on a purchase of Class A shares of the Fund if you plan to purchase Class A shares of Nuveen Mutual Funds over the next 13 months and the total amount of your purchases would, if purchased at one time, qualify you for one of the reduced sales charges shown in the Class A Sales Charges and Commissions table in “How You Can Buy and Sell Shares” in the Prospectus. In order to take advantage of this option, you must complete the applicable section of the Application Form or sign and deliver to your financial advisor or other financial intermediary or to the Fund’s transfer agent a written Letter of Intent in a form acceptable to the Distributor. A Letter of Intent states that you intend, but are not obligated, to purchase over the next 13 months a stated total amount of Class A shares that would qualify you for a reduced sales charge shown above. You may

S-56


count shares of all Nuveen Mutual Funds that you already own and any Class C and Class I shares of a Nuveen Mutual Fund that you purchase over the next 13 months towards completion of your investment program, but you will receive a reduced sales charge only on new Class A shares you purchase with a sales charge over the 13 months. You cannot count towards completion of your investment program Class A shares that you purchase without a sales charge through investment of distributions from a Nuveen Mutual Fund, or otherwise.

By establishing a Letter of Intent, you agree that your first purchase of Class A shares of the Fund following execution of the Letter of Intent will be at least 5% of the total amount of your intended purchases. You further agree that shares representing 5% of the total amount of your intended purchases will be held in escrow pending completion of these purchases. All dividends and capital gain distributions on Class A shares held in escrow will be credited to your account. If total purchases, less redemptions, prior to the expiration of the 13 month period equal or exceed the amount specified in your Letter of Intent, the Class A shares held in escrow will be transferred to your account. If the total purchases, less redemptions, are less than the amount specified, you must pay the Distributor an amount equal to the difference between the amounts paid for these purchases and the amounts which would have been paid if the higher sales charge had been applied. If you do not pay the additional amount within 20 days after written request by the Distributor or your financial advisor, the Distributor will redeem an appropriate number of your escrowed Class A shares to meet the required payment. By establishing a Letter of Intent, you irrevocably appoint the Distributor as attorney to give instructions to redeem any or all of your escrowed shares, with full power of substitution in the premises.

You or your financial advisor must notify the Distributor or the Fund's transfer agent whenever you make a purchase of Fund shares that you wish to be covered under the Letter of Intent option.

For purposes of determining whether you qualify for a reduced sales charge as described under Rights of Accumulation and Letter of Intent, you may include together with your own purchases those made by your spouse or domestic partner and your children under the age of 21 years, whether these purchases are made through a taxable or non-taxable account. You may also include purchases made by a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship which is 100% owned, either alone or in combination, by any of the foregoing. In addition, a trustee or other fiduciary can count all shares purchased for a single trust, estate or other single fiduciary account that has multiple accounts (including one or more employee benefit plans of the same employer).

Elimination of Sales Charge on Class A Shares. Class A shares of the Fund may be purchased at net asset value without a sales charge by the following categories of investors:

· investors purchasing $1,000,000 or more;

· investors purchasing shares through the reinvestment of Nuveen Mutual Fund dividends and capital gain distributions;

· investors purchasing shares for accounts held directly with the Fund that do not have a financial intermediary of record;

· current and former trustees/directors of the Nuveen Funds;

· current and retired employees of Nuveen, LLC and its affiliates or their immediate family members (immediate family members are defined as their spouses or domestic partners, parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, parents-in-law, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, siblings, a sibling’s spouse and a spouse’s siblings);

· any person who, for at least the last 90 days, has been an officer, director or employee of any financial intermediary, or their immediate family members;

· bank or broker-affiliated trust departments investing funds over which they exercise exclusive discretionary investment authority and that are held in a fiduciary, agency, advisory, custodial or similar capacity;

· investors purchasing on a periodic fee, asset-based fee or no transaction fee basis through a broker-dealer sponsored mutual fund purchase program;

· employer-sponsored retirement plans as defined below, except that, in the case of employer-sponsored retirement plans held through a brokerage account, Class A shares will be available at net asset value without a sales charge only if the broker-dealer has entered into an agreement with the Distributor that allows for such purchases. Intermediaries that have entered into such an agreement are listed in the appendix to the Prospectus titled, “Variations in Sales

S-57


Charge Reductions and Waivers Available Through Certain Intermediaries.” For this purpose, employer-sponsored retirement plans include, but are not limited to, 401(k) plans, 457 plans, employer-sponsored 403(b) plans, profit sharing and money purchase pension plans, health savings accounts, defined benefit plans, non-qualified deferred compensation plans, Roth 401(k) plans and Roth 403(b) plans, and do not include SEPs, SAR-SEPs, SIMPLE IRAs (except as described below), SIMPLE 401(k) plans, Solo 401(k) plans, KEOGH plans, non-qualified deferred compensation plans and single defined benefit plans;

· SIMPLE IRAs opened before January 1, 2011 where Nuveen Securities, LLC is the broker of record;

· clients of investment advisers, financial planners or other financial intermediaries that charge periodic or asset-based fees for their services; and

· investors purchasing through a financial intermediary that has entered into an agreement with the Distributor to offer the Fund's shares to self-directed investment brokerage accounts and that may or may not charge a transaction fee to its customers. Intermediaries that have entered into such an agreement are listed in the appendix to the Prospectus titled, “Variations in Sales Charge Reductions and Waivers Available Through Certain Intermediaries.”

You or your financial advisor must notify the Distributor or the Fund’s transfer agent whenever you make a purchase of Class A shares of the Fund that you wish to be covered under these special sales charge waivers.

Class A shares of the Fund may be issued at net asset value without a sales charge in connection with the acquisition by the Fund of another investment company. All purchases under the special sales charge waivers will be subject to minimum purchase requirements as established by the Fund.

The reduced sales charge programs may be modified or discontinued by the Fund at any time. For more information about the purchase of Class A shares or the reduced sales charge program, or to obtain the required application forms, call Nuveen Funds toll-free at (800) 257-8787.

Class C Shares

You may purchase Class C shares at a public offering price equal to the applicable net asset value per share without any up-front sales charge. Class C shares are subject to an annual distribution fee of 0.75% to compensate the Distributor for paying your financial advisor or other financial intermediary an ongoing sales commission. Class C shares are also subject to an annual service fee of 0.25% to compensate financial intermediaries for providing you with ongoing financial advice and other account services. The Distributor compensates financial intermediaries for sales of Class C shares at the time of the sale at a rate of 1.00% of the amount of Class C shares purchased, which represents an advance of the first year’s distribution fee of 0.75% plus an advance on the first year’s annual service fee of 0.25%. See “Distribution and Service Plan.”

Class C share purchase orders equaling or exceeding $1,000,000 will not be accepted. In addition, Class C share purchase orders for a single purchaser that, when added to the value that day of all of such purchaser’s shares of any class of any Nuveen Mutual Fund, cause the purchaser’s cumulative total of shares in Nuveen Mutual Funds to equal or exceed $1,000,000 will not be accepted. Your financial intermediary may set a lower maximum for Class C shares. Shareholders purchasing Class C shares should consider whether they would qualify for a reduced or eliminated sales charge on Class A shares that would make purchasing Class A shares a better choice. Class A share sales charges can be reduced or eliminated based on the size of the purchase, or pursuant to a letter of intent or rights of accumulation. See “Reduction or Elimination of Up-Front Sales Charge on Class A Shares” above.

Redemption of Class C shares within 12 months of purchase may be subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) of 1.00% of the lower of the purchase price or redemption proceeds. Class C shares automatically convert to Class A shares after 8 years, thus reducing future annual expenses. Conversions occur during the month in which the 8-year anniversary of the purchase occurs. The automatic conversion is based on the relative net asset values of the two share classes without the imposition of a sales charge or fee. The automatic conversion of Class C shares to Class A shares may not apply to shares held through group retirement plan recordkeeping platforms of certain financial intermediaries who hold such shares in an omnibus account and do not track participant level share lot aging to facilitate such a conversion. Furthermore, the availability of the automatic Class C share conversion and the terms under which the conversion takes place may depend on the policies and/or system limitations of the financial intermediary through which you hold your shares. Information on

S-58


intermediaries’ variations from the Class C share conversion discussed above is disclosed in the appendix to the Prospectus, “Variations in Sales Charge Reductions and Waivers Through Certain Intermediaries.”

Investors may purchase Class C shares only for Fund accounts held with a financial advisor or other financial intermediary, and not directly with the Fund. In addition, Class C shares may not be available through certain financial intermediaries. Please consult with your financial intermediary to determine whether their policies allow for an investment in Class C shares.

Reduction or Elimination of Contingent Deferred Sales Charge

The availability of the sales charge reductions and waivers discussed below will depend on the policies of the financial intermediary through which you purchase your shares. Information on intermediaries’ variations from the reductions and waivers discussed below are disclosed in the appendix to the Prospectus titled “Variations in Sales Charge Reductions and Waivers Available Through Certain Intermediaries.” In all instances, it is your responsibility to notify your financial intermediary at the time of purchase of any relationship or other facts qualifying you for sales charge waivers or discounts. In order to obtain waivers and discounts that are not available through your intermediary, you will have to purchase Fund shares through another intermediary.

Class A shares are normally redeemed at net asset value, without any CDSC. However, in the case of Class A shares purchased at net asset value without a sales charge because the purchase amount exceeded $1,000,000, a CDSC is imposed on any redemption within 18 months of purchase. Class C shares are redeemed at net asset value, without any CDSC, except that a CDSC of 1.00% is imposed upon any redemption within 12 months of purchase (except in cases where a shareholder is eligible for a waiver).

In determining whether a CDSC is payable, the Fund will first redeem shares not subject to any charge and then will redeem shares held for the longest period, unless the shareholder specifies another order. No CDSC is charged on shares purchased as a result of automatic reinvestment of dividends or capital gains paid. In addition, no CDSC will be charged on exchanges of shares into another Nuveen Mutual Fund. The holding period is calculated on a monthly basis and begins on the first day of the month in which the purchase was made. The CDSC is assessed on an amount equal to the lower of the then current market value or the cost of the shares being redeemed. Accordingly, no sales charge is imposed on increases of net asset value above the initial purchase price. The Distributor receives the amount of any CDSC shareholders pay.

The CDSC may be waived or reduced under the following circumstances: (i) in the event of total disability (as evidenced by a determination by the federal Social Security Administration) of the shareholder (including a registered joint owner) occurring after the purchase of the shares being redeemed; (ii) in the event of the death of the shareholder (including a registered joint owner); (iii) for redemptions made pursuant to a systematic withdrawal plan, up to 1% monthly, 3% quarterly, 6% semiannually or 12% annually of an account’s net asset value depending on the frequency of the plan as designated by the shareholder; (iv) redemptions in connection with a payment of account or plan fees; (v) redemptions in connection with the exercise of the Fund’s right to redeem all shares in an account that does not maintain a certain minimum balance; (vi) upon an optional conversion by the Fund of Class C shares held in an account which no longer has a financial intermediary of record into Class A shares; (vii) redemptions of Class C shares in cases where the Distributor did not advance the first year’s service and distribution fees when such shares were purchased; and (viii) redemptions of Class A shares where the Distributor did not pay a sales commission when such shares were purchased. If the Fund waives or reduces the CDSC, such waiver or reduction would be uniformly applied to all Fund shares in the particular category. In waiving or reducing a CDSC, the Fund will comply with the requirements of Rule 22d-1 under the 1940 Act.

In addition, the CDSC will be waived in connection with the following redemptions of shares held by an employer-sponsored qualified defined contribution retirement plan: (i) partial or complete redemptions in connection with a distribution without penalty under Section 72(t) of the Code from a retirement plan: (a) upon attaining age 59½, (b) as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments, or (c) upon separation from service and attaining age 55; (ii) partial or complete redemptions in connection with a qualifying loan or hardship withdrawal; (iii) complete redemptions in connection with termination of employment, plan termination or transfer to another employer’s plan or IRA; and (iv) redemptions resulting from the return of an excess contribution. The CDSC will also be waived in connection with the following redemptions of shares held in an IRA account: (i) for redemptions made pursuant to an IRA

S-59


systematic withdrawal based on the shareholder’s life expectancy including, but not limited to, substantially equal periodic payments described in Code Section 72(t)(A)(iv) prior to age 59½; and (ii) for redemptions to satisfy required minimum distributions from an IRA account upon reaching the qualified age based on applicable laws and regulations (with the maximum amount subject to this waiver being based only upon the shareholder’s Nuveen IRA accounts).

Class R6 Shares

Class R6 shares are available to the following classes of investors, provided they meet the minimum investment and other eligibility requirements set forth below:

· Qualified retirement plans held in plan-level or omnibus accounts, including 401(k) plans, employer sponsored 403(b) plans, profit sharing pension plans, money purchase pension plans, target benefit plans, defined benefit pension plans and Taft Hartley multi-employer pension plans;

· Foundations and endowment funds;

· Any state, county, or city, or its instrumentality, department, authority or agency;

· 457 plans, including 457(b) governmental entity plans and tax exempt plans;

· Omnibus or other pooled accounts registered to insurance companies, trust companies, bank trust departments, registered investment advisor firms and family offices;

· Investment companies;

· Corporations, including corporate non-qualified deferred compensation plans of such corporations;

· Collective investment trusts;

· Discretionary accounts managed by the Adviser or its affiliates;

· Health savings accounts held in plan-level or omnibus accounts; and

· 529 savings plans held in plan-level or omnibus accounts.

There is no minimum initial investment for qualified retirement plans, health savings accounts and 529 savings plans; however, the shares must be held through plan-level or omnibus accounts held on the books of the Fund. Class R6 shares are also available for purchase by clients of financial intermediaries who charge such clients an ongoing fee for advisory, investment, consulting or related services. Such clients may include individuals, corporations, endowments and foundations. The minimum initial investment for such clients is $100,000, but this minimum will be waived for clients of financial intermediaries that have accounts holding Class R6 shares with an aggregate value of at least $100,000. The Distributor may also waive the minimum for clients of financial intermediaries anticipated to reach this Class R6 share holdings level. All other eligible investors must meet a minimum initial investment of at least $1,000,000 in the Fund. Such minimum investment requirement may be applied collectively to affiliated accounts, in the discretion of the Distributor. Class R6 shares may be purchased through financial intermediaries only if such intermediaries have entered into an agreement with the Distributor to offer Class R6 shares. Class R6 shares are only available in cases where neither the investor nor the intermediary will receive any commission payments, account servicing fees, record keeping fees, 12b-1 fees, sub-transfer agent fees, so called “finder’s fees,” administration fees or similar fees with respect to Class R6 shares. Class R6 shares are not available directly to traditional or Roth IRAs, Coverdell Savings Accounts, Keoghs, SEPs, SARSEPs, or SIMPLE IRAs.

Class R6 shares also are available for purchase, with no minimum initial investment, by the following categories of investors:

· current and former trustees/directors of any Nuveen Fund, and their immediate family members (“immediate family members” are defined as spouses or domestic partners, parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, parents-in-law, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, siblings, a sibling’s spouse and a spouse’s siblings);

· officers of Nuveen, LLC and its affiliates, and their immediate family members; and

· full-time and retired employees of Nuveen, LLC and its affiliates, and their immediate family members, including any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship or other business organization that is wholly owned by one or more of such persons.

S-60


Class I Shares

Class I shares are available for purchase by clients of financial intermediaries who charge such clients an ongoing fee for advisory, investment, consulting or related services. Such clients may include individuals, corporations, endowments and foundations. The minimum initial investment for such clients is $100,000, but this minimum will be lowered to $250 for clients of financial intermediaries that have accounts holding Class I shares with an aggregate value of at least $100,000. The Distributor may also lower the minimum to $250 for clients of financial intermediaries anticipated to reach this Class I share holdings level.

Class I shares are also available for purchase by family offices and their clients. A family office is a company that provides certain financial and other services to a high net worth family or families. The minimum initial investment for family offices and their clients is $100,000, but this minimum will be lowered to $250 for clients of family offices that have accounts holding Class I shares with an aggregate value of at least $100,000. The Distributor may also lower the minimum to $250 for clients of family offices anticipated to reach this Class I share holdings level.

Class I shares also are available for purchase, with no minimum initial investment, by the following categories of investors:

· employer-sponsored retirement plans, except SEPs, SAR-SEPs, SIMPLE IRAs and KEOGH plans;

· bank or broker-affiliated trust departments investing funds over which they exercise exclusive discretionary investment authority and that are held in a fiduciary, agency, advisory, custodial or similar capacity;

· advisory accounts of Nuveen Fund Advisors and its affiliates, including other Nuveen Mutual Funds whose investment policies permit investments in other investment companies;

· investors purchasing through a brokerage platform of a financial intermediary that has an agreement with the Distributor to offer such shares solely when acting as an agent for such investors. Investors transacting through a financial intermediary’s brokerage platform may be required to pay a commission directly to the intermediary;

· any registered investment company that is not affiliated with the Nuveen Funds and which invests in securities of other investment companies;

· any plan organized under section 529 under the Code (i.e., a 529 plan);

· participants in the TIAA IRA or TIAA-CREF Investment Solutions IRA;

· current and former trustees/directors of any Nuveen Fund, and their immediate family members (“immediate family members” are defined as spouses or domestic partners, parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, parents-in-law, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, siblings, a sibling’s spouse and a spouse’s siblings);

· officers of Nuveen, LLC and its affiliates, and their immediate family members;

· full-time and retired employees of Nuveen, LLC and its affiliates, and their immediate family members, including any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship or other business organization that is wholly owned by one or more of such persons; and

· any person who, for at least the last 90 days, has been an officer, director or employee of any financial intermediary, and their immediate family members.

Holders of Class I shares may purchase additional Class I shares using dividends and capital gain distributions on their shares.

If you are eligible to purchase either Class I shares or Class A shares without a sales charge at net asset value, you should be aware of the differences between these two classes of shares. Class A shares are subject to an annual service fee to compensate financial intermediaries for providing you with ongoing account services. Class I shares are not subject to a distribution or service fee and, consequently, holders of Class I shares may not receive the same types or levels of services from financial intermediaries. In choosing between Class A shares and Class I shares, you should weigh the benefits of the services to be provided by financial intermediaries against the annual service fee imposed upon the Class A shares.

A financial intermediary through which you hold Class I shares may have the authority under its account agreement to exchange your Class I shares for another class of Fund shares having higher expenses than Class I shares if you withdraw from or are no longer eligible for the intermediary’s fee-

S-61


based program or under other circumstances. You may be subject to the sales charges and service and/or distribution fees applicable to the share class that you receive in such an exchange. You should contact your financial intermediary for more information about your eligibility to purchase Class I shares and the class of shares you would receive in an exchange if you no longer meet Class I eligibility requirements.

Shareholder Programs

Exchange Privilege

You may exchange Fund shares into an identically registered account for the same class of another Nuveen Mutual Fund available in your state. Your exchange must meet the minimum purchase requirements of the fund into which you are exchanging.

You may also, under certain limited circumstances, exchange between certain classes of shares of the same Fund. You should be aware that exchanges between classes of shares of the same Fund may not be available for all accounts and may not be offered by the financial intermediary through which you may hold shares and that the financial intermediary through whom you hold shares may be authorized (e.g., under its account or similar agreement with you) to reject any share class exchange. An exchange between classes of shares of the same Fund may not be considered a taxable event; please consult your own tax advisor for further information.

If you hold your shares directly with the Fund, you may exchange your shares by either sending a written request to the Fund, c/o Nuveen Funds, P.O. Box 219140, Kansas City, Missouri 64121-9140 or by calling Nuveen Funds toll free at (800) 257-8787.

If you exchange shares between different Nuveen Mutual Funds and your shares are subject to a CDSC, no CDSC will be charged at the time of the exchange. However, if you subsequently redeem the shares acquired through the exchange, the redemption may be subject to a CDSC, depending on when you purchased your original shares and the CDSC schedule of the fund from which you exchanged your shares. If you exchange between classes of shares of the same Fund and your original shares are subject to a CDSC, the CDSC will be assessed at the time of the exchange.

For federal income tax purposes, an exchange between different Nuveen Mutual Funds constitutes a sale and purchase of shares and may result in capital gain or loss. Before making any exchange, you should obtain the Prospectus for the Nuveen Mutual Fund you are purchasing and read it carefully. If the registration of the account for the Fund you are purchasing is not exactly the same as that of the fund account from which the exchange is made, written instructions from all holders of the account from which the exchange is being made must be received, with signatures guaranteed by a member of an approved Medallion Signature Guarantee Program or in such other manner as may be acceptable to the Fund. You may also exchange shares by telephone if you authorize telephone exchanges by checking the applicable box on the Application Form or by calling Nuveen Funds toll-free at (800) 257-8787 to obtain an authorization form. The Fund reserves the right to revise or suspend the exchange privilege, limit the amount or number of exchanges, or reject any exchange. Shareholders will be provided with at least 60 days’ notice of any material revision to or termination of the exchange privilege.

The exchange privilege is not intended to permit the Fund to be used as a vehicle for short-term trading. Excessive exchange activity may interfere with portfolio management, raise expenses and otherwise have an adverse effect on all shareholders. In order to limit excessive exchange activity and in other circumstances where Fund management believes doing so would be in the best interest of the Fund, the Fund reserves the right to revise or terminate the exchange privilege, or limit the amount or number of exchanges or reject any exchange. Shareholders would be notified of any such action to the extent required by law. See “Frequent Trading Policy” below.

Reinstatement Privilege

If you redeemed Class A or Class C shares of a Nuveen Mutual Fund, you have up to one year to reinvest all or part of the full amount of the redemption in the same class of shares of any Nuveen Mutual Fund at net asset value. This reinstatement privilege can be exercised only once for any redemption, and reinvestment will be made at the net asset value next calculated after reinstatement of the appropriate class of Fund shares. If you reinstate shares that were subject to a CDSC, any shares purchased pursuant to the reinstatement privilege will not be subject to a CDSC. The federal income tax consequences of any capital gain realized on a redemption will not be affected by reinstatement, but a capital loss may be disallowed in whole or in part depending on the timing, the amount of the

S-62


reinvestment and the fund from which the redemption occurred. Your financial advisor will not receive a commission on shares purchased pursuant to the reinstatement privilege.

Suspension of Right of Redemption

The Fund may suspend the right of redemption of Fund shares or delay payment more than seven days (a) during any period when the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings), (b) when trading in the markets the Fund normally utilizes is restricted or an emergency exists as determined by the SEC so that trading of the Fund’s investments or determination of its net asset value is not reasonably practicable, or (c) for any other periods that the SEC by order may permit for protection of Fund shareholders.

Redemption In-Kind

The Fund has reserved the right to redeem in-kind (that is, to pay redemption requests in cash and portfolio securities, or wholly in portfolio securities). Pursuant to a notice of election under Rule 18f-1, the Fund voluntarily has committed to pay in cash all requests for redemption by any shareholder, limited as to each shareholder during any 90-day period to the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of the net asset value of the Fund at the beginning of the 90-day period.

Purchase In-Kind

The Fund may allow the purchase of shares with investment securities (instead of cash), if it is determined that (i) the securities offered to the Fund are suitable for investment by the Fund and are appropriate, in type and amount, for investment by the Fund in light of its investment objective(s), policies and current holdings; (ii) the Fund expects to continue to hold the securities received in-kind, subject to subsequent changes in investment determinations regarding particular securities or as the need to raise cash by selling portfolio securities may arise; and (iii) the purchase in-kind is in the best interest of the Fund and its existing shareholders. If the Fund accepts the in-kind securities, the shareholder will receive Fund shares equal in NAV to the market value of the securities received.

Frequent Trading Policy

The Fund's Frequent Trading Policy is as follows:

Nuveen Mutual Funds are intended as long-term investments and not as short-term trading vehicles. At the same time, the Fund recognizes the need of investors to periodically make purchases and redemptions of Fund shares when rebalancing their portfolios and as their financial needs or circumstances change. Nuveen Mutual Funds have adopted the following Frequent Trading Policy that seeks to balance these needs against the potential for higher operating costs, portfolio management disruption and other inefficiencies that can be caused by excessive trading of Fund shares.

1. Definition of Round Trip

A Round Trip trade is the purchase and subsequent redemption of Fund shares, including by exchange. Each side of a Round Trip trade may be comprised of either a single transaction or a series of closely-spaced transactions.

2. Round Trip Trade Limitations

Nuveen Mutual Funds limit the frequency of Round Trip trades that may be placed in the Fund. Subject to certain exceptions noted below, the Fund limits an investor to two Round Trips per trailing 60-day period.

3. Enforcement

Trades placed in violation of the foregoing policies are subject to rejection or cancellation by Nuveen Mutual Funds. Nuveen Mutual Funds may also bar an investor (and/or the investor’s financial advisor) who has violated these policies from opening new accounts with the Fund and may restrict the investor’s existing account(s) to redemptions only. Nuveen Mutual Funds reserve the right, in their sole discretion, to (a) interpret the terms and application of these policies, (b) waive unintentional or minor violations (including transactions below certain dollar thresholds) if Nuveen Mutual Funds determine that doing so does not harm the interests of Fund shareholders, and (c) exclude certain classes of redemptions from the application of the trading restrictions set forth above.

Nuveen Mutual Funds reserve the right to impose restrictions on purchases or exchanges that are more restrictive than those stated above if they determine, in their sole discretion, that a proposed transaction or series of transactions involve market timing or excessive trading that is likely to be

S-63


detrimental to the Fund. The Fund may also modify or suspend the Frequent Trading Policy without notice during periods of market stress or other unusual circumstances.

The ability of Nuveen Mutual Funds to implement the Frequent Trading Policy for omnibus accounts at certain financial intermediaries may be dependent on receiving from those intermediaries sufficient shareholder information to permit monitoring of trade activity and enforcement of the Fund's Frequent Trading Policy. In addition, the Fund may rely on a financial intermediary’s policy to restrict market timing and excessive trading if the Fund believes that the policy is reasonably designed to prevent market timing that is detrimental to the Fund. Such policy may be more or less restrictive than the Fund's Policy. The Fund cannot ensure that these financial intermediaries will in all cases apply the Fund's policy or their own policies, as the case may be, to accounts under their control.

Exclusions from the Frequent Trading Policy

As stated above, certain redemptions are eligible for exclusion from the Frequent Trading Policy, including: (i) redemptions or exchanges by shareholders investing through the fee-based platforms of certain financial intermediaries (where the intermediary charges an asset-based or comprehensive “wrap” fee for its services) that are effected by the financial intermediaries in connection with systematic portfolio rebalancing; (ii) when there is a verified trade error correction, which occurs when a dealer firm sends a trade to correct an earlier trade made in error and then the firm sends an explanation to the Nuveen Mutual Funds confirming that the trade is actually an error correction; (iii) in the event of total disability (as evidenced by a determination by the federal Social Security Administration) of the shareholder (including a registered joint owner) occurring after the purchase of the shares being redeemed; (iv) in the event of the death of the shareholder (including a registered joint owner); (v) redemptions made pursuant to a systematic withdrawal plan, up to 1% monthly, 3% quarterly, 6% semiannually or 12% annually of an account’s net asset value depending on the frequency of the plan as designated by the shareholder; (vi) redemptions of shares that were purchased through a systematic investment program; (vii) involuntary redemptions caused by operation of law; (viii) redemptions in connection with a payment of account or plan fees; (ix) redemptions or exchanges by any “fund of funds” advised by the Adviser; (x) redemptions or exchanges by certain 529 plans; and (xi) redemptions in connection with the exercise of the Fund’s right to redeem all shares in an account that does not maintain a certain minimum balance or that the Board has determined may have material adverse consequences to the shareholders of the Fund.

In addition, the following redemptions of shares by an employer-sponsored qualified defined contribution retirement plan are excluded from the Frequent Trading Policy: (i) partial or complete redemptions in connection with a distribution without penalty under Section 72(t) of the Code from a retirement plan: (a) upon attaining age 59½; (b) as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments; or (c) upon separation from service and attaining age 55; (ii) partial or complete redemptions in connection with a qualifying loan or hardship withdrawal; (iii) complete redemptions in connection with termination of employment, plan termination, transfer to another employer’s plan or IRA or changes in a plan’s recordkeeper; and (iv) redemptions resulting from the return of an excess contribution. Also, the following redemptions of shares held in an IRA account are excluded from the application of the Frequent Trading Policy: (i) redemptions made pursuant to an IRA systematic withdrawal based on the shareholder’s life expectancy including, but not limited to, substantially equal periodic payments described in Code Section 72(t)(A)(iv) prior to age 59½; and (ii) redemptions to satisfy required minimum distributions from an IRA account due to a shareholder reaching the qualified age based on applicable laws and regulations.

Distribution and Service Plan

The Fund has adopted a plan (the “Plan”) pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act. Rule 12b-1 provides in substance that a mutual fund may not engage directly or indirectly in financing any activity which is primarily intended to result in the sale of shares, except pursuant to a plan adopted under the Rule. The Plan authorizes the Fund to pay the Distributor distribution and/or shareholder servicing fees on the Fund’s Class A and Class C shares as described below. The distribution fees under the Plan are used for the primary purpose of compensating participating intermediaries for their sales of the Fund. The shareholder servicing fees are used primarily for the purpose of providing compensation for the ongoing servicing and/or maintenance of shareholder accounts. Pursuant to the Plan, Class C shares are subject to an annual distribution fee and Class A and Class C shares are subject to the annual service fees (distribution and service fees collectively referred to herein as “12b-1 fees”). The 12b-1 fees are based on the average daily net assets of the class of shares of the Fund and are as follows:

S-64


                   
   

Annual Distribution Fee

 

Annual Service Fee

 

Total 12b-1 Fee

Class A 

 

   

0.25

%

 

0.25

%

Class C 

 

0.75

%

 

0.25

%

 

1.00

%

Class R6 and Class I shares are not subject to either distribution or service fees.

The distribution fee applicable to Class C shares under the Fund’s Plan compensates the Distributor for expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of Class C shares. These expenses include payments to financial intermediaries, including the Distributor, who are brokers of record with respect to the Class C shares, as well as, without limitation, expenses of printing and distributing Prospectuses to persons other than shareholders of the Fund, expenses of preparing, printing and distributing advertising and sales literature and reports to shareholders used in connection with the sale of Class C shares, certain other expenses associated with the distribution of Class C shares, and any other distribution-related expenses that may be authorized from time to time by the Board of Trustees.

The service fee applicable to Class A and Class C shares under the Fund’s Plan is used to compensate financial intermediaries in connection with the provision of ongoing account services to shareholders. These services may include establishing and maintaining shareholder accounts, answering shareholder inquiries and providing other personal services to shareholders.

During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, the Fund incurred 12b-1 fees pursuant to its Plan in the amounts set forth in the table below. 12b-1 fees are calculated and accrued daily and paid monthly or at such other intervals as the Board of Trustees may determine. As noted above, no 12b-1 fees are paid with respect to Class R6 or Class I shares. For this period, substantially all of the 12b-1 service fees on Class A shares were paid out as compensation to financial intermediaries for providing services to shareholders relating to their investments. To compensate for commissions advanced to financial intermediaries, all 12b-1 fees on Class C shares during the first year following a purchase are retained by the Distributor. After the first year following a purchase, 12b-1 fees on Class C shares are paid to financial intermediaries.

       
     

12b-1 Fees Incurred by the Fund for the
Fiscal Year Ended
July 31, 2023

Class A 

 

$ 405,198

Class C 

 

117,859

The Plan is a “compensation-type” plan under which the Distributor is entitled to receive the distribution and shareholder servicing fees regardless of whether its actual distribution and shareholder servicing expenses are more or less than the amount of the fees. It is therefore possible that the Distributor may realize a profit in a particular year as a result of these payments. The Plan recognizes that the Distributor and the Adviser, in their discretion, may from time to time use their own assets to pay for certain additional costs of distributing Class A and Class C shares. Any such arrangements to pay such additional costs may be commenced or discontinued by the Distributor or the Adviser at any time.

Under the Fund’s Plan, the Fund will report quarterly to the Board of Trustees for its review of all amounts expended per class of shares under the Plan. The Plan may be terminated at any time with respect to any class of shares, without the payment of any penalty, by a vote of a majority of the independent trustees who have no direct or indirect financial interest in the Plan or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of such class. The Plan may be renewed from year to year if approved by a vote of the Board of Trustees and a vote of the independent trustees who have no direct or indirect financial interest in the Plan cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on the Plan. The Plan may be continued only if the trustees who vote to approve such continuance conclude, in the exercise of reasonable business judgment and in light of their fiduciary duties under applicable law, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the Plan will benefit the Fund and its shareholders. The Plan may not be amended to increase materially the cost which a class of shares may bear under the Plan without the approval of the shareholders of the affected class, and any other material amendments of the Plan must be approved by the independent trustees by a vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of considering such amendments. During the continuance of the Plan, the selection and nomination of the independent trustees of the Trust will be committed to the discretion of the independent trustees then in office. With the exception of the Distributor and its affiliates, no “interested person” of the Fund, as that term is defined in the 1940 Act, and no trustee of the Fund has a direct or indirect financial interest in the operation of the Plan or any related agreement.

S-65


If the Fund closes to new investors, it may continue to make payments under the Plan. Such payments would be made for the various services provided to existing shareholders by the participating intermediaries receiving such payments.

General Matters

The Fund has authorized one or more brokers to accept on its behalf purchase and redemption orders. Such brokers are authorized to designate other intermediaries to accept purchase and redemption orders on the Fund's behalf. The Fund will be deemed to have received a purchase or redemption order when an authorized broker or, if applicable, a broker’s authorized designee accepts the order. Customer orders received by such broker (or their designee) will be priced at the Fund’s net asset value next computed after they are accepted by an authorized broker (or their designee). Orders accepted by an authorized broker (or their designee) before the close of regular trading on the NYSE will receive that day’s share price; orders accepted after the close of trading will receive the next business day’s share price.

If you choose to invest in the Fund, an account will be opened and maintained for you by SS&C GIDS, the Fund's shareholder services agent. Shares will be registered in the name of the investor or the investor’s financial advisor. The Fund does not issue share certificates. A change in registration or transfer of shares held in the name of a financial advisor may only be made by an order in good standing form from the financial advisor acting on the investor’s behalf. The Fund reserves the right to reject any purchase order and to waive or increase minimum investment requirements.

Distribution Arrangements

The Distributor sells shares to or through brokers, dealers, banks or other qualified financial intermediaries (collectively referred to as “Dealers”), or others, in a manner consistent with the then effective registration statement of the Trust. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, the Distributor, at its own expense, finances certain activities incident to the sale and distribution of the Fund's shares, including printing and distributing of prospectuses and statements of additional information to other than existing shareholders, the printing and distributing of sales literature, advertising and payment of compensation and giving of concessions to Dealers.

The Distributor receives for its services the excess, if any, of the sales price of the Fund’s shares less the net asset value of those shares, and reallows a majority or all of such amounts to the Dealers who sold the shares. The Distributor also receives distribution fees pursuant to a distribution plan adopted by the Trust pursuant to Rule 12b-1 and described herein under “Distribution and Service Plan.” The Distributor also receives any CDSCs imposed on redemptions of shares. The Distributor may also act as a Dealer.

The following tables set forth the amount of underwriting commissions paid by the Fund, the amount of such commissions retained by the Distributor, and the amount of compensation on redemptions and repurchases for the specified periods. All figures are presented in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

                                     
 

Amount of Underwriting Commissions

   
 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2021

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2022

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2023

   
 

$  153

 

$  154

 

$  94

   
                                     
 

Amount Retained by the Distributor

   
 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2021

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2022

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2023

   
 

$  16

 

$  18

 

$  12

   
                                     
 

Amount of Compensation on Redemptions and Repurchases

   
 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2021

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2022

 

Fiscal Year
Ended
July 31, 2023

   
 

$  9

 

$  5

 

$  2

   

To help financial advisors and investors better understand and more efficiently use the Fund to reach their investment goals, the Distributor may advertise and create specific investment programs and

S-66


systems. For example, this may include information on how to use the Fund to accumulate assets for future education needs or periodic payments such as insurance premiums. The Distributor may produce software, electronic information sites or additional sales literature to promote the advantages of using the Fund to meet these and other specific investor needs. In addition, wholesale representatives of the Distributor may visit financial advisors on a regular basis to educate them about the Fund and to encourage the sale of Fund shares to their clients. The costs and expenses associated with these efforts may include travel, lodging, sponsorship at educational seminars and conferences, entertainment and meals to the extent permitted by law. Nuveen wholesalers may receive additional compensation if they meet certain targets for sales of one or more Nuveen Mutual Funds.

Additional Payments to Financial Intermediaries and Other Payments

As described in the Prospectus and elsewhere in this SAI, intermediaries that sell shares of the Nuveen Mutual Funds or provide services to their shareholders, such as brokers, dealers, banks, registered investment advisers, retirement plan administrators and other intermediaries (individually, an “Intermediary,” and collectively, “Intermediaries”), may receive sales charge payments and, out of Fund assets, may be paid Rule 12b-1 distribution and service payments and sub-transfer agency payments. The Distributor and the Adviser make additional payments out of their own assets to selected Intermediaries. These payments are made for the purposes of promoting the sale of Fund shares, maintaining share balances and/or for sub-accounting, administrative or shareholder services.

The amounts of these payments could be significant and may create an incentive for an Intermediary or its representatives to recommend or offer shares of the Nuveen Mutual Funds to its customers. The Intermediary may elevate the prominence or profile of the Fund within the Intermediary’s organization by, for example, placing the Fund on a list of preferred or recommended funds and/or granting the Distributor preferential or enhanced opportunities to promote the Fund in various ways within the Intermediary’s organization. These payments are made pursuant to negotiated agreements with Intermediaries. The categories of payments described below are not mutually exclusive, and a single Intermediary may receive payments under all categories. Further, representatives of the Distributor and its affiliates receive additional compensation related to the Nuveen Mutual Funds.

These payments do not change the price paid by investors for the purchase of a share or the amount the Fund will receive as proceeds from such sales. Furthermore, these payments are not reflected in the fees and expenses listed in the fee table section of the Fund's Prospectus and described above because they are not paid by the Fund.

Distribution-Related Payments

The Distributor and/or the Adviser make payments (sometimes referred to as “revenue sharing” payments) to selected Intermediaries as compensation for services such as providing the Fund with “shelf space” or a higher profile for the Intermediary’s personnel or their customers, placing the Fund on the Intermediary’s preferred or recommended fund list, granting access to sales meetings, sales representatives and management representatives of the Intermediary, providing assistance in training and educating the Intermediary’s personnel on the Fund, and furnishing marketing support and other services.

The Adviser and/or the Distributor compensate Intermediaries differently depending upon, among other factors, the number or value of Nuveen Mutual Funds shares that the Intermediary sells or may sell, the value of the assets invested in the Nuveen Mutual Funds by the Intermediary’s customers, redemption rates, ability to attract and retain assets, reputation in the industry and the level and/or type of marketing assistance and educational activities provided by the Intermediary. Such payments are generally asset-based but also may include the payment of a lump sum.

Servicing Payments

The Adviser and/or the Distributor make payments to selected Intermediaries that are registered as holders or dealers of record for accounts invested in one or more of the Nuveen Mutual Funds or that make Nuveen Mutual Fund shares available through employee benefit plans or fee-based advisory programs to compensate them for the variety of services they provide.

Services for which an Intermediary receives servicing payments typically include recordkeeping, reporting, or transaction processing, but may also include services rendered in connection with fund/ investment selection and monitoring, employee enrollment and education, plan balance rollover or separation, or other similar services. An Intermediary may perform the services itself or arrange with a third party to perform such services.

S-67


TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC (“TIAA-CREF IIS”), an affiliate of the Adviser and the Distributor, is one intermediary that receives servicing payments. The shareholder services agreement between TIAA-CREF IIS and the Distributor provides that in exchange for such services, TIAA-CREF IIS will receive payments of 0.25% of the average net assets of Fund shares on the TIAA-CREF IIS retirement platform on an annual basis. The Distributor pays the portion of the fee that represents 0.05% of the average net assets of Fund shares attributable to TIAA-CREF IIS and the Fund pays the remainder.

Servicing payments typically apply to employee benefit plans, such as retirement plans, or fee-based advisory programs but may apply to retail sales and assets in certain situations. The payments are based on such factors as the type and nature of services or support furnished by the Intermediary and are generally asset-based.

Distribution-Related and Servicing Payment Guidelines

In the case of any one Intermediary, distribution-related and servicing payments made by the Adviser and/or the Distributor are not expected, with certain limited exceptions, to exceed, in the aggregate, 0.35% of the average net assets of Fund shares attributable to that Intermediary on an annual basis. In connection with the sale of a business by U.S. Bank N.A. to Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company (“Great-West”), the Adviser and/or the Distributor has a services agreement with GWFS Equities, Inc., an affiliate of Great-West, which provides for payments of up to 0.60% of the average net assets of Fund shares attributable to GWFS Equities, Inc. on an annual basis (which amount also includes payments by the Fund for sub-transfer agency services).

Other Payments to Intermediaries

The Adviser and/or the Distributor, at their expense, provide other compensation to Intermediaries that sell or arrange for the sale of shares of the Fund, which may be in addition to distribution-related and servicing payments described above. For example, the Adviser and/or the Distributor may: (i) compensate Intermediaries for National Securities Clearing Corporation networking system services (e.g., shareholder communication, account statements, trade confirmations, and tax reporting) on an asset-based or per account basis; (ii) compensate Intermediaries for providing Fund shareholder trading information; (iii) make one-time or periodic payments to reimburse selected Intermediaries for items such as ticket charges (i.e., fees that an Intermediary charges its representatives for effecting transactions in Fund shares) of up to $25 per purchase or exchange order, operational charges (e.g., fees that an Intermediary charges for establishing the Fund on its trading system), and literature printing and/or distribution costs; (iv) at the direction of a retirement plan’s sponsor, reimburse or pay direct expenses of an employee benefit plan that would otherwise be payable by the plan; and (v) provide payments to broker-dealers to help defray their technology or infrastructure costs.

The Adviser and/or the Distributor pay selected Intermediaries for enabling the Adviser and/or the Distributor to participate in and/or present at conferences or seminars, sales or training programs for invited registered representatives and other Intermediary employees, client and investor events and other Intermediary-sponsored events, and for travel expenses, including lodging incurred by registered representatives and other employees in connection with prospecting, asset retention and due diligence meetings. These payments vary depending upon the Intermediary and the nature of the event. The Adviser and/or the Distributor make payments for such events as it deems appropriate, subject to its internal guidelines and applicable law.

The Adviser and/or the Distributor occasionally sponsor due diligence meetings for Intermediaries’ registered representatives during which the registered representatives receive updates on various Nuveen Mutual Funds and are afforded the opportunity to speak with portfolio managers. Although invitations to these meetings are not conditioned on selling a specific number of shares, those who have shown an interest in Nuveen Mutual Funds are more likely to be considered. To the extent permitted by their firm’s policies and procedures, all or a portion of registered representatives’ expenses in attending these meetings may be covered by the Adviser and/or the Distributor.

Compensation to the Distributor’s Representatives

Representatives of the Distributor and its affiliates receive additional compensation from the Adviser and/or the Distributor based on whether certain targets are met for sales of one or more Nuveen Mutual Funds and other subjective factors. Such compensation varies by Fund, by distribution channel and by affiliate.

S-68


Other compensation may be offered to the extent not prohibited by state laws or any self-regulatory agency, such as FINRA. Investors can ask their Intermediary for information about any payments it receives from the Adviser and/or the Distributor and the services it provides for those payments.

Investors may wish to take Intermediary payment arrangements into account when considering and evaluating any recommendations relating to Fund shares.

Intermediaries Receiving Additional Payments

The following is a list of Intermediaries eligible to receive one or more of the types of payments discussed above as of November 15, 2023:

ADP Broker-Dealer, Inc.

AXA Advisors, LLC

American United Life Insurance Company

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.

Ascensus (formerly BISYS Retirement Services, Inc.)

BB&T

BMO Harris Bank N.A.

BNY Mellon, N.A.

Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc.

Benefit Trust Company

Cetera

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

Chase Investment Services

Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

Commonwealth Equity Services, LLP, DBA Commonwealth Financial Network

Davenport & Co., LLC

Digital Retirement Solutions, Inc.

Dyatech, LLC

Edward Jones

Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC/National Financial Services LLC

Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. (FIIOC)/Fidelity Advisors Retirement

Financial Data Services, Inc.

First Clearing

Genesis Employee Benefits, Inc. DBA America’s VEBA Solution

Goldman Sachs

Great West Life and Annuity Insurance Co.

GWFS Equities, Inc.

Hartford Life Insurance Company

Hartford Securities Distribution Company, Inc.

ICMA Retirement Corporation

J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc.

J.P. Morgan Retirement Plan Services, LLC

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC

John Hancock Trust Company

Kestra Investment Services, LLC

LPL Financial Services

Ladenburg Thalmann Advisor Network LLC

Lincoln Financial Securities Corporation

Lincoln Retirement Services Company LLC/AMG Service Corp.

Linsco/Private Ledger Corp.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

Mercer HR Outsourcing LLC

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

Mid Atlantic Capital Corporation

Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated/Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC

MSCS Financial Services Division of Broadridge Business Process Outsourcing, LLC

National Financial Services, LLC

S-69


Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.

Newport Retirement Services, Inc.

Northwestern Mutual

NYLife Distributors LLC

Oppenheimer & Co.

Pershing LLC

PFS Investments Inc.

Primerica Shareholder Services, Inc.

Principal Life Insurance Company

Prudential Insurance Company of America (The)

Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC/Prudential Investments LLC

Raymond James & Associates/Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC

Reliance Trust Company

Retirement Plan Company, LLC (The)

Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.

SI Financial Advisors

Southwest Securities, Inc.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.

T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc./T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, Inc.

TD Ameritrade, Inc.

TD Ameritrade Trust Company (formerly Fiserv Trust Company/International Clearing Trust Company)

TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC

Trust Company of America

U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc.

U.S. Bank N.A

UBS Financial Services, Inc.

Unified Trust Company, N.A.

VALIC Retirement Services Company (formerly AIG Retirement Services Company)

Vanguard Group, Inc.

Voya Financial (formerly ING)

Wedbush Morgan Securities

Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Wells Fargo Institutional Retirement & Trust

Wilmington Trust Company

Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company (formerly AST Capital Trust Company)

Any additions, modifications or deletions to the list of Intermediaries identified above that have occurred since November 15, 2023 are not reflected in the list.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The audited financial statements for the Fund’s most recent fiscal year appear in the Fund’s Annual Report dated July 31, 2023. The Fund’s Annual Report is incorporated by reference into this SAI and is available without charge by calling (800) 257-8787.

S-70




 

LOGO

 

A-1


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S

 

Coverage

    7  
1.   

Board of Directors

    8  
  

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

    8  
  

Independence

    8  
  

ISS Classification of Directors – U.S.

    9  
  

Composition

    11  
  

Attendance

    11  
  

Overboarded Directors

    11  
  

Gender Diversity

    11  
  

Racial and/or Ethnic Diversity

    11  
  

Responsiveness

    12  
  

Accountability

    12  
  

Poison Pills

    12  
  

Unequal Voting Rights

    13  
  

Classified Board Structure

    13  
  

Removal of Shareholder Discretion on Classified Boards

    13  
  

Problematic Governance Structure

    13  
  

Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments

    14  
  

Restricting Binding Shareholder Proposals

    14  
  

Director Performance Evaluation

    14  
  

Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions

    15  
  

Problematic Audit-Related Practices

    15  
  

Problematic Compensation Practices

    15  
  

Problematic Pledging of Company Stock

    16  
  

Climate Accountability

    16  
  

Governance Failures

    16  
  

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

    17  
  

Vote-No Campaigns

    17  
  

Proxy Contests/Proxy Access

    17  
  

Other Board-Related Proposals

    17  
  

Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy

    17  
  

Board Refreshment

    17  
  

Term/Tenure Limits

    17  
  

Age Limits

    18  
  

Board Size

    18  
  

Classification/Declassification of the Board

    18  
  

CEO Succession Planning

    18  
  

Cumulative Voting

    18  
  

Director and Officer Indemnification, Liability Protection, and Exculpation

    18  
  

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

    19  
  

Establish Other Board Committee Proposals

    19  
  

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

    19  
  

Independent Board Chair

    20  
  

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

    20  
  

Majority Vote Standard for the Election of Directors

    20  
  

Proxy Access

    21  
  

Require More Nominees than Open Seats

    21  
  

Shareholder Engagement Policy (Shareholder Advisory Committee)

    21  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      2 of 72  

 

A-2


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

2.   

Audit-Related

    22  
  

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

    22  
  

Auditor Ratification

    22  
  

Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services

    22  
  

Shareholder Proposals on Audit Firm Rotation

    22  
3.   

Shareholder Rights & Defenses

    23  
  

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

    23  
  

Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent

    23  
  

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

    23  
  

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

    23  
  

Disgorgement Provisions

    24  
  

Fair Price Provisions

    24  
  

Freeze-Out Provisions

    24  
  

Greenmail

    24  
  

Shareholder Litigation Rights

    24  
  

Federal Forum Selection Provisions

    24  
  

Exclusive Forum Provisions for State Law Matters

    24  
  

Fee shifting

    25  
  

Net Operating Loss (NOL) Protective Amendments

    25  
  

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

    26  
  

Shareholder Proposals to Put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

    26  
  

Management Proposals to Ratify a Poison Pill

    26  
  

Management Proposals to Ratify a Pill to Preserve Net Operating Losses (NOLs)

    26  
  

Proxy Voting Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tabulation

    27  
  

Ratification Proposals: Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions

    27  
  

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

    27  
  

Reincorporation Proposals

    28  
  

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

    28  
  

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

    28  
  

Stakeholder Provisions

    29  
  

State Antitakeover Statutes

    29  
  

Supermajority Vote Requirements

    29  
  

Virtual Shareholder Meetings

    29  
4.   

Capital/Restructuring

    30  
  

Capital

    30  
  

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

    30  
  

Common Stock Authorization

    30  
  

General Authorization Requests

    30  
  

Specific Authorization Requests

    31  
  

Dual Class Structure

    31  
  

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

    31  
  

Preemptive Rights

    31  
  

Preferred Stock Authorization

    31  
  

General Authorization Requests

    31  
  

Recapitalization Plans

    32  
  

Reverse Stock Splits

    33  
  

Share Issuance Mandates at U.S. Domestic Issuers Incorporated Outside the U.S.

    33  
  

Share Repurchase Programs

    33  
  

Share Repurchase Programs Shareholder Proposals

    33  
  

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

    34  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      3 of 72  

 

A-3


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

  

Tracking Stock

    34  
  

Restructuring

    34  
  

Appraisal Rights

    34  
  

Asset Purchases

    34  
  

Asset Sales

    34  
  

Bundled Proposals

    34  
  

Conversion of Securities

    35  
  

Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans

    35  
  

Formation of Holding Company

    35  
  

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)

    35  
  

Joint Ventures

    36  
  

Liquidations

    36  
  

Mergers and Acquisitions

    36  
  

Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

    37  
  

Reorganization/Restructuring Plan (Bankruptcy)

    38  
  

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

    38  
  

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)—Proposals for Extensions

    39  
  

Spin-offs

    39  
  

Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals

    39  
5.   

Compensation

    40  
  

Executive Pay Evaluation

    40  
  

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation—Management Proposals (Say-on-Pay)

    40  
  

Pay-for-Performance Evaluation

    41  
  

Problematic Pay Practices

    42  
  

Compensation Committee Communications and Responsiveness

    43  
  

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say When on Pay”)

    43  
  

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

    43  
  

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

    44  
  

Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT)

    45  
  

Three-Year Value-Adjusted Burn Rate

    45  
  

Egregious Factors

    45  
  

Liberal Change in Control Definition

    45  
  

Repricing Provisions

    46  
  

Problematic Pay Practices or Significant Pay-for-Performance Disconnect

    46  
  

Amending Cash and Equity Plans (including Approval for Tax Deductibility (162(m))

    46  
  

Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations

    47  
  

Dividend Equivalent Rights

    47  
  

Operating Partnership (OP) Units in Equity Plan Analysis of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

    47  
  

Other Compensation Plans

    47  
  

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

    47  
  

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

    47  
  

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Qualified Plans

    47  
  

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Non-Qualified Plans

    48  
  

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

    48  
  

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

    48  
  

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

    49  
  

Director Compensation

    49  
  

Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs

    49  
  

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors

    50  
  

Non-Employee Director Retirement Plans

    50  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      4 of 72  

 

A-4


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

  

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

    50  
  

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”

    50  
  

Compensation Consultants—Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

    50  
  

Disclosure/Setting Levels or Types of Compensation for Executives and Directors

    51  
  

Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits

    51  
  

Hold Equity Past Retirement or for a Significant Period of Time

    51  
  

Pay Disparity

    51  
  

Pay for Performance/Performance-Based Awards

    52  
  

Pay for Superior Performance

    52  
  

Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)

    52  
  

Prohibit Outside CEOs from Serving on Compensation Committees

    53  
  

Recoupment of Incentive or Stock Compensation in Specified Circumstances

    53  
  

Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes

    53  
  

Share Buyback Impact on Incentive Program Metrics

    54  
  

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

    54  
  

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

    54  
  

Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment/Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity

    54  
6.   

Routine/Miscellaneous

    55  
  

Adjourn Meeting

    55  
  

Amend Quorum Requirements

    55  
  

Amend Minor Bylaws

    55  
  

Change Company Name

    55  
  

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

    55  
  

Other Business

    55  
7.   

Social and Environmental Issues

    56  
  

Global Approach—E&S Shareholder Proposals

    56  
  

Endorsement of Principles

    56  
  

Animal Welfare

    56  
  

Animal Welfare Policies

    56  
  

Animal Testing

    57  
  

Animal Slaughter

    57  
  

Consumer Issues

    57  
  

Genetically Modified Ingredients

    57  
  

Reports on Potentially Controversial Business/Financial Practices

    57  
  

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, and Prescription Drug Reimportation

    58  
  

Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials

    58  
  

Tobacco-Related Proposals

    58  
  

Climate Change

    59  
  

Say on Climate (SoC) Management Proposals

    59  
  

Say on Climate (SoC) Shareholder Proposals

    59  
  

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

    60  
  

Energy Efficiency

    60  
  

Renewable Energy

    60  
  

Diversity

    61  
  

Board Diversity

    61  
  

Equality of Opportunity

    61  
  

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

    61  
  

Gender, Race/Ethnicity Pay Gap

    62  
  

Racial Equity and/or Civil Rights Audit Guidelines

    62  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      5 of 72  

 

A-5


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

  

Environment and Sustainability

    62  
  

Facility and Workplace Safety

    62  
  

General Environmental Proposals and Community Impact Assessments

    63  
  

Hydraulic Fracturing

    63  
  

Operations in Protected Areas

    63  
  

Recycling

    63  
  

Sustainability Reporting

    63  
  

Water Issues

    64  
  

General Corporate Issues

    64  
  

Charitable Contributions

    64  
  

Data Security, Privacy, and Internet Issues

    64  
  

ESG Compensation-Related Proposals

    64  
  

Human Rights, Human Capital Management, and International Operations

    65  
  

Human Rights Proposals

    65  
  

Mandatory Arbitration

    65  
  

Operations in High-Risk Markets

    65  
  

Outsourcing/Offshoring

    66  
  

Sexual Harassment

    66  
  

Weapons and Military Sales

    66  
  

Political Activities

    66  
  

Lobbying

    66  
  

Political Contributions

    67  
  

Political Expenditures and Lobbying Congruency

    67  
  

Political Ties

    67  
8.   

Mutual Fund Proxies

    68  
  

Election of Directors

    68  
  

Closed End Funds- Unilateral Opt-In to Control Share Acquisition Statutes

    68  
  

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

    68  
  

Proxy Contests

    68  
  

Investment Advisory Agreements

    68  
  

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

    68  
  

Preferred Stock Proposals

    69  
  

1940 Act Policies

    69  
  

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

    69  
  

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental

    69  
  

Name Change Proposals

    69  
  

Change in Fund’s Subclassification

    69  
  

Business Development Companies—Authorization to Sell Shares of Common Stock at a Price below Net Asset Value

    70  
  

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

    70  
  

Changes to the Charter Document

    70  
  

Changing the Domicile of a Fund

    70  
  

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisers Without Shareholder Approval

    70  
  

Distribution Agreements

    71  
  

Master-Feeder Structure

    71  
  

Mergers

    71  
  

Shareholder Proposals for Mutual Funds

    71  
  

Establish Director Ownership Requirement

    71  
  

Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred

    71  
  

Terminate the Investment Advisor

    71  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      6 of 72  

 

A-6


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Coverage

The U.S. research team provides proxy analyses and voting recommendations for the common shareholder meetings of U.S. - incorporated companies that are publicly-traded on U.S. exchanges, as well as certain OTC companies, if they are held in our institutional investor clients’ portfolios. Coverage generally includes corporate actions for common equity holders, such as written consents and bankruptcies. ISS’ U.S. coverage includes investment companies (including open-end funds, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds, and unit investment trusts), limited partnerships (“LPs”), master limited partnerships (“MLPs”), limited liability companies (“LLCs”), and business development companies. ISS reviews its universe of coverage on an annual basis, and the coverage is subject to change based on client need and industry trends.

Foreign-incorporated companies

In addition to U.S.- incorporated, U.S.- listed companies, ISS’ U.S. policies are applied to certain foreign-incorporated company analyses. Like the SEC, ISS distinguishes two types of companies that list but are not incorporated in the U.S.:

 

   

U.S. Domestic Issuers – which have a majority of outstanding shares held in the U.S. and meet other criteria, as determined by the SEC, and are subject to the same disclosure and listing standards as U.S. incorporated companies (e.g. they are required to file DEF14A proxy statements) – are generally covered under standard U.S. policy guidelines.

   

Foreign Private Issuers (FPIs) – which are allowed to take exemptions from most disclosure requirements (e.g., they are allowed to file 6-K for their proxy materials) and U.S. listing standards – are generally covered under a combination of policy guidelines:

   

FPI Guidelines (see the Americas Regional Proxy Voting Guidelines), may apply to companies incorporated in governance havens, and apply certain minimum independence and disclosure standards in the evaluation of key proxy ballot items, such as the election of directors; and/or

   

Guidelines for the market that is responsible for, or most relevant to, the item on the ballot.

U.S. incorporated companies listed only on non-U.S. exchanges are generally covered under the ISS guidelines for the market on which they are traded.

An FPI is generally covered under ISS’ approach to FPIs outlined above, even if such FPI voluntarily files a proxy statement and/or other filing normally required of a U.S. Domestic Issuer, so long as the company retains its FPI status.

In all cases – including with respect to other companies with cross-market features that may lead to ballot items related to multiple markets – items that are on the ballot solely due to the requirements of another market (listing, incorporation, or national code) may be evaluated under the policy of the relevant market, regardless of the “assigned” primary market coverage.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      7 of 72  

 

A-7


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

1.   Board of Directors

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Four fundamental principles apply when determining votes on director nominees:

Independence: Boards should be sufficiently independent from management (and significant shareholders) to ensure that they are able and motivated to effectively supervise management’s performance for the benefit of all shareholders, including in setting and monitoring the execution of corporate strategy, with appropriate use of shareholder capital, and in setting and monitoring executive compensation programs that support that strategy. The chair of the board should ideally be an independent director, and all boards should have an independent leadership position or a similar role in order to help provide appropriate counterbalance to executive management, as well as having sufficiently independent committees that focus on key governance concerns such as audit, compensation, and nomination of directors.

Composition: Companies should ensure that directors add value to the board through their specific skills and expertise and by having sufficient time and commitment to serve effectively. Boards should be of a size appropriate to accommodate diversity, expertise, and independence, while ensuring active and collaborative participation by all members. Boards should be sufficiently diverse to ensure consideration of a wide range of perspectives.

Responsiveness: Directors should respond to investor input, such as that expressed through significant opposition to management proposals, significant support for shareholder proposals (whether binding or non-binding), and tender offers where a majority of shares are tendered.

Accountability: Boards should be sufficiently accountable to shareholders, including through transparency of the company’s governance practices and regular board elections, by the provision of sufficient information for shareholders to be able to assess directors and board composition, and through the ability of shareholders to remove directors.

 

  General Recommendation: Generally vote for director nominees, except under the following circumstances (with new nominees1 considered on case-by-case basis):

Independence

Vote against2 or withhold from non-independent directors (Executive Directors and Non-Independent Non- Executive Directors per ISS’ Classification of Directors) when:

 

   

Independent directors comprise 50 percent or less of the board;

   

The non-independent director serves on the audit, compensation, or nominating committee;

   

The company lacks an audit, compensation, or nominating committee so that the full board functions as that committee; or

   

The company lacks a formal nominating committee, even if the board attests that the independent directors fulfill the functions of such a committee.

 

1 A “new nominee” is a director who is being presented for election by shareholders for the first time. Recommendations on new nominees who have served for less than one year are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the timing of their appointment and the problematic governance issue in question.

2 In general, companies with a plurality vote standard use “Withhold” as the contrary vote option in director elections; companies with a majority vote standard use “Against”. However, it will vary by company and the proxy must be checked to determine the valid contrary vote option for the particular company.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      8 of 72  

 

A-8


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

ISS Classification of Directors – U.S.

 

 

  1.

Executive Director

 

  1.1.

Current officer1 of the company or one of its affiliates2.

 

  2.

Non-Independent Non-Executive Director

 

  Board Identification

 

  2.1.

Director identified as not independent by the board.

 

  Controlling/Significant Shareholder

 

  2.2.

Beneficial owner of more than 50 percent of the company’s voting power (this may be aggregated if voting power is distributed among more than one member of a group).

 

  Current Employment at Company or Related Company

 

  2.3.

Non-officer employee of the firm (including employee representatives).

  2.4.

Officer1, former officer, or general or limited partner of a joint venture or partnership with the company.

 

  Former Employment

 

  2.5.

Former CEO of the company. 3, 4

  2.6.

Former non-CEO officer1 of the company or an affiliate2 within the past five years.

  2.7.

Former officer1 of an acquired company within the past five years.4

  2.8.

Officer1 of a former parent or predecessor firm at the time the company was sold or split off within the past five years.

  2.9.

Former interim officer if the service was longer than 18 months. If the service was between 12 and 18 months an assessment of the interim officer’s employment agreement will be made.5

 

  Family Members

 

  2.10.

Immediate family member6 of a current or former officer1 of the company or its affiliates2 within the last five years.

  2.11.

Immediate family member6 of a current employee of company or its affiliates2 where additional factors raise concern (which may include, but are not limited to, the following: a director related to numerous employees; the company or its affiliates employ relatives of numerous board members; or a non-Section 16 officer in a key strategic role).

 

  Professional, Transactional, and Charitable Relationships

 

  2.12.

Director who (or whose immediate family member6) currently provides professional services7 in excess of $10,000 per year to: the company, an affiliate2, or an individual officer of the company or an affiliate; or who is (or whose immediate family member6 is) a partner, employee, or controlling shareholder of an organization which provides the services.

  2.13.

Director who (or whose immediate family member6) currently has any material transactional relationship8 with the company or its affiliates2; or who is (or whose immediate family member6 is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an executive officer of, an organization which has the material transactional relationship8 (excluding investments in the company through a private placement).

  2.14.

Director who (or whose immediate family member6) is a trustee, director, or employee of a charitable or non-profit organization that receives material grants or endowments8 from the company or its affiliates2.

 

  Other Relationships

 

  2.15.

Party to a voting agreement9 to vote in line with management on proposals being brought to shareholder vote.

  2.16.

Has (or an immediate family member6 has) an interlocking relationship as defined by the SEC involving members of the board of directors or its Compensation Committee.10

  2.17.

Founder11 of the company but not currently an employee.

  2.18.

Director with pay comparable to Named Executive Officers.

  2.19.

Any material12 relationship with the company.

 

  3.

Independent Director

  3.1.

No material12 connection to the company other than a board seat.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      9 of 72  

 

A-9


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Footnotes:

1. The definition of officer will generally follow that of a “Section 16 officer” (officers subject to Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) and includes the chief executive, operating, financial, legal, technology, and accounting officers of a company (including the president, treasurer, secretary, controller, or any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or policy function). Current interim officers are included in this category. For private companies, the equivalent positions are applicable. A non-employee director serving as an officer due to statutory requirements (e.g. corporate secretary) will generally be classified as a Non-Independent Non-Executive Director under “Any material relationship with the company.” However, if the company provides explicit disclosure that the director is not receiving additional compensation exceeding $10,000 per year for serving in that capacity, then the director will be classified as an Independent Director.

2. “Affiliate” includes a subsidiary, sibling company, or parent company. ISS uses 50 percent control ownership by the parent company as the standard for applying its affiliate designation. The manager/advisor of an externally managed issuer (EMI) is considered an affiliate.

3. Includes any former CEO of the company prior to the company’s initial public offering (IPO).

4. When there is a former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) serving on the board of an acquired company, ISS will generally classify such directors as independent unless determined otherwise taking into account the following factors: the applicable listing standards determination of such director’s independence; any operating ties to the firm; and the existence of any other conflicting relationships or related party transactions.

5. ISS will look at the terms of the interim officer’s employment contract to determine if it contains severance pay, long-term health and pension benefits, or other such standard provisions typically contained in contracts of permanent, non-temporary CEOs. ISS will also consider if a formal search process was under way for a full-time officer at the time.

6. “Immediate family member” follows the SEC’s definition of such and covers spouses, parents, children, step-parents, step-children, siblings, in-laws, and any person (other than a tenant or employee) sharing the household of any director, nominee for director, executive officer, or significant shareholder of the company.

7. Professional services can be characterized as advisory in nature, generally involve access to sensitive company information or to strategic decision-making, and typically have a commission- or fee-based payment structure. Professional services generally include but are not limited to the following: investment banking/financial advisory services, commercial banking (beyond deposit services), investment services, insurance services, accounting/audit services, consulting services, marketing services, legal services, property management services, realtor services, lobbying services, executive search services, and IT consulting services. The following would generally be considered transactional relationships and not professional services: deposit services, IT tech support services, educational services, and construction services. The case of participation in a banking syndicate by a non-lead bank should be considered a transactional (and hence subject to the associated materiality test) rather than a professional relationship. “Of Counsel” relationships are only considered immaterial if the individual does not receive any form of compensation (in excess of $10,000 per year) from, or is a retired partner of, the firm providing the professional service. The case of a company providing a professional service to one of its directors or to an entity with which one of its directors is affiliated, will be considered a transactional rather than a professional relationship. Insurance services and marketing services are assumed to be professional services unless the company explains why such services are not advisory.

8. A material transactional relationship, including grants to non-profit organizations, exists if the company makes annual payments to, or receives annual payments from, another entity, exceeding the greater of: $200,000 or 5 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, for a company that follows NASDAQ listing standards; or the greater of $1,000,000 or 2 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, for a company that follows NYSE listing standards. For a company that follows neither of the preceding standards, ISS will apply the NASDAQ-based materiality test. (The recipient is the party receiving the financial proceeds from the transaction).

9. Dissident directors who are parties to a voting agreement pursuant to a settlement or similar arrangement may be classified as Independent Directors if an analysis of the following factors indicates that the voting agreement does not compromise their alignment with all shareholders’ interests: the terms of the agreement; the duration of the standstill provision in the agreement; the limitations and requirements of actions that are agreed upon; if the dissident director nominee(s) is subject to the standstill; and if there any conflicting relationships or related party transactions.

10. Interlocks include: executive officers serving as directors on each other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board); or executive officers sitting on each other’s boards and at least one serves on the other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board).

11. The operating involvement of the founder with the company will be considered; if the founder was never employed by the company, ISS may deem him or her an Independent Director.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      10 of 72  

 

A-10


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

12. For purposes of ISS’s director independence classification, “material” will be defined as a standard of relationship (financial, personal, or otherwise) that a reasonable person might conclude could potentially influence one’s objectivity in the boardroom in a manner that would have a meaningful impact on an individual’s ability to satisfy requisite fiduciary standards on behalf of shareholders.

Composition

Attendance at Board and Committee Meetings: Generally vote against or withhold from directors (except nominees who served only part of the fiscal year3) who attend less than 75 percent of the aggregate of their board and committee meetings for the period for which they served, unless an acceptable reason for absences is disclosed in the proxy or another SEC filing. Acceptable reasons for director absences are generally limited to the following:

 

   

Medical issues/illness;

   

Family emergencies; and

   

Missing only one meeting (when the total of all meetings is three or fewer).

In cases of chronic poor attendance without reasonable justification, in addition to voting against the director(s) with poor attendance, generally vote against or withhold from appropriate members of the nominating/governance committees or the full board.

If the proxy disclosure is unclear and insufficient to determine whether a director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate of his/her board and committee meetings during his/her period of service, vote against or withhold from the director(s) in question.

Overboarded Directors: Generally vote against or withhold from individual directors who:

 

   

Sit on more than five public company boards; or

   

Are CEOs of public companies who sit on the boards of more than two public companies besides their own—withhold only at their outside boards4.

Gender Diversity: Generally vote against or withhold from the chair of the nominating committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) at companies where there are no women on the company’s board. An exception will be made if there was at least one woman on the board at the preceding annual meeting and the board makes a firm commitment to return to a gender-diverse status within a year.

Racial and/or Ethnic Diversity: For companies in the Russell 3000 or S&P 1500 indices, generally vote against or withhold from the chair of the nominating committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) where the board has no apparent racially or ethnically diverse members5. An exception will be made if there was racial and/or ethnic diversity on the board at the preceding annual meeting and the board makes a firm commitment to appoint at least one racial and/or ethnic diverse member within a year.

 

3 Nominees who served for only part of the fiscal year are generally exempted from the attendance policy.

4 Although all of a CEO’s subsidiary boards with publicly-traded common stock will be counted as separate boards, ISS will not recommend a withhold vote for the CEO of a parent company board or any of the controlled (>50 percent ownership) subsidiaries of that parent but may do so at subsidiaries that are less than 50 percent controlled and boards outside the parent/subsidiary relationships.

5 Aggregate diversity statistics provided by the board will only be considered if specific to racial and/or ethnic diversity.

 

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      11 of 72  

 

A-11


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Responsiveness

Vote case-by-case on individual directors, committee members, or the entire board of directors as appropriate if:

 

   

The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year or failed to act on a management proposal seeking to ratify an existing charter/bylaw provision that received opposition of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year. Factors that will be considered are:

   

Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the vote;

   

Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation;

   

The subject matter of the proposal;

   

The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings;

   

Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement with shareholders;

   

The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals); and

   

Other factors as appropriate.

   

The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are tendered;

   

At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.

Vote case-by-case on Compensation Committee members (or, in exceptional cases, the full board) and the Say on Pay proposal if:

 

   

The company’s previous say-on-pay received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast. Factors that will be considered are:

   

The company’s response, including:

   

Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);

   

Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;

   

Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns;

   

Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;

   

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.

   

The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that received the plurality of votes cast.

Accountability

PROBLEMATIC TAKEOVER DEFENSES, CAPITAL STRUCTURE, AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Poison Pills: Generally vote against or withhold from all nominees (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if:

 

   

The company has a poison pill with a deadhand or slowhand feature6;

   

The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval; or

 

 

6 If a short-term pill with a deadhand or slowhand feature is enacted but expires before the next shareholder vote, ISS will generally still recommend withhold/against nominees at the next shareholder meeting following its adoption.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      12 of 72  

 

A-12


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

The company has a long-term poison pill (with a term of over one year) that was not approved by the public shareholders7.

Vote case-by-case on nominees if the board adopts an initial short-term pill6 (with a term of one year or less) without shareholder approval, taking into consideration:

 

   

The disclosed rationale for the adoption;

   

The trigger;

   

The company’s market capitalization (including absolute level and sudden changes);

   

A commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder vote; and

   

Other factors as relevant.

Unequal Voting Rights: Generally vote withhold or against directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case), if the company employs a common stock structure with unequal voting rights8.

Exceptions to this policy will generally be limited to:

 

   

Newly-public companies9 with a sunset provision of no more than seven years from the date of going public;

   

Limited Partnerships and the Operating Partnership (OP) unit structure of REITs;

   

Situations where the super-voting shares represent less than 5% of total voting power and therefore considered to be de minimis; or

   

The company provides sufficient protections for minority shareholders, such as allowing minority shareholders a regular binding vote on whether the capital structure should be maintained.

Classified Board Structure: The board is classified, and a continuing director responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level that would warrant a withhold/against vote recommendation is not up for election. All appropriate nominees (except new) may be held accountable.

Removal of Shareholder Discretion on Classified Boards: The company has opted into, or failed to opt out of, state laws requiring a classified board structure.

Problematic Governance Structure: For companies that hold or held their first annual meeting9 of public shareholders after Feb. 1, 2015, generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if, prior to or in connection with the company’s public offering, the company or its board adopted the following bylaw or charter provisions that are considered to be materially adverse to shareholder rights:

 

   

Supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter;

   

A classified board structure; or

   

Other egregious provisions.

A provision which specifies that the problematic structure(s) will be sunset within seven years of the date of going public will be considered a mitigating factor.

 

 

 

7 Approval prior to, or in connection, with a company’s becoming publicly-traded, or in connection with a de-SPAC transaction, is insufficient.

8 This generally includes classes of common stock that have additional votes per share than other shares; classes of shares that are not entitled to vote on all the same ballot items or nominees; or stock with time-phased voting rights (“loyalty shares”).

9 Includes companies that emerge from bankruptcy, SPAC transactions, spin-offs, direct listings, and those who complete a traditional initial public offering.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      13 of 72  

 

A-13


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Unless the adverse provision is reversed or removed, vote case-by-case on director nominees in subsequent years.

Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments: Generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if the board amends the company’s bylaws or charter without shareholder approval in a manner that materially diminishes shareholders’ rights or that could adversely impact shareholders, considering the following factors:

 

   

The board’s rationale for adopting the bylaw/charter amendment without shareholder ratification;

   

Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment;

   

The level of impairment of shareholders’ rights caused by the board’s unilateral amendment to the bylaws/charter;

   

The board’s track record with regard to unilateral board action on bylaw/charter amendments or other entrenchment provisions;

   

The company’s ownership structure;

   

The company’s existing governance provisions;

   

The timing of the board’s amendment to the bylaws/charter in connection with a significant business development; and

   

Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the amendment on shareholders.

Unless the adverse amendment is reversed or submitted to a binding shareholder vote, in subsequent years vote case-by-case on director nominees. Generally vote against (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if the directors:

 

   

Classified the board;

   

Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter;

   

Eliminated shareholders’ ability to amend bylaws;

   

Adopted a fee-shifting provision; or

   

Adopted another provision deemed egregious.

Restricting Binding Shareholder Proposals: Generally vote against or withhold from the members of the governance committee if:

 

   

The company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws. Such restrictions include but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals or share ownership requirements, subject matter restrictions, or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8. Vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis.

Submission of management proposals to approve or ratify requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8 for the submission of binding bylaw amendments will generally be viewed as an insufficient restoration of shareholders’ rights. Generally continue to vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis until shareholders are provided with an unfettered ability to amend the bylaws or a proposal providing for such unfettered right is submitted for shareholder approval.

Director Performance Evaluation: The board lacks mechanisms to promote accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers. Sustained poor performance is measured by one-, three-, and five-year total shareholder returns in the bottom half of a company’s four-digit GICS industry group (Russell 3000 companies only). Take into consideration the company’s operational metrics and other factors as warranted. Problematic provisions include but are not limited to:

 

   

A classified board structure;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      14 of 72  

 

A-14


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

A supermajority vote requirement;

   

Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections, or a majority vote standard in contested elections;

   

The inability of shareholders to call special meetings;

   

The inability of shareholders to act by written consent;

   

A multi-class capital structure; and/or

   

A non-shareholder-approved poison pill.

Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions: Vote against/withhold from individual directors, members of the governance committee, or the full board, where boards ask shareholders to ratify existing charter or bylaw provisions considering the following factors:

 

   

The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;

   

The board’s rationale for seeking ratification;

   

Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;

   

Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;

   

The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision;

   

The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings;

   

Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.

Problematic Audit-Related Practices

Generally vote against or withhold from the members of the Audit Committee if:

 

   

The non-audit fees paid to the auditor are excessive;

   

The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor; or

   

There is persuasive evidence that the Audit Committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.

Vote case-by-case on members of the Audit Committee and potentially the full board if:

 

   

Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a level of serious concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures. Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence, and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether withhold/against votes are warranted.

Problematic Compensation Practices

In the absence of an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) ballot item or in egregious situations, vote against or withhold from the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:

 

   

There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

   

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or

   

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Generally vote against or withhold from the Compensation Committee chair, other committee members, or potentially the full board if:

 

   

The company fails to include a Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions, or under the company’s declared frequency of say on pay; or

   

The company fails to include a Frequency of Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      15 of 72  

 

A-15


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Generally vote against members of the board committee responsible for approving/setting non-employee director compensation if there is a pattern (i.e. two or more years) of awarding excessive non-employee director compensation without disclosing a compelling rationale or other mitigating factors.

Problematic Pledging of Company Stock: Vote against the members of the committee that oversees risks related to pledging, or the full board, where a significant level of pledged company stock by executives or directors raises concerns. The following factors will be considered:

 

   

The presence of an anti-pledging policy, disclosed in the proxy statement, that prohibits future pledging activity;

   

The magnitude of aggregate pledged shares in terms of total common shares outstanding, market value, and trading volume;

   

Disclosure of progress or lack thereof in reducing the magnitude of aggregate pledged shares over time;

   

Disclosure in the proxy statement that shares subject to stock ownership and holding requirements do not include pledged company stock; and

   

Any other relevant factors.

Climate Accountability

For companies that are significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, through their operations or value chain10, generally vote against or withhold from the incumbent chair of the responsible committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) in cases where ISS determines that the company is not taking the minimum steps needed to understand, assess, and mitigate risks related to climate change to the company and the larger economy.

Minimum steps to understand and mitigate those risks are considered to be the following. Both minimum criteria will be required to be in alignment with the policy:

 

   

Detailed disclosure of climate-related risks, such as according to the framework established by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), including:

   

Board governance measures;

   

Corporate strategy;

   

Risk management analyses; and

   

Metrics and targets.

   

Appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets.

At this time, “appropriate GHG emissions reductions targets” will be medium-term GHG reduction targets or Net Zero-by-2050 GHG reduction targets for a company’s operations (Scope 1) and electricity use (Scope 2). Targets should cover the vast majority of the company’s direct emissions.

Governance Failures

Under extraordinary circumstances, vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board, due to:

 

   

Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight11, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company;

   

Failure to replace management as appropriate; or

   

Egregious actions related to a director’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.

 

10 Companies defined as “significant GHG emitters” will be those on the current Climate Action 100+ Focus Group list.

11 Examples of failure of risk oversight include but are not limited to: bribery; large or serial fines or sanctions from regulatory bodies; demonstrably poor risk oversight of environmental and social issues, including climate change; significant adverse legal judgments or settlement; or hedging of company stock.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      16 of 72  

 

A-16


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Vote-No Campaigns

General Recommendation: In cases where companies are targeted in connection with public “vote-no” campaigns, evaluate director nominees under the existing governance policies for voting on director nominees in uncontested elections. Take into consideration the arguments submitted by shareholders and other publicly available information.

Proxy Contests/Proxy Access

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following factors:

 

   

Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry;

   

Management’s track record;

   

Background to the contested election;

   

Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements;

   

Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of the critique against management;

   

Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and

   

Stock ownership positions.

In the case of candidates nominated pursuant to proxy access, vote case-by-case considering any applicable factors listed above or additional factors which may be relevant, including those that are specific to the company, to the nominee(s) and/or to the nature of the election (such as whether there are more candidates than board seats).

Other Board-Related Proposals

Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits named executive officers from engaging in derivative or speculative transactions involving company stock, including hedging, holding stock in a margin account, or pledging stock as collateral for a loan. However, the company’s existing policies regarding responsible use of company stock will be considered.

Board Refreshment

Board refreshment is best implemented through an ongoing program of individual director evaluations, conducted annually, to ensure the evolving needs of the board are met and to bring in fresh perspectives, skills, and diversity as needed.

Term/Tenure Limits

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals regarding director term/tenure limits, considering:

 

   

The rationale provided for adoption of the term/tenure limit;

   

The robustness of the company’s board evaluation process;

   

Whether the limit is of sufficient length to allow for a broad range of director tenures;

   

Whether the limit would disadvantage independent directors compared to non-independent directors; and

   

Whether the board will impose the limit evenly, and not have the ability to waive it in a discriminatory manner.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      17 of 72  

 

A-17


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking for the company to adopt director term/tenure limits, considering:

 

   

The scope of the shareholder proposal; and

   

Evidence of problematic issues at the company combined with, or exacerbated by, a lack of board refreshment.

Age Limits

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management and shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of independent directors through mandatory retirement ages. Vote for proposals to remove mandatory age limits.

Board Size

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals seeking to fix the board size or designate a range for the board size.

Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board outside of a specified range without shareholder approval.

Classification/Declassification of the Board

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to classify (stagger) the board.

Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

CEO Succession Planning

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking disclosure on a CEO succession planning policy, considering, at a minimum, the following factors:

 

   

The reasonableness/scope of the request; and

   

The company’s existing disclosure on its current CEO succession planning process.

Cumulative Voting

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to eliminate cumulate voting, and for shareholder proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting, unless:

 

   

The company has proxy access12, thereby allowing shareholders to nominate directors to the company’s ballot; and

   

The company has adopted a majority vote standard, with a carve-out for plurality voting in situations where there are more nominees than seats, and a director resignation policy to address failed elections.

Vote for proposals for cumulative voting at controlled companies (insider voting power > 50%).

Director and Officer Indemnification, Liability Protection, and Exculpation

 

  General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals on director and officer indemnification, liability protection, and exculpation13.

 

12 A proxy access right that meets the recommended guidelines.

13 Indemnification: the condition of being secured against loss or damage.

Limited liability: a person’s financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, or personal financial assets are not at risk if the individual loses a lawsuit that results in financial award/damages to the plaintiff.

Exculpation: to eliminate or limit the personal liability of a director or officer to the corporation or its shareholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director or officer.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      18 of 72  

 

A-18


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Consider the stated rationale for the proposed change. Also consider, among other factors, the extent to which the proposal would:

 

   

Eliminate directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care.

   

Eliminate directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of loyalty.

   

Expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to liability for acts that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere carelessness.

   

Expand the scope of indemnification to provide for mandatory indemnification of company officials in connection with acts that previously the company was permitted to provide indemnification for, at the discretion of the company’s board (i.e., “permissive indemnification”), but that previously the company was not required to indemnify.

Vote for those proposals providing such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if both of the following apply:

 

   

If the individual was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that the individual reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and

If only the individual’s legal expenses would be covered.

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Votes should be based on the reasonableness of the criteria and the degree to which they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.

Vote case-by-case on shareholder resolutions seeking a director nominee who possesses a particular subject matter expertise, considering:

 

   

The company’s board committee structure, existing subject matter expertise, and board nomination provisions relative to that of its peers;

   

The company’s existing board and management oversight mechanisms regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

The company’s disclosure and performance relating to the issue for which board oversight is sought and any significant related controversies; and

   

The scope and structure of the proposal.

Establish Other Board Committee Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals to establish a new board committee, as such proposals seek a specific oversight mechanism/structure that potentially limits a company’s flexibility to determine an appropriate oversight mechanism for itself. However, the following factors will be considered:

 

   

Existing oversight mechanisms (including current committee structure) regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

Level of disclosure regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

Company performance related to the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

Board committee structure compared to that of other companies in its industry sector; and

   

The scope and structure of the proposal.

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

Vote for proposals to restore shareholders’ ability to remove directors with or without cause.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      19 of 72  

 

A-19


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

Vote for proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Independent Board Chair

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requiring that the board chair position be filled by an independent director, taking into consideration the following:

 

   

The scope and rationale of the proposal;

   

The company’s current board leadership structure;

   

The company’s governance structure and practices;

   

Company performance; and

   

Any other relevant factors that may be applicable.

The following factors will increase the likelihood of a “for” recommendation:

 

   

A majority non-independent board and/or the presence of non-independent directors on key board committees;

   

A weak or poorly-defined lead independent director role that fails to serve as an appropriate counterbalance to a combined CEO/chair role;

   

The presence of an executive or non-independent chair in addition to the CEO, a recent recombination of the role of CEO and chair, and/or departure from a structure with an independent chair;

   

Evidence that the board has failed to oversee and address material risks facing the company;

   

A material governance failure, particularly if the board has failed to adequately respond to shareholder concerns or if the board has materially diminished shareholder rights; or

   

Evidence that the board has failed to intervene when management’s interests are contrary to shareholders’ interests.

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

General Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals asking that a majority or more of directors be independent unless the board composition already meets the proposed threshold by ISS’ definition of Independent Director (See ISS’ Classification of Directors.)

Vote for shareholder proposals asking that board audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees be composed exclusively of independent directors unless they currently meet that standard.

Majority Vote Standard for the Election of Directors

General Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals to adopt a majority of votes cast standard for directors in uncontested elections. Vote against if no carve-out for a plurality vote standard in contested elections is included.

Generally vote for precatory and binding shareholder resolutions requesting that the board change the company’s bylaws to stipulate that directors need to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast, provided it does not conflict with the state law where the company is incorporated. Binding resolutions need to allow for a carve-out for a plurality vote standard when there are more nominees than board seats.

Companies are strongly encouraged to also adopt a post-election policy (also known as a director resignation policy) that will provide guidelines so that the company will promptly address the situation of a holdover director.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      20 of 72  

 

A-20


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Proxy Access

General Recommendation: Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals for proxy access with the following provisions:

 

   

Ownership threshold: maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power;

   

Ownership duration: maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group;

   

Aggregation: minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group;

   

Cap: cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board.

Review for reasonableness any other restrictions on the right of proxy access. Generally vote against proposals that are more restrictive than these guidelines.

Require More Nominees than Open Seats

General Recommendation: Vote against shareholder proposals that would require a company to nominate more candidates than the number of open board seats.

Shareholder Engagement Policy (Shareholder Advisory Committee)

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board establish an internal mechanism/process, which may include a committee, in order to improve communications between directors and shareholders, unless the company has the following features, as appropriate:

 

   

Established a communication structure that goes beyond the exchange requirements to facilitate the exchange of information between shareholders and members of the board;

   

Effectively disclosed information with respect to this structure to its shareholders;

   

Company has not ignored majority-supported shareholder proposals, or a majority withhold vote on a director nominee; and

   

The company has an independent chair or a lead director, according to ISS’ definition. This individual must be made available for periodic consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      21 of 72  

 

A-21


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

2.   Audit-Related

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the issue of auditor indemnification and limitation of liability. Factors to be assessed include, but are not limited to:

 

   

The terms of the auditor agreement—the degree to which these agreements impact shareholders’ rights;

   

The motivation and rationale for establishing the agreements;

   

The quality of the company’s disclosure; and

   

The company’s historical practices in the audit area.

Vote against or withhold from members of an audit committee in situations where there is persuasive evidence that the audit committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.

Auditor Ratification

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to ratify auditors unless any of the following apply:

 

   

An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent;

   

There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;

   

Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a serious level of concern, such as fraud or misapplication of GAAP; or

   

Fees for non-audit services (“Other” fees) are excessive.

Non-audit fees are excessive if:

 

   

Non-audit (“other”) fees > audit fees + audit-related fees + tax compliance/preparation fees

Tax compliance and preparation include the preparation of original and amended tax returns and refund claims, and tax payment planning. All other services in the tax category, such as tax advice, planning, or consulting, should be added to “Other” fees. If the breakout of tax fees cannot be determined, add all tax fees to “Other” fees.

In circumstances where “Other” fees include fees related to significant one-time capital structure events (such as initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs) and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees that are an exception to the standard “non-audit fee” category, then such fees may be excluded from the non-audit fees considered in determining the ratio of non-audit to audit/audit-related fees/tax compliance and preparation for purposes of determining whether non-audit fees are excessive.

Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services.

Shareholder Proposals on Audit Firm Rotation

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking for audit firm rotation, taking into account:

 

   

The tenure of the audit firm;

   

The length of rotation specified in the proposal;

   

Any significant audit-related issues at the company;

   

The number of Audit Committee meetings held each year;

   

The number of financial experts serving on the committee; and

   

Whether the company has a periodic renewal process where the auditor is evaluated for both audit quality and competitive price.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      22 of 72  

 

A-22


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

3.   Shareholder Rights & Defenses

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on advance notice proposals, giving support to those proposals which allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations as close to the meeting date as reasonably possible and within the broadest window possible, recognizing the need to allow sufficient notice for company, regulatory, and shareholder review.

To be reasonable, the company’s deadline for shareholder notice of a proposal/nominations must be no earlier than 120 days prior to the anniversary of the previous year’s meeting and have a submittal window of no shorter than 30 days from the beginning of the notice period (also known as a 90-120-day window). The submittal window is the period under which shareholders must file their proposals/nominations prior to the deadline.

In general, support additional efforts by companies to ensure full disclosure in regard to a proponent’s economic and voting position in the company so long as the informational requirements are reasonable and aimed at providing shareholders with the necessary information to review such proposals.

Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the bylaws.

Vote case-by-case on proposals giving the board the ability to amend the bylaws in addition to shareholders, taking into account the following:

 

   

Any impediments to shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws (i.e. supermajority voting requirements);

   

The company’s ownership structure and historical voting turnout;

   

Whether the board could amend bylaws adopted by shareholders; and

   

Whether shareholders would retain the ability to ratify any board-initiated amendments.

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes unless doing so would enable the completion of a takeover that would be detrimental to shareholders.

Vote against proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions.

Vote for proposals to restore voting rights to the control shares.

Control share acquisition statutes function by denying shares their voting rights when they contribute to ownership in excess of certain thresholds. Voting rights for those shares exceeding ownership limits may only be restored by approval of either a majority or supermajority of disinterested shares. Thus, control share acquisition statutes effectively require a hostile bidder to put its offer to a shareholder vote or risk voting disenfranchisement if the bidder continues buying up a large block of shares.

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of control share cash-out statutes.

Control share cash-out statutes give dissident shareholders the right to “cash-out” of their position in a company at the expense of the shareholder who has taken a control position. In other words, when an investor crosses a preset threshold level, remaining shareholders are given the right to sell their shares to the acquirer, who must buy them at the highest acquiring price.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      23 of 72  

 

A-23


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Disgorgement Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions.

Disgorgement provisions require an acquirer or potential acquirer of more than a certain percentage of a company’s stock to disgorge, or pay back, to the company any profits realized from the sale of that company’s stock purchased 24 months before achieving control status. All sales of company stock by the acquirer occurring within a certain period of time (between 18 months and 24 months) prior to the investor’s gaining control status are subject to these recapture-of-profits provisions.

Fair Price Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to adopt fair price provisions (provisions that stipulate that an acquirer must pay the same price to acquire all shares as it paid to acquire the control shares), evaluating factors such as the vote required to approve the proposed acquisition, the vote required to repeal the fair price provision, and the mechanism for determining the fair price.

Generally vote against fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.

Freeze-Out Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of state freeze-out provisions. Freeze-out provisions force an investor who surpasses a certain ownership threshold in a company to wait a specified period of time before gaining control of the company.

Greenmail

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

Vote case-by-case on anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

Greenmail payments are targeted share repurchases by management of company stock from individuals or groups seeking control of the company. Since only the hostile party receives payment, usually at a substantial premium over the market value of its shares, the practice discriminates against all other shareholders.

Shareholder Litigation Rights

Federal Forum Selection Provisions

Federal forum selection provisions require that U.S. federal courts be the sole forum for shareholders to litigate claims arising under federal securities law.

General Recommendation: Generally vote for federal forum selection provisions in the charter or bylaws that specify “the district courts of the United States” as the exclusive forum for federal securities law matters, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

Vote against provisions that restrict the forum to a particular federal district court; unilateral adoption (without a shareholder vote) of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Exclusive Forum Provisions for State Law Matters

Exclusive forum provisions in the charter or bylaws restrict shareholders’ ability to bring derivative lawsuits against the company, for claims arising out of state corporate law, to the courts of a particular state (generally the state of incorporation).

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      24 of 72  

 

A-24


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

General Recommendation: Generally vote for charter or bylaw provisions that specify courts located within the state of Delaware as the exclusive forum for corporate law matters for Delaware corporations, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

For states other than Delaware, vote case-by-case on exclusive forum provisions, taking into consideration:

 

   

The company’s stated rationale for adopting such a provision;

   

Disclosure of past harm from duplicative shareholder lawsuits in more than one forum;

   

The breadth of application of the charter or bylaw provision, including the types of lawsuits to which it would apply and the definition of key terms; and

   

Governance features such as shareholders’ ability to repeal the provision at a later date (including the vote standard applied when shareholders attempt to amend the charter or bylaws) and their ability to hold directors accountable through annual director elections and a majority vote standard in uncontested elections.

Generally vote against provisions that specify a state other than the state of incorporation as the exclusive forum for corporate law matters, or that specify a particular local court within the state; unilateral adoption of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Fee shifting

Fee-shifting provisions in the charter or bylaws require that a shareholder who sues a company unsuccessfully pay all litigation expenses of the defendant corporation and its directors and officers.

General Recommendation: Generally vote against provisions that mandate fee-shifting whenever plaintiffs are not completely successful on the merits (i.e., including cases where the plaintiffs are partially successful).

Unilateral adoption of a fee-shifting provision will generally be considered an ongoing failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Net Operating Loss (NOL) Protective Amendments

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to adopt a protective amendment for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the effective term of the protective amendment would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.

Vote case-by-case, considering the following factors, for management proposals to adopt an NOL protective amendment that would remain in effect for the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL:

 

   

The ownership threshold (NOL protective amendments generally prohibit stock ownership transfers that would result in a new 5-percent holder or increase the stock ownership percentage of an existing 5-percent holder);

   

The value of the NOLs;

   

Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision or commitment to cause expiration of the protective amendment upon exhaustion or expiration of the NOL);

   

The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and

   

Any other factors that may be applicable.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      25 of 72  

 

A-25


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Shareholder Proposals to Put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

General Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote or redeem it unless the company has: (1) A shareholder-approved poison pill in place; or (2) The company has adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying that the board will only adopt a shareholder rights plan if either:

 

   

Shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan; or

   

The board, in its exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities, determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders under the circumstances to adopt a pill without the delay in adoption that would result from seeking stockholder approval (i.e., the “fiduciary out” provision). A poison pill adopted under this fiduciary out will be put to a shareholder ratification vote within 12 months of adoption or expire. If the pill is not approved by a majority of the votes cast on this issue, the plan will immediately terminate.

If the shareholder proposal calls for a time period of less than 12 months for shareholder ratification after adoption, vote for the proposal, but add the caveat that a vote within 12 months would be considered sufficient implementation.

Management Proposals to Ratify a Poison Pill

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan. Rights plans should contain the following attributes:

 

   

No lower than a 20 percent trigger, flip-in or flip-over;

   

A term of no more than three years;

   

No deadhand, slowhand, no-hand, or similar feature that limits the ability of a future board to redeem the pill;

   

Shareholder redemption feature (qualifying offer clause); if the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after a qualifying offer is announced, 10 percent of the shares may call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill.

In addition, the rationale for adopting the pill should be thoroughly explained by the company. In examining the request for the pill, take into consideration the company’s existing governance structure, including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, and any problematic governance concerns.

Management Proposals to Ratify a Pill to Preserve Net Operating Losses (NOLs)

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to adopt a poison pill for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the term of the pill would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.

Vote case-by-case on management proposals for poison pill ratification, considering the following factors, if the term of the pill would be the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL:

 

   

The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL pills generally have a trigger slightly below 5 percent);

   

The value of the NOLs;

   

Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision, or commitment to cause expiration of the pill upon exhaustion or expiration of NOLs);

   

The company’s existing governance structure, including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and

   

Any other factors that may be applicable.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      26 of 72  

 

A-26


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Proxy Voting Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tabulation

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding proxy voting mechanics, taking into consideration whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder rights. Specific issues covered under the policy include, but are not limited to, confidential voting of individual proxies and ballots, confidentiality of running vote tallies, and the treatment of abstentions and/or broker non-votes in the company’s vote-counting methodology.

While a variety of factors may be considered in each analysis, the guiding principles are: transparency, consistency, and fairness in the proxy voting process. The factors considered, as applicable to the proposal, may include:

 

   

The scope and structure of the proposal;

   

The company’s stated confidential voting policy (or other relevant policies) and whether it ensures a “level playing field” by providing shareholder proponents with equal access to vote information prior to the annual meeting;

   

The company’s vote standard for management and shareholder proposals and whether it ensures consistency and fairness in the proxy voting process and maintains the integrity of vote results;

   

Whether the company’s disclosure regarding its vote counting method and other relevant voting policies with respect to management and shareholder proposals are consistent and clear;

   

Any recent controversies or concerns related to the company’s proxy voting mechanics;

   

Any unintended consequences resulting from implementation of the proposal; and

   

Any other factors that may be relevant.

Ratification Proposals: Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to ratify provisions of the company’s existing charter or bylaws, unless these governance provisions align with best practice.

In addition, voting against/withhold from individual directors, members of the governance committee, or the full board may be warranted, considering:

 

   

The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;

   

The board’s rationale for seeking ratification;

   

Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;

   

Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;

   

The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision;

   

The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings;

   

Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.

When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, vote for the reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election.

Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for the reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in connection with nominating one or more candidates in a contested election where the following apply:

 

   

The election of fewer than 50 percent of the directors to be elected is contested in the election;

   

One or more of the dissident’s candidates is elected;

   

Shareholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for directors; and

   

The election occurred, and the expenses were incurred, after the adoption of this bylaw.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      27 of 72  

 

A-27


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Reincorporation Proposals

General Recommendation: Management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be evaluated case-by-case, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance concerns including the following:

 

   

Reasons for reincorporation;

   

Comparison of company’s governance practices and provisions prior to and following the reincorporation; and

   

Comparison of corporation laws of original state and destination state.

Vote for reincorporation when the economic factors outweigh any neutral or negative governance changes.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management and shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to act by written consent.

Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to act by written consent, taking into account the following factors:

 

   

Shareholders’ current right to act by written consent;

   

The consent threshold;

   

The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;

   

Investor ownership structure; and

   

Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.

Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals if, in addition to the considerations above, the company has the following governance and antitakeover provisions:

 

   

An unfettered14 right for shareholders to call special meetings at a 10 percent threshold;

   

A majority vote standard in uncontested director elections;

   

No non-shareholder-approved pill; and

   

An annually elected board.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

General Recommendation: Vote against management or shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to call special meetings.

Generally vote for management or shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings taking into account the following factors:

 

   

Shareholders’ current right to call special meetings;

   

Minimum ownership threshold necessary to call special meetings (10 percent preferred);

   

The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;

   

Investor ownership structure; and

   

Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.

 

14 “Unfettered” means no restrictions on agenda items, no restrictions on the number of shareholders who can group together to reach the 10 percent threshold, and only reasonable limits on when a meeting can be called: no greater than 30 days after the last annual meeting and no greater than 90 prior to the next annual meeting.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      28 of 72  

 

A-28


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Stakeholder Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non-financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

State Antitakeover Statutes

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, and anti-greenmail provisions).

Supermajority Vote Requirements

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote.

Vote for management or shareholder proposals to reduce supermajority vote requirements. However, for companies with shareholder(s) who have significant ownership levels, vote case-by-case, taking into account:

 

   

Ownership structure;

   

Quorum requirements; and

   

Vote requirements.

Virtual Shareholder Meetings

General Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals allowing for the convening of shareholder meetings by electronic means, so long as they do not preclude in-person meetings. Companies are encouraged to disclose the circumstances under which virtual-only15 meetings would be held, and to allow for comparable rights and opportunities for shareholders to participate electronically as they would have during an in-person meeting.

Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals concerning virtual-only meetings, considering:

 

   

Scope and rationale of the proposal; and

   

Concerns identified with the company’s prior meeting practices.

 

 

15 Virtual-only shareholder meeting” refers to a meeting of shareholders that is held exclusively using technology without a corresponding in-person meeting.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      29 of 72  

 

A-29


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

4. Capital/Restructuring

Capital

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

General Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock unless the action is being taken to facilitate an anti-takeover device or some other negative corporate governance action.

Vote for management proposals to eliminate par value.

Common Stock Authorization

General Authorization Requests

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

 

   

If share usage (outstanding plus reserved) is less than 50% of the current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to 50% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is 50% to 100% of the current authorized, vote for an increase of up to 100% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is greater than current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to the current share usage.

   

In the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization.

Generally vote against proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

 

   

The proposal seeks to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of common stock that has superior voting rights to other share classes;

   

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

   

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); or

   

The company has previous sizeable placements (within the past 3 years) of stock with insiders at prices substantially below market value, or with problematic voting rights, without shareholder approval.

However, generally vote for proposed increases beyond the above ratios or problematic situations when there is disclosure of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request, such as:

 

   

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

   

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

   

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

For companies incorporated in states that allow increases in authorized capital without shareholder approval, generally vote withhold or against all nominees if a unilateral capital authorization increase does not conform to the above policies.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      30 of 72  

 

A-30


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Specific Authorization Requests

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support. For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

 

   

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

   

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

Dual Class Structure

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to create a new class of common stock unless:

 

   

The company discloses a compelling rationale for the dual-class capital structure, such as:

   

The company’s auditor has concluded that there is substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern; or

   

The new class of shares will be transitory;

   

The new class is intended for financing purposes with minimal or no dilution to current shareholders in both the short term and long term; and

   

The new class is not designed to preserve or increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder.

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a non-shareholder-approved shareholder rights plan (poison pill).

Preemptive Rights

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights, taking into consideration:

 

   

The size of the company;

   

The shareholder base; and

   

The liquidity of the stock.

Preferred Stock Authorization

General Authorization Requests

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

 

   

If share usage (outstanding plus reserved) is less than 50% of the current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to 50% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is 50% to 100% of the current authorized, vote for an increase of up to 100% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is greater than current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to the current share usage.

   

In the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization.

   

If no preferred shares are currently issued and outstanding, vote against the request, unless the company discloses a specific use for the shares.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      31 of 72  

 

A-31


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Generally vote against proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

 

   

If the shares requested are blank check preferred shares that can be used for antitakeover purposes;16

   

The company seeks to increase a class of non-convertible preferred shares entitled to more than one vote per share on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders “supervoting shares”);

   

The company seeks to increase a class of convertible preferred shares entitled to a number of votes greater than the number of common shares into which they are convertible (“supervoting shares”) on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders;

   

The stated intent of the increase in the general authorization is to allow the company to increase an existing designated class of supervoting preferred shares;

   

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

   

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); or

   

The company has previous sizeable placements (within the past 3 years) of stock with insiders at prices substantially below market value, or with problematic voting rights, without shareholder approval.

However, generally vote for proposed increases beyond the above ratios or problematic situations when there is disclosure of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request, such as:

 

   

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

   

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

   

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

For companies incorporated in states that allow increases in authorized capital without shareholder approval, generally vote withhold or against all nominees if a unilateral capital authorization increase does not conform to the above policies.

Specific Authorization Requests

 

  General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized preferred shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support. For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

 

   

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

   

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

Recapitalization Plans

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on recapitalizations (reclassifications of securities), taking into account the following:

 

   

More simplified capital structure;

   

Enhanced liquidity;

   

Fairness of conversion terms;

   

Impact on voting power and dividends;

   

Reasons for the reclassification;

 

16 To be acceptable, appropriate disclosure would be needed that the shares are “declawed”: i.e., representation by the board that it will not, without prior stockholder approval, issue or use the preferred stock for any defensive or anti-takeover purpose or for the purpose of implementing any stockholder rights plan.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      32 of 72  

 

A-32


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Conflicts of interest; and

   

Other alternatives considered.

Reverse Stock Splits

General Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to implement a reverse stock split if:

 

   

The number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced; or

   

The effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with ISS’ Common Stock Authorization policy.

Vote case-by-case on proposals that do not meet either of the above conditions, taking into consideration the following factors:

 

   

Stock exchange notification to the company of a potential delisting;

   

Disclosure of substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern without additional financing;

   

The company’s rationale; or

   

Other factors as applicable.

Share Issuance Mandates at U.S. Domestic Issuers Incorporated Outside the U.S.

General Recommendation: For U.S. domestic issuers incorporated outside the U.S. and listed solely on a U.S. exchange, generally vote for resolutions to authorize the issuance of common shares up to 20 percent of currently issued common share capital, where not tied to a specific transaction or financing proposal.

For pre-revenue or other early-stage companies that are heavily reliant on periodic equity financing, generally vote for resolutions to authorize the issuance of common shares up to 50 percent of currently issued common share capital. The burden of proof will be on the company to establish that it has a need for the higher limit.

Renewal of such mandates should be sought at each year’s annual meeting.

Vote case-by-case on share issuances for a specific transaction or financing proposal.

Share Repurchase Programs

General Recommendation: For U.S.-incorporated companies, and foreign-incorporated U.S. Domestic Issuers that are traded solely on U.S. exchanges, vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms, or to grant the board authority to conduct open-market repurchases, in the absence of company-specific concerns regarding:

 

   

Greenmail;

   

The use of buybacks to inappropriately manipulate incentive compensation metrics;

   

Threats to the company’s long-term viability; or

   

Other company-specific factors as warranted.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to repurchase shares directly from specified shareholders, balancing the stated rationale against the possibility for the repurchase authority to be misused, such as to repurchase shares from insiders at a premium to market price.

Share Repurchase Programs Shareholder Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals prohibiting executives from selling shares of company stock during periods in which the company has announced that it may or will be repurchasing shares of its stock. Vote for the proposal when there is a pattern of abuse by executives exercising options or selling shares during periods of share buybacks.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      33 of 72  

 

A-33


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

General Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals to increase the common share authorization for stock split or stock dividend, provided that the effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or is less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with ISS’ Common Stock Authorization policy.

Tracking Stock

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the creation of tracking stock, weighing the strategic value of the transaction against such factors as:

 

   

Adverse governance changes;

   

Excessive increases in authorized capital stock;

   

Unfair method of distribution;

   

Diminution of voting rights;

   

Adverse conversion features;

   

Negative impact on stock option plans; and

   

Alternatives such as spin-off.

Restructuring

Appraisal Rights

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to restore or provide shareholders with rights of appraisal.

Asset Purchases

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on asset purchase proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Purchase price;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

Financial and strategic benefits;

   

How the deal was negotiated;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Other alternatives for the business;

   

Non-completion risk.

Asset Sales

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on asset sales, considering the following factors:

 

   

Impact on the balance sheet/working capital;

   

Potential elimination of diseconomies;

   

Anticipated financial and operating benefits;

   

Anticipated use of funds;

   

Value received for the asset;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

How the deal was negotiated;

   

Conflicts of interest.

Bundled Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on bundled or “conditional” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      34 of 72  

 

A-34


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Conversion of Securities

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding conversion of securities. When evaluating these proposals, the investor should review the dilution to existing shareholders, the conversion price relative to market value, financial issues, control issues, termination penalties, and conflicts of interest.

Vote for the conversion if it is expected that the company will be subject to onerous penalties or will be forced to file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan, after evaluating:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ positions;

   

Terms of the offer - discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion; termination penalties; exit strategy;

   

Financial issues - company’s financial situation; degree of need for capital; use of proceeds; effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

   

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

   

Control issues - change in management; change in control, guaranteed board and committee seats; standstill provisions; voting agreements; veto power over certain corporate actions; and

   

Conflict of interest - arm’s length transaction, managerial incentives.

Vote for the debt restructuring if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Formation of Holding Company

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding the formation of a holding company, taking into consideration the following:

 

   

The reasons for the change;

   

Any financial or tax benefits;

   

Regulatory benefits;

   

Increases in capital structure; and

   

Changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the company.

Absent compelling financial reasons to recommend for the transaction, vote against the formation of a holding company if the transaction would include either of the following:

 

   

Increases in common or preferred stock in excess of the allowable maximum (see discussion under “Capital”); or

   

Adverse changes in shareholder rights.

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on going private transactions, taking into account the following:

 

   

Offer price/premium;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

How the deal was negotiated;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Other alternatives/offers considered; and

   

Non-completion risk.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      35 of 72  

 

A-35


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote case-by-case on going dark transactions, determining whether the transaction enhances shareholder value by taking into consideration:

 

   

Whether the company has attained benefits from being publicly-traded (examination of trading volume, liquidity, and market research of the stock);

   

Balanced interests of continuing vs. cashed-out shareholders, taking into account the following:

   

Are all shareholders able to participate in the transaction?

   

Will there be a liquid market for remaining shareholders following the transaction?

   

Does the company have strong corporate governance?

   

Will insiders reap the gains of control following the proposed transaction?

   

Does the state of incorporation have laws requiring continued reporting that may benefit shareholders?

Joint Ventures

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to form joint ventures, taking into account the following:

 

   

Percentage of assets/business contributed;

   

Percentage ownership;

   

Financial and strategic benefits;

   

Governance structure;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Other alternatives; and

   

Non-completion risk.

Liquidations

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on liquidations, taking into account the following:

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

   

Appraisal value of assets; and

   

The compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Vote for the liquidation if the company will file for bankruptcy if the proposal is not approved.

Mergers and Acquisitions

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on mergers and acquisitions. Review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:

 

   

Valuation - Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While the fairness opinion may provide an initial starting point for assessing valuation reasonableness, emphasis is placed on the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale.

   

Market reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction should cause closer scrutiny of a deal.

   

Strategic rationale - Does the deal make sense strategically? From where is the value derived? Cost and revenue synergies should not be overly aggressive or optimistic, but reasonably achievable. Management should also have a favorable track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions.

   

Negotiations and process - Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s-length? Was the process fair and equitable? A fair process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Significant negotiation “wins” can also signify the deal makers’ competency. The comprehensiveness of the sales process (e.g., full auction, partial auction, no auction) can also affect shareholder value.

   

Conflicts of interest - Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? As the result of potential conflicts, the directors and officers of the company may be more likely to vote to approve a merger than if they did not hold these interests. Consider whether these interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      36 of 72  

 

A-36


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

 

The CIC figure presented in the “ISS Transaction Summary” section of this report is an aggregate figure that can in certain cases be a misleading indicator of the true value transfer from shareholders to insiders. Where such figure appears to be excessive, analyze the underlying assumptions to determine whether a potential conflict exists.

   

Governance - Will the combined company have a better or worse governance profile than the current governance profiles of the respective parties to the transaction? If the governance profile is to change for the worse, the burden is on the company to prove that other issues (such as valuation) outweigh any deterioration in governance.

Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding private placements, warrants, and convertible debentures taking into consideration:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position: The amount and timing of shareholder ownership dilution should be weighed against the needs and proposed shareholder benefits of the capital infusion. Although newly issued common stock, absent preemptive rights, is typically dilutive to existing shareholders, share price appreciation is often the necessary event to trigger the exercise of “out of the money” warrants and convertible debt. In these instances from a value standpoint, the negative impact of dilution is mitigated by the increase in the company’s stock price that must occur to trigger the dilutive event.

 

   

Terms of the offer (discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion, conversion features, termination penalties, exit strategy):

 

   

The terms of the offer should be weighed against the alternatives of the company and in light of company’s financial condition. Ideally, the conversion price for convertible debt and the exercise price for warrants should be at a premium to the then prevailing stock price at the time of private placement.

 

   

When evaluating the magnitude of a private placement discount or premium, consider factors that influence the discount or premium, such as, liquidity, due diligence costs, control and monitoring costs, capital scarcity, information asymmetry, and anticipation of future performance.

 

   

Financial issues:

   

The company’s financial condition;

   

Degree of need for capital;

   

Use of proceeds;

   

Effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

   

Current and proposed cash burn rate;

   

Going concern viability and the state of the capital and credit markets.

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue alternatives and whether the company engaged in a process to evaluate alternatives: A fair, unconstrained process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Financing alternatives can include joint ventures, partnership, merger, or sale of part or all of the company.

 

   

Control issues:

   

Change in management;

   

Change in control;

   

Guaranteed board and committee seats;

   

Standstill provisions;

   

Voting agreements;

   

Veto power over certain corporate actions; and

   

Minority versus majority ownership and corresponding minority discount or majority control premium.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      37 of 72  

 

A-37


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Conflicts of interest:

   

Conflicts of interest should be viewed from the perspective of the company and the investor.

   

Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s length? Are managerial incentives aligned with shareholder interests?

 

   

Market reaction:

   

The market’s response to the proposed deal. A negative market reaction is a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one-day impact on the unaffected stock price.

Vote for the private placement, or for the issuance of warrants and/or convertible debentures in a private placement, if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Reorganization/Restructuring Plan (Bankruptcy)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to common shareholders on bankruptcy plans of reorganization, considering the following factors including, but not limited to:

 

   

Estimated value and financial prospects of the reorganized company;

   

Percentage ownership of current shareholders in the reorganized company;

   

Whether shareholders are adequately represented in the reorganization process (particularly through the existence of an Official Equity Committee);

   

The cause(s) of the bankruptcy filing, and the extent to which the plan of reorganization addresses the cause(s);

   

Existence of a superior alternative to the plan of reorganization; and

   

Governance of the reorganized company.

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on SPAC mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following:

 

   

Valuation - Is the value being paid by the SPAC reasonable? SPACs generally lack an independent fairness opinion and the financials on the target may be limited. Compare the conversion price with the intrinsic value of the target company provided in the fairness opinion. Also, evaluate the proportionate value of the combined entity attributable to the SPAC IPO shareholders versus the pre-merger value of SPAC. Additionally, a private company discount may be applied to the target if it is a private entity.

   

Market reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction may be a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one-day impact on the unaffected stock price.

   

Deal timing - A main driver for most transactions is that the SPAC charter typically requires the deal to be complete within 18 to 24 months, or the SPAC is to be liquidated. Evaluate the valuation, market reaction, and potential conflicts of interest for deals that are announced close to the liquidation date.

   

Negotiations and process - What was the process undertaken to identify potential target companies within specified industry or location specified in charter? Consider the background of the sponsors.

   

Conflicts of interest - How are sponsors benefiting from the transaction compared to IPO shareholders? Potential conflicts could arise if a fairness opinion is issued by the insiders to qualify the deal rather than a third party or if management is encouraged to pay a higher price for the target because of an 80 percent rule (the charter requires that the fair market value of the target is at least equal to 80 percent of net assets of the SPAC). Also, there may be sense of urgency by the management team of the SPAC to close the deal since its charter typically requires a transaction to be completed within the 18-24-month timeframe.

   

Voting agreements - Are the sponsors entering into enter into any voting agreements/tender offers with shareholders who are likely to vote against the proposed merger or exercise conversion rights?

   

Governance - What is the impact of having the SPAC CEO or founder on key committees following the proposed merger?

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      38 of 72  

 

A-38


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs) - Proposals for Extensions

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on SPAC extension proposals taking into account the length of the requested extension, the status of any pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process, any added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders, and any prior extension requests.

 

   

Length of request: Typically, extension requests range from two to six months, depending on the progression of the SPAC’s acquistion process.

   

Pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process: Sometimes an intial business combination was already put to a shareholder vote, but, for varying reasons, the transaction could not be consummated by the termination date and the SPAC is requesting an extension. Other times, the SPAC has entered into a definitive transaction agreement, but needs additional time to consummate or hold the shareholder meeting.

   

Added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders: Sometimes the SPAC sponsor (or other insiders) will contribute, typically as a loan to the company, additional funds that will be added to the redemption value of each public share as long as such shares are not redeemed in connection with the extension request. The purpose of the “equity kicker” is to incentivize shareholders to hold their shares through the end of the requested extension or until the time the transaction is put to a shareholder vote, rather than electing redeemption at the extension proposal meeting.

   

Prior extension requests: Some SPACs request additional time beyond the extension period sought in prior extension requests.

Spin-offs

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on spin-offs, considering:

 

   

Tax and regulatory advantages;

   

Planned use of the sale proceeds;

   

Valuation of spinoff;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

Benefits to the parent company;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Managerial incentives;

   

Corporate governance changes;

   

Changes in the capital structure.

Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking to maximize shareholder value by:

 

   

Hiring a financial advisor to explore strategic alternatives;

   

Selling the company; or

   

Liquidating the company and distributing the proceeds to shareholders.

These proposals should be evaluated based on the following factors:

 

   

Prolonged poor performance with no turnaround in sight;

   

Signs of entrenched board and management (such as the adoption of takeover defenses);

   

Strategic plan in place for improving value;

   

Likelihood of receiving reasonable value in a sale or dissolution; and

   

The company actively exploring its strategic options, including retaining a financial advisor.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      39 of 72  

 

A-39


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

5.   Compensation

Executive Pay Evaluation

Underlying all evaluations are five global principles that most investors expect corporations to adhere to in designing and administering executive and director compensation programs:

 

  1.

Maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value: This principle encompasses overall executive pay practices, which must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive shareholder value creation over the long term. It will take into consideration, among other factors, the link between pay and performance; the mix between fixed and variable pay; performance goals; and equity-based plan costs;

  2.

Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”: This principle addresses the appropriateness of long or indefinite contracts, excessive severance packages, and guaranteed compensation;

  3.

Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee: This principle promotes oversight of executive pay programs by directors with appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and a sound process for compensation decision-making (e.g., including access to independent expertise and advice when needed);

  4.

Provide shareholders with clear, comprehensive compensation disclosures: This principle underscores the importance of informative and timely disclosures that enable shareholders to evaluate executive pay practices fully and fairly;

  5.

Avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors: This principle recognizes the interests of shareholders in ensuring that compensation to outside directors is reasonable and does not compromise their independence and ability to make appropriate judgments in overseeing managers’ pay and performance. At the market level, it may incorporate a variety of generally accepted best practices.

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation—Management Proposals (Say-on-Pay)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on ballot items related to executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation.

Vote against Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay or “SOP”) if:

 

   

There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

   

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices;

   

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Vote against or withhold from the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:

 

   

There is no SOP on the ballot, and an against vote on an SOP would otherwise be warranted due to pay-for-performance misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues raised previously, or a combination thereof;

   

The board fails to respond adequately to a previous SOP proposal that received less than 70 percent support of votes cast;

   

The company has recently practiced or approved problematic pay practices, such as option repricing or option backdating; or

   

The situation is egregious.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      40 of 72  

 

A-40


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Primary Evaluation Factors for Executive Pay

Pay-for-Performance Evaluation

ISS annually conducts a pay-for-performance analysis to identify strong or satisfactory alignment between pay and performance over a sustained period. With respect to companies in the S&P1500, Russell 3000, or Russell 3000E Indices17, this analysis considers the following:

 

  1.

Peer Group18 Alignment:

 

   

The degree of alignment between the company’s annualized TSR rank and the CEO’s annualized total pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

   

The rankings of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

   

The multiple of the CEO’s total pay relative to the peer group median in the most recent fiscal year.

 

  2.

Absolute Alignment19 – the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior five fiscal years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR during the period.

If the above analysis demonstrates significant unsatisfactory long-term pay-for-performance alignment or, in the case of companies outside the Russell indices, a misalignment between pay and performance is otherwise suggested, our analysis may include any of the following qualitative factors, as relevant to an evaluation of how various pay elements may work to encourage or to undermine long-term value creation and alignment with shareholder interests:

 

   

The ratio of performance- to time-based incentive awards;

   

The overall ratio of performance-based compensation to fixed or discretionary pay;

   

The rigor of performance goals;

   

The complexity and risks around pay program design;

   

The transparency and clarity of disclosure;

   

The company’s peer group benchmarking practices;

   

Financial/operational results, both absolute and relative to peers;

   

Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g., bi-annual awards);

   

Realizable pay20 compared to grant pay; and

   

Any other factors deemed relevant.

 

17 The Russell 3000E Index includes approximately 4,000 of the largest U.S. equity securities.

18 The revised peer group is generally comprised of 14-24 companies that are selected using market cap, revenue (or assets for certain financial firms), GICS industry group, and company’s selected peers’ GICS industry group, with size constraints, via a process designed to select peers that are comparable to the subject company in terms of revenue/assets and industry, and also within a market-cap bucket that is reflective of the company’s market cap. For Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels companies, market cap is the only size determinant.

19 Only Russell 3000 Index companies are subject to the Absolute Alignment analysis.

20 ISS research reports include realizable pay for S&P1500 companies.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      41 of 72  

 

A-41


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Problematic Pay Practices

Problematic pay elements are generally evaluated case-by-case considering the context of a company’s overall pay program and demonstrated pay-for-performance philosophy. The focus is on executive compensation practices that contravene the global pay principles, including:

 

   

Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements;

   

Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking or present a windfall risk; and

   

Pay decisions that circumvent pay-for-performance, such as options backdating or waiving performance requirements.

The list of examples below highlights certain problematic practices that carry significant weight in this overall consideration and may result in adverse vote recommendations:

 

   

Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARs without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options);

   

Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups;

   

New or materially amended agreements that provide for:

   

Excessive termination or CIC severance payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and average/target/most recent bonus);

   

CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties (“single” or “modified single” triggers) or in connection with a problematic Good Reason definition;

   

CIC excise tax gross-up entitlements (including “modified” gross-ups);

   

Multi-year guaranteed awards that are not at risk due to rigorous performance conditions;

   

Liberal CIC definition combined with any single-trigger CIC benefits;

   

Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally-managed issuers (EMIs) such that a reasonable assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI’s executives is not possible;

   

Severance payments made when the termination is not clearly disclosed as involuntary (for example, a termination without cause or resignation for good reason);

   

Any other provision or practice deemed to be egregious and present a significant risk to investors.

The above examples are not an exhaustive list. Please refer to ISS’ U.S. Compensation Policies FAQ document for additional detail on specific pay practices that have been identified as problematic and may lead to negative vote recommendations.

Options Backdating

The following factors should be examined case-by-case to allow for distinctions to be made between “sloppy” plan administration versus deliberate action or fraud:

 

   

Reason and motive for the options backdating issue, such as inadvertent vs. deliberate grant date changes;

   

Duration of options backdating;

   

Size of restatement due to options backdating;

   

Corrective actions taken by the board or compensation committee, such as canceling or re-pricing backdated options, the recouping of option gains on backdated grants; and

   

Adoption of a grant policy that prohibits backdating and creates a fixed grant schedule or window period for equity grants in the future.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      42 of 72  

 

A-42


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Compensation Committee Communications and Responsiveness

Consider the following factors case-by-case when evaluating ballot items related to executive pay on the board’s responsiveness to investor input and engagement on compensation issues:

 

   

Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or

   

Failure to adequately respond to the company’s previous say-on-pay proposal that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast, taking into account:

   

Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);

   

Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;

   

Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns;

   

Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;

   

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say When on Pay”)

 

  General Recommendation: Vote for annual advisory votes on compensation, which provide the most consistent and clear communication channel for shareholder concerns about companies’ executive pay programs.

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

 

  General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on say on Golden Parachute proposals, including consideration of existing change-in-control arrangements maintained with named executive officers but also considering new or extended arrangements.

Features that may result in an “against” recommendation include one or more of the following, depending on the number, magnitude, and/or timing of issue(s):

 

   

Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance;

   

Single-trigger acceleration of unvested equity awards;

   

Full acceleration of equity awards granted shortly before the change in control;

   

Acceleration of performance awards above the target level of performance without compelling rationale;

   

Excessive cash severance (generally >3x base salary and bonus);

   

Excise tax gross-ups triggered and payable;

   

Excessive golden parachute payments (on an absolute basis or as a percentage of transaction equity value); or

   

Recent amendments that incorporate any problematic features (such as those above) or recent actions (such as extraordinary equity grants) that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may not be in the best interests of shareholders; or

   

The company’s assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden parachute advisory vote.

Recent amendment(s) that incorporate problematic features will tend to carry more weight on the overall analysis.

However, the presence of multiple legacy problematic features will also be closely scrutinized.

In cases where the golden parachute vote is incorporated into a company’s advisory vote on compensation (management say-on-pay), ISS will evaluate the say-on-pay proposal in accordance with these guidelines, which may give higher weight to that component of the overall evaluation.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      43 of 72  

 

A-43


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

Please refer to ISS’ U.S. Equity Compensation Plans FAQ document for additional details on the Equity Plan Scorecard policy.

 

  General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on certain equity-based compensation plans21 depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated using an “Equity Plan Scorecard” (EPSC) approach with three pillars:

 

   

Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both:

   

SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants; and

   

SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants.

 

   

Plan Features:

   

Quality of disclosure around vesting upon a change in control (CIC);

   

Discretionary vesting authority;

   

Liberal share recycling on various award types;

   

Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan;

   

Dividends payable prior to award vesting.

 

   

Grant Practices:

   

The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers;

   

Vesting requirements in CEO’s recent equity grants (3-year look-back);

   

The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years);

   

The proportion of the CEO’s most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions;

   

Whether the company maintains a sufficient claw-back policy;

   

Whether the company maintains sufficient post-exercise/vesting share-holding requirements.

Generally vote against the plan proposal if the combination of above factors indicates that the plan is not, overall, in shareholders’ interests, or if any of the following egregious factors (“overriding factors”) apply:

 

   

Awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition;

   

The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval (either by expressly permitting it – for NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies – or by not prohibiting it when the company has a history of repricing – for non-listed companies);

   

The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a significant pay-for-performance disconnect under certain circumstances;

   

The plan is excessively dilutive to shareholders’ holdings;

   

The plan contains an evergreen (automatic share replenishment) feature; or

   

Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

 

 

21 Proposals evaluated under the EPSC policy generally include those to approve or amend (1) stock option plans for employees and/or employees and directors, (2) restricted stock plans for employees and/or employees and directors, and (3) omnibus stock incentive plans for employees and/or employees and directors; amended plans will be further evaluated case-by-case.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      44 of 72  

 

A-44


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Further Information on certain EPSC Factors:

Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT)

The cost of the equity plans is expressed as Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT), which is measured using a binomial option pricing model that assesses the amount of shareholders’ equity flowing out of the company to employees and directors. SVT is expressed as both a dollar amount and as a percentage of market value, and includes the new shares proposed, shares available under existing plans, and shares granted but unexercised (using two measures, in the case of plans subject to the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, as noted above). All award types are valued. For omnibus plans, unless limitations are placed on the most expensive types of awards (for example, full-value awards), the assumption is made that all awards to be granted will be the most expensive types.

For proposals that are not subject to the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, Shareholder Value Transfer is reasonable if it falls below a company-specific benchmark. The benchmark is determined as follows: The top quartile performers in each industry group (using the Global Industry Classification Standard: GICS) are identified. Benchmark SVT levels for each industry are established based on these top performers’ historic SVT. Regression analyses are run on each industry group to identify the variables most strongly correlated to SVT. The benchmark industry SVT level is then adjusted upwards or downwards for the specific company by plugging the company-specific performance measures, size, and cash compensation into the industry cap equations to arrive at the company’s benchmark.22

Three-Year Value-Adjusted Burn Rate

A “Value-Adjusted Burn Rate” is used for stock plan evaluations. Value-Adjusted Burn Rate benchmarks are calculated as the greater of: (1) an industry-specific threshold based on three-year burn rates within the company’s GICS group segmented by S&P 500, Russell 3000 index (less the S&P 500) and non-Russell 3000 index; and (2) a de minimis threshold established separately for each of the S&P 500, the Russell 3000 index less the S&P 500, and the non-Russell 3000 index. Year-over-year burn-rate benchmark changes will be limited to a predetermined range above or below the prior year’s burn-rate benchmark.

The Value-Adjusted Burn Rate is calculated as follows:

Value-Adjusted Burn Rate = ((# of options * option’s dollar value using a Black-Scholes model) + (# of full-value awards * stock price)) / (Weighted average common shares * stock price).

Egregious Factors

Liberal Change in Control Definition

Generally vote against equity plans if the plan has a liberal definition of change in control and the equity awards could vest upon such liberal definition of change in control, even though an actual change in control may not occur. Examples of such a definition include, but are not limited to, announcement or commencement of a tender

offer, provisions for acceleration upon a “potential” takeover, shareholder approval of a merger or other transactions, or similar language.

 

22 For plans evaluated under the Equity Plan Scorecard policy, the company’s SVT benchmark is considered along with other factors.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      45 of 72  

 

A-45


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Repricing Provisions

Vote against plans that expressly permit the repricing or exchange of underwater stock options/stock appreciate rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval. “Repricing” typically includes the ability to do any of the following:

 

   

Amend the terms of outstanding options or SARs to reduce the exercise price of such outstanding options or SARs;

   

Cancel outstanding options or SARs in exchange for options or SARs with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the original options or SARs;

   

Cancel underwater options in exchange for stock awards; or

   

Provide cash buyouts of underwater options.

While the above cover most types of repricing, ISS may view other provisions as akin to repricing depending on the facts and circumstances.

Also, vote against or withhold from members of the Compensation Committee who approved repricing (as defined above or otherwise determined by ISS), without prior shareholder approval, even if such repricings are allowed in their equity plan.

Vote against plans that do not expressly prohibit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval if the company has a history of repricing/buyouts without shareholder approval, and the applicable listing standards would not preclude them from doing so.

Problematic Pay Practices or Significant Pay-for-Performance Disconnect

If the equity plan on the ballot is a vehicle for problematic pay practices, vote against the plan.

ISS may recommend a vote against the equity plan if the plan is determined to be a vehicle for pay-for-performance misalignment. Considerations in voting against the equity plan may include, but are not limited to:

 

   

Severity of the pay-for-performance misalignment;

   

Whether problematic equity grant practices are driving the misalignment; and/or

   

Whether equity plan awards have been heavily concentrated to the CEO and/or the other NEOs.

Amending Cash and Equity Plans (including Approval for Tax Deductibility (162(m))

 

  General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on amendments to cash and equity incentive plans.

Generally vote for proposals to amend executive cash, stock, or cash and stock incentive plans if the proposal:

 

   

Addresses administrative features only; or

   

Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee consists entirely of independent directors, per ISS’ Classification of Directors. Note that if the company is presenting the plan to shareholders for the first time for any reason (including after the company’s initial public offering), or if the proposal is bundled with other material plan amendments, then the recommendation will be case-by-case (see below).

Vote against proposals to amend executive cash, stock, or cash and stock incentive plans if the proposal:

 

   

Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee does not consist entirely of independent directors, per ISS’ Classification of Directors.

 

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      46 of 72  

 

A-46


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote case-by-case on all other proposals to amend cash incentive plans. This includes plans presented to shareholders for the first time after the company’s IPO and/or proposals that bundle material amendment(s) other than those for Section 162(m) purposes.

Vote case-by-case on all other proposals to amend equity incentive plans, considering the following:

 

   

If the proposal requests additional shares and/or the amendments include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments.

   

If the plan is being presented to shareholders for the first time (including after the company’s IPO), whether or not additional shares are being requested, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of any amendments.

   

If there is no request for additional shares and the amendments do not include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, then the recommendation will be based entirely on an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments, and the EPSC evaluation will be shown only for informational purposes.

In the first two case-by-case evaluation scenarios, the EPSC evaluation/score is the more heavily weighted consideration.

Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations

Dividend Equivalent Rights

Options that have Dividend Equivalent Rights (DERs) associated with them will have a higher calculated award value than those without DERs under the binomial model, based on the value of these dividend streams. The higher value will be applied to new shares, shares available under existing plans, and shares awarded but not exercised per the plan specifications. DERS transfer more shareholder equity to employees and non-employee directors and this cost should be captured.

Operating Partnership (OP) Units in Equity Plan Analysis of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

For Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS), include the common shares issuable upon conversion of outstanding Operating Partnership (OP) units in the share count for the purposes of determining: (1) market capitalization in the Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) analysis and (2) shares outstanding in the burn rate analysis.

Other Compensation Plans

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

 

  General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

 

  General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to implement an ESOP or increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, unless the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is excessive (more than five percent of outstanding shares).

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Qualified Plans

 

  General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on qualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for employee stock purchase plans where all of the following apply:

 

   

Purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value;

   

Offering period is 27 months or less; and

   

The number of shares allocated to the plan is 10 percent or less of the outstanding shares.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      47 of 72  

 

A-47


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote against qualified employee stock purchase plans where when the plan features do not meet all of the above criteria.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Non-Qualified Plans

 

  General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on nonqualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for nonqualified employee stock purchase plans with all the following features:

 

   

Broad-based participation;

   

Limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percent of base salary;

   

Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value; and

   

No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase when there is a company matching contribution.

Vote against nonqualified employee stock purchase plans when the plan features do not meet all of the above criteria. If the matching contribution or effective discount exceeds the above, ISS may evaluate the SVT cost of the plan as part of the assessment.

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

 

  General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice options taking into consideration:

 

   

Historic trading patterns--the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term;

   

Rationale for the re-pricing--was the stock price decline beyond management’s control?;

   

Is this a value-for-value exchange?;

   

Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?;

   

Timing--repricing should occur at least one year out from any precipitous drop in company’s stock price;

   

Option vesting--does the new option vest immediately or is there a black-out period?;

   

Term of the option--the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option;

   

Exercise price--should be set at fair market or a premium to market;

   

Participants--executive officers and directors must be excluded.

If the surrendered options are added back to the equity plans for re-issuance, then also take into consideration the company’s total cost of equity plans and its three-year average burn rate.

In addition to the above considerations, evaluate the intent, rationale, and timing of the repricing proposal. The proposal should clearly articulate why the board is choosing to conduct an exchange program at this point in time. Repricing underwater options after a recent precipitous drop in the company’s stock price demonstrates poor timing and warrants additional scrutiny. Also, consider the terms of the surrendered options, such as the grant date, exercise price and vesting schedule. Grant dates of surrendered options should be far enough back (two to three years) so as not to suggest that repricings are being done to take advantage of short-term downward price movements. Similarly, the exercise price of surrendered options should be above the 52-week high for the stock price.

Vote for shareholder proposals to put option repricings to a shareholder vote.

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on plans that provide participants with the option of taking all or a portion of their cash compensation in the form of stock.

Vote for non-employee director-only equity plans that provide a dollar-for-dollar cash-for-stock exchange.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      48 of 72  

 

A-48


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote case-by-case on plans which do not provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange. In cases where the exchange is not dollar-for-dollar, the request for new or additional shares for such equity program will be considered using the binomial option pricing model. In an effort to capture the total cost of total compensation, ISS will not make any adjustments to carve out the in-lieu-of cash compensation.

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

General Recommendation: One-time Transfers: Vote against or withhold from compensation committee members if they fail to submit one-time transfers to shareholders for approval.

Vote case-by-case on one-time transfers. Vote for if:

 

   

Executive officers and non-employee directors are excluded from participating;

   

Stock options are purchased by third-party financial institutions at a discount to their fair value using option pricing models such as Black-Scholes or a Binomial Option Valuation or other appropriate financial models; and

   

There is a two-year minimum holding period for sale proceeds (cash or stock) for all participants.

Additionally, management should provide a clear explanation of why options are being transferred to a third-party institution and whether the events leading up to a decline in stock price were beyond management’s control. A review of the company’s historic stock price volatility should indicate if the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term.

Ongoing TSO program: Vote against equity plan proposals if the details of ongoing TSO programs are not provided to shareholders. Since TSOs will be one of the award types under a stock plan, the ongoing TSO program, structure, and mechanics must be disclosed to shareholders. The specific criteria to be considered in evaluating these proposals include, but not limited, to the following:

 

   

Eligibility;

   

Vesting;

   

Bid-price;

   

Term of options;

   

Cost of the program and impact of the TSOs on company’s total option expense; and

   

Option repricing policy.

Amendments to existing plans that allow for introduction of transferability of stock options should make clear that only options granted post-amendment shall be transferable.

Director Compensation

Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking ratification of non-employee director compensation, based on the following factors:

 

   

If the equity plan under which non-employee director grants are made is on the ballot, whether or not it warrants support; and

   

An assessment of the following qualitative factors:

   

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

   

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

   

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

   

Equity award vesting schedules;

   

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      49 of 72  

 

A-49


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

   

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

   

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on compensation plans for non-employee directors, based on:

 

   

The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants;

   

The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers (in certain circumstances); and

   

The presence of any egregious plan features (such as an option repricing provision or liberal CIC vesting risk).

On occasion, non-employee director stock plans will exceed the plan cost or burn-rate benchmarks when combined with employee or executive stock plans. In such cases, vote case-by-case on the plan taking into consideration the following qualitative factors:

 

   

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

   

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

   

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

   

Equity award vesting schedules;

   

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

   

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

   

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

   

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Non-Employee Director Retirement Plans

General Recommendation: Vote against retirement plans for non-employee directors. Vote for shareholder proposals to eliminate retirement plans for non-employee directors.

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals seeking deferral of a portion of annual bonus pay, with ultimate payout linked to sustained results for the performance metrics on which the bonus was earned (whether for the named executive officers or a wider group of employees), taking into account the following factors:

 

   

The company’s past practices regarding equity and cash compensation;

   

Whether the company has a holding period or stock ownership requirements in place, such as a meaningful retention ratio (at least 50 percent for full tenure); and

   

Whether the company has a rigorous claw-back policy in place.

Compensation Consultants—Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking disclosure regarding the company, board, or compensation committee’s use of compensation consultants, such as company name, business relationship(s), and fees paid.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      50 of 72  

 

A-50


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Disclosure/Setting Levels or Types of Compensation for Executives and Directors

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking additional disclosure of executive and director pay information, provided the information requested is relevant to shareholders’ needs, would not put the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its industry, and is not unduly burdensome to the company.

Generally vote against shareholder proposals seeking to set absolute levels on compensation or otherwise dictate the amount or form of compensation (such as types of compensation elements or specific metrics) to be used for executive or directors.

Generally vote against shareholder proposals that mandate a minimum amount of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

Vote case-by-case on all other shareholder proposals regarding executive and director pay, taking into account relevant factors, including but not limited to: company performance, pay level and design versus peers, history of compensation concerns or pay-for-performance disconnect, and/or the scope and prescriptive nature of the proposal.

Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of obtaining shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make payments or awards following the death of a senior executive in the form of unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. This would not apply to any benefit programs or equity plan proposals for which the broad-based employee population is eligible.

Hold Equity Past Retirement or for a Significant Period of Time

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to adopt policies requiring senior executive officers to retain a portion of net shares acquired through compensation plans. The following factors will be taken into account:

 

   

The percentage/ratio of net shares required to be retained;

   

The time period required to retain the shares;

   

Whether the company has equity retention, holding period, and/or stock ownership requirements in place and the robustness of such requirements;

   

Whether the company has any other policies aimed at mitigating risk taking by executives;

   

Executives’ actual stock ownership and the degree to which it meets or exceeds the proponent’s suggested holding period/retention ratio or the company’s existing requirements; and

   

Problematic pay practices, current and past, which may demonstrate a short-term versus long-term focus.

Pay Disparity

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals calling for an analysis of the pay disparity between corporate executives and other non-executive employees. The following factors will be considered:

 

   

The company’s current level of disclosure of its executive compensation setting process, including how the company considers pay disparity;

   

If any problematic pay practices or pay-for-performance concerns have been identified at the company; and

   

The level of shareholder support for the company’s pay programs.

Generally vote against proposals calling for the company to use the pay disparity analysis or pay ratio in a specific way to set or limit executive pay.

 

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      51 of 72  

 

A-51


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Pay for Performance/Performance-Based Awards

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals requesting that a significant amount of future long-term incentive compensation awarded to senior executives shall be performance-based and requesting that the board adopt and disclose challenging performance metrics to shareholders, based on the following analytical steps:

 

   

First, vote for shareholder proposals advocating the use of performance-based equity awards, such as performance contingent options or restricted stock, indexed options, or premium-priced options, unless the proposal is overly restrictive or if the company has demonstrated that it is using a “substantial” portion of performance-based awards for its top executives. Standard stock options and performance-accelerated awards do not meet the criteria to be considered as performance-based awards. Further, premium-priced options should have a meaningful premium to be considered performance-based awards.

   

Second, assess the rigor of the company’s performance-based equity program. If the bar set for the performance-based program is too low based on the company’s historical or peer group comparison, generally vote for the proposal. Furthermore, if target performance results in an above target payout, vote for the shareholder proposal due to program’s poor design. If the company does not disclose the performance metric of the performance-based equity program, vote for the shareholder proposal regardless of the outcome of the first step to the test.

In general, vote for the shareholder proposal if the company does not meet both of the above two steps.

Pay for Superior Performance

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that request the board establish a pay-for-superior performance standard in the company’s executive compensation plan for senior executives. These proposals generally include the following principles:

 

   

Set compensation targets for the plan’s annual and long-term incentive pay components at or below the peer group median;

   

Deliver a majority of the plan’s target long-term compensation through performance-vested, not simply time-vested, equity awards;

   

Provide the strategic rationale and relative weightings of the financial and non-financial performance metrics or criteria used in the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan;

   

Establish performance targets for each plan financial metric relative to the performance of the company’s peer companies;

   

Limit payment under the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan to when the company’s performance on its selected financial performance metrics exceeds peer group median performance.

Consider the following factors in evaluating this proposal:

 

   

What aspects of the company’s annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven?

   

If the annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven, are the performance criteria and hurdle rates disclosed to shareholders or are they benchmarked against a disclosed peer group?

   

Can shareholders assess the correlation between pay and performance based on the current disclosure?

   

What type of industry and stage of business cycle does the company belong to?

Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for the addition of certain safeguards in prearranged trading plans (10b5-1 plans) for executives. Safeguards may include:

 

   

Adoption, amendment, or termination of a 10b5-1 Plan must be disclosed in a Form 8-K;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      52 of 72  

 

A-52


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Amendment or early termination of a 10b5-1 Plan allowed only under extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the board;

   

Request that a certain number of days that must elapse between adoption or amendment of a 10b5-1 Plan and initial trading under the plan;

   

Reports on Form 4 must identify transactions made pursuant to a 10b5-1 Plan;

   

An executive may not trade in company stock outside the 10b5-1 Plan;

   

Trades under a 10b5-1 Plan must be handled by a broker who does not handle other securities transactions for the executive.

Prohibit Outside CEOs from Serving on Compensation Committees

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals seeking a policy to prohibit any outside CEO from serving on a company’s compensation committee, unless the company has demonstrated problematic pay practices that raise concerns about the performance and composition of the committee.

Recoupment of Incentive or Stock Compensation in Specified Circumstances

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to recoup incentive cash or stock compensation made to senior executives if it is later determined that the figures upon which incentive compensation is earned turn out to have been in error, or if the senior executive has breached company policy or has engaged in misconduct that may be significantly detrimental to the company’s financial position or reputation, or if the senior executive failed to manage or monitor risks that subsequently led to significant financial or reputational harm to the company. Many companies have adopted policies that permit recoupment in cases where an executive’s fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation. However, such policies may be narrow given that not all misconduct or negligence may result in significant financial restatements. Misconduct, negligence, or lack of sufficient oversight by senior executives may lead to significant financial loss or reputational damage that may have long-lasting impact.

In considering whether to support such shareholder proposals, ISS will take into consideration the following factors:

 

   

If the company has adopted a formal recoupment policy;

   

The rigor of the recoupment policy focusing on how and under what circumstances the company may recoup incentive or stock compensation;

   

Whether the company has chronic restatement history or material financial problems;

   

Whether the company’s policy substantially addresses the concerns raised by the proponent;

   

Disclosure of recoupment of incentive or stock compensation from senior executives or lack thereof; or

   

Any other relevant factors.

Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes

General Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals requiring that golden parachutes or executive severance agreements be submitted for shareholder ratification, unless the proposal requires shareholder approval prior to entering into employment contracts.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to ratify or cancel golden parachutes. An acceptable parachute should include, but is not limited to, the following:

 

   

The triggering mechanism should be beyond the control of management;

   

The amount should not exceed three times base amount (defined as the average annual taxable W-2 compensation during the five years prior to the year in which the change of control occurs);

   

Change-in-control payments should be double-triggered, i.e., (1) after a change in control has taken place, and (2) termination of the executive as a result of the change in control. Change in control is defined as a change in the company ownership structure.

 

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      53 of 72  

 

A-53


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Share Buyback Impact on Incentive Program Metrics

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the company exclude the impact of share buybacks from the calculation of incentive program metrics, considering the following factors:

 

   

The frequency and timing of the company’s share buybacks;

   

The use of per-share metrics in incentive plans;

   

The effect of recent buybacks on incentive metric results and payouts; and

   

Whether there is any indication of metric result manipulation.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in SERP agreements to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to limit the executive benefits provided under the company’s supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) by limiting covered compensation to a senior executive’s annual salary or those pay elements covered for the general employee population.

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of not providing tax gross-up payments to executives, except in situations where gross-ups are provided pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company, such as a relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.

Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment/Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking a policy requiring termination of employment prior to severance payment and/or eliminating accelerated vesting of unvested equity.

The following factors will be considered:

 

   

The company’s current treatment of equity upon employment termination and/or in change-in-control situations (i.e., vesting is double triggered and/or pro rata, does it allow for the assumption of equity by acquiring company, the treatment of performance shares, etc.);

   

Current employment agreements, including potential poor pay practices such as gross-ups embedded in those agreements.

Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits automatic acceleration of the vesting of equity awards to senior executives upon a voluntary termination of employment or in the event of a change in control (except for pro rata vesting considering the time elapsed and attainment of any related performance goals between the award date and the change in control).

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      54 of 72  

 

A-54


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

6.   Routine/Miscellaneous

Adjourn Meeting

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to provide management with the authority to adjourn an annual or special meeting absent compelling reasons to support the proposal.

Vote for proposals that relate specifically to soliciting votes for a merger or transaction if supporting that merger or transaction. Vote against proposals if the wording is too vague or if the proposal includes “other business.”

Amend Quorum Requirements

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding, taking into consideration:

 

   

The new quorum threshold requested;

   

The rationale presented for the reduction;

   

The market capitalization of the company (size, inclusion in indices);

   

The company’s ownership structure;

   

Previous voter turnout or attempts to achieve quorum;

   

Any provisions or commitments to restore quorum to a majority of shares outstanding, should voter turnout improve sufficiently; and

   

Other factors as appropriate.

In general, a quorum threshold kept as close to a majority of shares outstanding as is achievable is preferred.

Vote case-by-case on directors who unilaterally lower the quorum requirements below a majority of the shares outstanding, taking into consideration the factors listed above.

Amend Minor Bylaws

General Recommendation: Vote for bylaw or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (updates or corrections).

Change Company Name

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to change the corporate name unless there is compelling evidence that the change would adversely impact shareholder value.

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

General Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable.

Vote against shareholder proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable.

Other Business

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to approve other business when it appears as a voting item.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      55 of 72  

 

A-55


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

7.   Social and Environmental Issues

Global Approach – E&S Shareholder Proposals

ISS applies a common approach globally to evaluating social and environmental proposals which cover a wide range of topics, including consumer and product safety, environment and energy, labor standards and human rights, workplace and board diversity, and corporate political issues. While a variety of factors goes into each analysis, the overall principle guiding all vote recommendations focuses on how the proposal may enhance or protect shareholder value in either the short or long term.

General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case, examining primarily whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value. The following factors will be considered:

 

   

If the issues presented in the proposal are being appropriately or effectively dealt with through legislation or government regulation;

   

If the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue(s) raised in the proposal;

   

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive;

   

The company’s approach compared with any industry standard practices for addressing the issue(s) raised by the proposal;

   

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s practices related to the issue(s) raised in the proposal;

   

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether reasonable and sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and

   

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether implementation would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Endorsement of Principles

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals seeking a company’s endorsement of principles that support a particular public policy position. Endorsing a set of principles may require a company to take a stand on an issue that is beyond its own control and may limit its flexibility with respect to future developments. Management and the board should be afforded the flexibility to make decisions on specific public policy positions based on their own assessment of the most beneficial strategies for the company.

Animal Welfare

Animal Welfare Policies

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking a report on a company’s animal welfare standards, or animal welfare-related risks, unless:

 

   

The company has already published a set of animal welfare standards and monitors compliance;

   

The company’s standards are comparable to industry peers; and

   

There are no recent significant fines, litigation, or controversies related to the company’s and/or its suppliers’ treatment of animals.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      56 of 72  

 

A-56


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Animal Testing

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to phase out the use of animals in product testing, unless:

 

   

The company is conducting animal testing programs that are unnecessary or not required by regulation;

   

The company is conducting animal testing when suitable alternatives are commonly accepted and used by industry peers; or

   

There are recent, significant fines or litigation related to the company’s treatment of animals.

Animal Slaughter

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting the implementation of Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK) methods at company and/or supplier operations unless such methods are required by legislation or generally accepted as the industry standard.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting a report on the feasibility of implementing CAK methods at company and/or supplier operations considering the availability of existing research conducted by the company or industry groups on this topic and any fines or litigation related to current animal processing procedures at the company.

Consumer Issues

Genetically Modified Ingredients

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting that a company voluntarily label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in its products. The labeling of products with GE ingredients is best left to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

Vote case-by-case on proposals asking for a report on the feasibility of labeling products containing GE ingredients, taking into account:

 

   

The potential impact of such labeling on the company’s business;

   

The quality of the company’s disclosure on GE product labeling, related voluntary initiatives, and how this disclosure compares with industry peer disclosure; and

   

Company’s current disclosure on the feasibility of GE product labeling.

Generally vote against proposals seeking a report on the social, health, and environmental effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Studies of this sort are better undertaken by regulators and the scientific community.

Generally vote against proposals to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products, or proposals asking for reports outlining the steps necessary to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products. Such decisions are more appropriately made by management with consideration of current regulations.

Reports on Potentially Controversial Business/Financial Practices

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company’s potentially controversial business or financial practices or products, taking into account:

 

   

Whether the company has adequately disclosed mechanisms in place to prevent abuses;

   

Whether the company has adequately disclosed the financial risks of the products/practices in question;

   

Whether the company has been subject to violations of related laws or serious controversies; and

   

Peer companies’ policies/practices in this area.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      57 of 72  

 

A-57


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, and Prescription Drug Reimportation

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting that companies implement specific price restraints on pharmaceutical products unless the company fails to adhere to legislative guidelines or industry norms in its product pricing practices.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting that a company report on its product pricing or access to medicine policies, considering:

 

   

The potential for reputational, market, and regulatory risk exposure;

   

Existing disclosure of relevant policies;

   

Deviation from established industry norms;

   

Relevant company initiatives to provide research and/or products to disadvantaged consumers;

   

Whether the proposal focuses on specific products or geographic regions;

   

The potential burden and scope of the requested report;

   

Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines at the company.

Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on the financial and legal impact of its prescription drug reimportation policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

Generally vote against proposals requesting that companies adopt specific policies to encourage or constrain prescription drug reimportation. Such matters are more appropriately the province of legislative activity and may place the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its peers.

Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives/procedures, and oversight mechanisms related to toxic/hazardous materials or product safety in its supply chain, unless:

 

   

The company already discloses similar information through existing reports such as a supplier code of conduct and/or a sustainability report;

   

The company has formally committed to the implementation of a toxic/hazardous materials and/or product safety and supply chain reporting and monitoring program based on industry norms or similar standards within a specified time frame; and

   

The company has not been recently involved in relevant significant controversies, fines, or litigation.

Vote case-by-case on resolutions requesting that companies develop a feasibility assessment to phase-out of certain toxic/hazardous materials, or evaluate and disclose the potential financial and legal risks associated with utilizing certain materials, considering:

 

   

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its product safety policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;

   

Current regulations in the markets in which the company operates; and

   

Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines stemming from toxic/hazardous materials at the company.

Generally vote against resolutions requiring that a company reformulate its products.

Tobacco-Related Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on resolutions regarding the advertisement of tobacco products, considering:

 

   

Recent related fines, controversies, or significant litigation;

   

Whether the company complies with relevant laws and regulations on the marketing of tobacco;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      58 of 72  

 

A-58


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Whether the company’s advertising restrictions deviate from those of industry peers;

   

Whether the company entered into the Master Settlement Agreement, which restricts marketing of tobacco to youth; and

   

Whether restrictions on marketing to youth extend to foreign countries.

Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding second-hand smoke, considering;

 

   

Whether the company complies with all laws and regulations;

   

The degree that voluntary restrictions beyond those mandated by law might hurt the company’s competitiveness; and

   

The risk of any health-related liabilities.

Generally vote against resolutions to cease production of tobacco-related products, to avoid selling products to tobacco companies, to spin-off tobacco-related businesses, or prohibit investment in tobacco equities. Such business decisions are better left to company management or portfolio managers.

Generally vote against proposals regarding tobacco product warnings. Such decisions are better left to public health authorities.

Climate Change

Say on Climate (SoC) Management Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals that request shareholders to approve the company’s climate transition action plan23, taking into account the completeness and rigor of the plan. Information that will be considered where available includes the following:

 

   

The extent to which the company’s climate related disclosures are in line with TCFD recommendations and meet other market standards;

   

Disclosure of its operational and supply chain GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3);

   

The completeness and rigor of company’s short-, medium-, and long-term targets for reducing operational and supply chain GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3 if relevant);

   

Whether the company has sought and received third-party approval that its targets are science-based;

   

Whether the company has made a commitment to be “net zero” for operational and supply chain emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) by 2050;

   

Whether the company discloses a commitment to report on the implementation of its plan in subsequent years;

   

Whether the company’s climate data has received third-party assurance;

   

Disclosure of how the company’s lobbying activities and its capital expenditures align with company strategy;

   

Whether there are specific industry decarbonization challenges; and

   

The company’s related commitment, disclosure, and performance compared to its industry peers.

Say on Climate (SoC) Shareholder Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that request the company to disclose a report providing its GHG emissions levels and reduction targets and/or its upcoming/approved climate transition action plan and provide shareholders the opportunity to express approval or disapproval of its GHG emissions reduction plan, taking into account information such as the following:

 

   

The completeness and rigor of the company’s climate-related disclosure;

 

 

23 Variations of this request also include climate transition related ambitions, or commitment to reporting on the implementation of a climate plan.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      59 of 72  

 

A-59


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

The company’s actual GHG emissions performance;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to its GHG emissions; and

   

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive.

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

General Recommendation: Generally vote for resolutions requesting that a company disclose information on the financial, physical, or regulatory risks it faces related to climate change on its operations and investments or on how the company identifies, measures, and manages such risks, considering:

 

   

Whether the company already provides current, publicly-available information on the impact that climate change may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;

   

The company’s level of disclosure compared to industry peers; and

   

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s climate change-related performance.

Generally vote for proposals requesting a report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from company operations and/or products and operations, unless:

 

   

The company already discloses current, publicly-available information on the impacts that GHG emissions may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;

   

The company’s level of disclosure is comparable to that of industry peers; and

   

There are no significant, controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s GHG emissions.

Vote case-by-case on proposals that call for the adoption of GHG reduction goals from products and operations, taking into account:

 

   

Whether the company provides disclosure of year-over-year GHG emissions performance data;

   

Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers;

   

The company’s actual GHG emissions performance;

   

The company’s current GHG emission policies, oversight mechanisms, and related initiatives; and

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions.

Energy Efficiency

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its energy efficiency policies, unless:

 

   

The company complies with applicable energy efficiency regulations and laws, and discloses its participation in energy efficiency policies and programs, including disclosure of benchmark data, targets, and performance measures; or

   

The proponent requests adoption of specific energy efficiency goals within specific timelines.

Renewable Energy

General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on the feasibility of developing renewable energy resources unless the report would be duplicative of existing disclosure or irrelevant to the company’s line of business.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      60 of 72  

 

A-60


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Generally vote against proposals requesting that the company invest in renewable energy resources. Such decisions are best left to management’s evaluation of the feasibility and financial impact that such programs may have on the company.

Generally vote against proposals that call for the adoption of renewable energy goals, taking into account:

 

   

The scope and structure of the proposal;

   

The company’s current level of disclosure on renewable energy use and GHG emissions; and

   

The company’s disclosure of policies, practices, and oversight implemented to manage GHG emissions and mitigate climate change risks.

Diversity

Board Diversity

General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on a company’s efforts to diversify the board, unless:

 

   

The gender and racial minority representation of the company’s board is reasonably inclusive in relation to companies of similar size and business; and

   

The board already reports on its nominating procedures and gender and racial minority initiatives on the board and within the company.

Vote case-by-case on proposals asking a company to increase the gender and racial minority representation on its board, taking into account:

 

   

The degree of existing gender and racial minority diversity on the company’s board and among its executive officers;

   

The level of gender and racial minority representation that exists at the company’s industry peers;

   

The company’s established process for addressing gender and racial minority board representation;

   

Whether the proposal includes an overly prescriptive request to amend nominating committee charter language;

   

The independence of the company’s nominating committee;

   

Whether the company uses an outside search firm to identify potential director nominees; and

   

Whether the company has had recent controversies, fines, or litigation regarding equal employment practices.

Equality of Opportunity

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting a company disclose its diversity policies or initiatives, or proposals requesting disclosure of a company’s comprehensive workforce diversity data, including requests for EEO-1 data, unless:

 

   

The company publicly discloses equal opportunity policies and initiatives in a comprehensive manner;

   

The company already publicly discloses comprehensive workforce diversity data; and

   

The company has no recent significant EEO-related violations or litigation.

Generally vote against proposals seeking information on the diversity efforts of suppliers and service providers.

Such requests may pose a significant burden on the company.

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking to amend a company’s EEO statement or diversity policies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, unless the change would be unduly burdensome.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      61 of 72  

 

A-61


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Generally vote against proposals to extend company benefits to, or eliminate benefits from, domestic partners.

Decisions regarding benefits should be left to the discretion of the company.

Gender, Race/Ethnicity Pay Gap

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company’s pay data by gender or race/ ethnicity, or a report on a company’s policies and goals to reduce any gender or race/ethnicity pay gaps, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices and its compensation philosophy on fair and equitable compensation practices;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap issues;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers; and

   

Local laws regarding categorization of race and/or ethnicity and definitions of ethnic and/or racial minorities.

Racial Equity and/or Civil Rights Audit Guidelines

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals asking a company to conduct an independent racial equity and/or civil rights audit, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s established process or framework for addressing racial inequity and discrimination internally;

   

Whether the company adequately discloses workforce diversity and inclusion metrics and goals;

   

Whether the company has issued a public statement related to its racial justice efforts in recent years, or has committed to internal policy review;

   

Whether the company has engaged with impacted communities, stakeholders, and civil rights experts;

   

The company’s track record in recent years of racial justice measures and outreach externally; and

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to racial inequity or discrimination.

Environment and Sustainability

Facility and Workplace Safety

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for workplace safety reports, including reports on accident risk reduction efforts, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current level of disclosure of its workplace health and safety performance data, health and safety management policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;

   

The nature of the company’s business, specifically regarding company and employee exposure to health and safety risks;

   

Recent significant controversies, fines, or violations related to workplace health and safety; and

   

The company’s workplace health and safety performance relative to industry peers.

Vote case-by-case on resolutions requesting that a company report on safety and/or security risks associated with its operations and/or facilities, considering:

 

   

The company’s compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines;

   

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its security and safety policies, procedures, and compliance monitoring; and

   

The existence of recent, significant violations, fines, or controversy regarding the safety and security of the company’s operations and/or facilities.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      62 of 72  

 

A-62


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

General Environmental Proposals and Community Impact Assessments

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on policies and/or the potential (community) social and/or environmental impact of company operations, considering:

 

   

Current disclosure of applicable policies and risk assessment report(s) and risk management procedures;

   

The impact of regulatory non-compliance, litigation, remediation, or reputational loss that may be associated with failure to manage the company’s operations in question, including the management of relevant community and stakeholder relations;

   

The nature, purpose, and scope of the company’s operations in the specific region(s);

   

The degree to which company policies and procedures are consistent with industry norms; and

   

The scope of the resolution.

Hydraulic Fracturing

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s (natural gas) hydraulic fracturing operations, including measures the company has taken to manage and mitigate the potential community and environmental impacts of those operations, considering:

 

   

The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant policies and oversight mechanisms;

   

The company’s current level of such disclosure relative to its industry peers;

   

Potential relevant local, state, or national regulatory developments; and

   

Controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company’s hydraulic fracturing operations.

Operations in Protected Areas

General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on potential environmental damage as a result of company operations in protected regions, unless:

 

   

Operations in the specified regions are not permitted by current laws or regulations;

   

The company does not currently have operations or plans to develop operations in these protected regions; or

   

The company’s disclosure of its operations and environmental policies in these regions is comparable to industry peers.

Recycling

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to report on an existing recycling program, or adopt a new recycling program, taking into account:

 

   

The nature of the company’s business;

   

The current level of disclosure of the company’s existing related programs;

   

The timetable and methods of program implementation prescribed by the proposal;

   

The company’s ability to address the issues raised in the proposal; and

   

How the company’s recycling programs compare to similar programs of its industry peers.

Sustainability Reporting

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms related to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, unless:

 

   

The company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies such as an environment, health, and safety (EHS) report; a comprehensive code of corporate conduct; and/or a diversity report; or

   

The company has formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard within a specified time frame.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      63 of 72  

 

A-63


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Water Issues

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting a company report on, or adopt a new policy on, water-related risks and concerns, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current disclosure of relevant policies, initiatives, oversight mechanisms, and water usage metrics;

   

Whether or not the company’s existing water-related policies and practices are consistent with relevant internationally recognized standards and national/local regulations;

   

The potential financial impact or risk to the company associated with water-related concerns or issues; and

   

Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding water use by the company and its suppliers.

General Corporate Issues

Charitable Contributions

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals restricting a company from making charitable contributions. Charitable contributions are generally useful for assisting worthwhile causes and for creating goodwill in the community. In the absence of bad faith, self-dealing, or gross negligence, management should determine which, and if, contributions are in the best interests of the company.

Data Security, Privacy, and Internet Issues

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the disclosure or implementation of data security, privacy, or information access and management policies and procedures, considering:

 

   

The level of disclosure of company policies and procedures relating to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, information access and management, and Internet censorship;

   

Engagement in dialogue with governments or relevant groups with respect to data security, privacy, or the free flow of information on the Internet;

   

The scope of business involvement and of investment in countries whose governments censor or monitor the Internet and other telecommunications;

   

Applicable market-specific laws or regulations that may be imposed on the company; and

   

Controversies, fines, or litigation related to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, or Internet censorship.

ESG Compensation-Related Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals seeking a report or additional disclosure on the company’s approach, policies, and practices on incorporating environmental and social criteria into its executive compensation strategy, considering:

 

   

The scope and prescriptive nature of the proposal;

   

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its environmental and social performance and governance;

   

The degree to which the board or compensation committee already discloses information on whether it has considered related E&S criteria; and

   

Whether the company has significant controversies or regulatory violations regarding social or environmental issues.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      64 of 72  

 

A-64


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Human Rights, Human Capital Management, and International Operations

Human Rights Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting a report on company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to implement company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies, considering:

 

   

The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed;

   

Whether or not existing relevant policies are consistent with internationally recognized standards;

   

Whether company facilities and those of its suppliers are monitored and how;

   

Company participation in fair labor organizations or other internationally recognized human rights initiatives;

   

Scope and nature of business conducted in markets known to have higher risk of workplace labor/human rights abuse;

   

Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights at the company or its suppliers;

   

The scope of the request; and

   

Deviation from industry sector peer company standards and practices.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting that a company conduct an assessment of the human rights risks in its operations or in its supply chain, or report on its human rights risk assessment process, considering:

 

   

The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed, including information on the implementation of these policies and any related oversight mechanisms;

   

The company’s industry and whether the company or its suppliers operate in countries or areas where there is a history of human rights concerns;

   

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights involving the company or its suppliers, and whether the company has taken remedial steps; and

   

Whether the proposal is unduly burdensome or overly prescriptive.

Mandatory Arbitration

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on a company’s use of mandatory arbitration on employment-related claims, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims; and

   

The company’s disclosure of its policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements compared to its peers.

Operations in High-Risk Markets

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on a company’s potential financial and reputational risks associated with operations in “high-risk” markets, such as a terrorism-sponsoring state or politically/socially unstable region, taking into account:

 

   

The nature, purpose, and scope of the operations and business involved that could be affected by social or political disruption;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      65 of 72  

 

A-65


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Current disclosure of applicable risk assessment(s) and risk management procedures;

   

Compliance with U.S. sanctions and laws;

   

Consideration of other international policies, standards, and laws; and

   

Whether the company has been recently involved in recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to its operations in “high-risk” markets.

Outsourcing/Offshoring

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals calling for companies to report on the risks associated with outsourcing/plant closures, considering:

 

   

Controversies surrounding operations in the relevant market(s);

   

The value of the requested report to shareholders;

   

The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant information on outsourcing and plant closure procedures; and

   

The company’s existing human rights standards relative to industry peers.

Sexual Harassment

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on company actions taken to strengthen policies and oversight to prevent workplace sexual harassment, or a report on risks posed by a company’s failure to prevent workplace sexual harassment, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current policies, practices, oversight mechanisms related to preventing workplace sexual harassment;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to workplace sexual harassment issues; and

   

The company’s disclosure regarding workplace sexual harassment policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers.

Weapons and Military Sales

General Recommendation: Vote against reports on foreign military sales or offsets. Such disclosures may involve sensitive and confidential information. Moreover, companies must comply with government controls and reporting on foreign military sales.

Generally vote against proposals asking a company to cease production or report on the risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions or nuclear weapons components and delivery systems, including disengaging from current and proposed contracts. Such contracts are monitored by government agencies, serve multiple military and non-military uses, and withdrawal from these contracts could have a negative impact on the company’s business.

Political Activities

Lobbying

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting information on a company’s lobbying (including direct, indirect, and grassroots lobbying) activities, policies, or procedures, considering:

 

   

The company’s current disclosure of relevant lobbying policies, and management and board oversight;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding trade associations or other groups that it supports, or is a member of, that engage in lobbying activities; and

   

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s lobbying-related activities.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      66 of 72  

 

A-66


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Political Contributions

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities, considering:

 

   

The company’s policies, and management and board oversight related to its direct political contributions and payments to trade associations or other groups that may be used for political purposes;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding its support of, and participation in, trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and

   

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company’s political contributions or political activities.

Vote against proposals barring a company from making political contributions. Businesses are affected by legislation at the federal, state, and local level; barring political contributions can put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Vote against proposals to publish in newspapers and other media a company’s political contributions. Such publications could present significant cost to the company without providing commensurate value to shareholders.

Political Expenditures and Lobbying Congruency

General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case on proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s alignment of political contributions, lobbying, and electioneering spending with a company’s publicly stated values and policies, considering:

 

   

The company’s policies, management, board oversight, governance processes, and level of disclosure related to direct political contributions, lobbying activities, and payments to trade associations, political action committees, or other groups that may be used for political purposes;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding: the reasons for its support of candidates for public offices; the reasons for support of and participation in trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and other political activities;

   

Any incongruencies identified between a company’s direct and indirect political expenditures and its publicly stated values and priorities.

   

Recent significant controversies related to the company’s direct and indirect lobbying, political contributions, or political activities.

Generally vote case-by-case on proposals requesting comparison of a company’s political spending to objectives that can mitigate material risks for the company, such as limiting global warming.

Political Ties

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals asking a company to affirm political nonpartisanship in the workplace, so long as:

 

   

There are no recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s political contributions or trade association spending; and

   

The company has procedures in place to ensure that employee contributions to company-sponsored political action committees (PACs) are strictly voluntary and prohibit coercion.

Vote against proposals asking for a list of company executives, directors, consultants, legal counsels, lobbyists, or investment bankers that have prior government service and whether such service had a bearing on the business of the company. Such a list would be burdensome to prepare without providing any meaningful information to shareholders.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      67 of 72  

 

A-67


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

8.   Mutual Fund Proxies

Election of Directors

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of directors and trustees, following the same guidelines for uncontested directors for public company shareholder meetings. However, mutual fund boards do not usually have compensation committees, so do not withhold for the lack of this committee.

Closed End Funds- Unilateral Opt-In to Control Share Acquisition Statutes

General Recommendation: For closed-end management investment companies (CEFs), vote against or withhold from nominating/governance committee members (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) at CEFs that have not provided a compelling rationale for opting-in to a Control Share Acquisition statute, nor submitted a by-law amendment to a shareholder vote.

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on conversion proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Past performance as a closed-end fund;

   

Market in which the fund invests;

   

Measures taken by the board to address the discount; and

   

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals.

Proxy Contests

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proxy contests, considering the following factors:

 

   

Past performance relative to its peers;

   

Market in which the fund invests;

   

Measures taken by the board to address the issues;

   

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals;

   

Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;

   

Independence of directors;

   

Experience and skills of director candidates;

   

Governance profile of the company;

   

Evidence of management entrenchment.

Investment Advisory Agreements

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on investment advisory agreements, considering the following factors:

 

   

Proposed and current fee schedules;

   

Fund category/investment objective;

   

Performance benchmarks;

   

Share price performance as compared with peers;

   

Resulting fees relative to peers;

   

Assignments (where the advisor undergoes a change of control).

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

General Recommendation: Vote for the establishment of new classes or series of shares.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      68 of 72  

 

A-68


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Preferred Stock Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the authorization for or increase in preferred shares, considering the following factors:

 

   

Stated specific financing purpose;

   

Possible dilution for common shares;

   

Whether the shares can be used for antitakeover purposes.

1940 Act Policies

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on policies under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940, considering the following factors:

 

   

Potential competitiveness;

   

Regulatory developments;

   

Current and potential returns; and

   

Current and potential risk.

 

  Generally vote for these amendments as long as the proposed changes do not fundamentally alter the investment focus of the fund and do comply with the current SEC interpretation.

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to change a fundamental restriction to a non-fundamental restriction, considering the following factors:

 

   

The fund’s target investments;

   

The reasons given by the fund for the change; and

   

The projected impact of the change on the portfolio.

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to change a fund’s fundamental investment objective to non-fundamental.

Name Change Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on name change proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Political/economic changes in the target market;

   

Consolidation in the target market; and

   

Current asset composition.

Change in Fund’s Subclassification

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on changes in a fund’s sub-classification, considering the following factors:

 

   

Potential competitiveness;

   

Current and potential returns;

   

Risk of concentration;

   

Consolidation in target industry.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      69 of 72  

 

A-69


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Business Development Companies—Authorization to Sell Shares of Common Stock at a Price below Net Asset Value

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals authorizing the board to issue shares below Net Asset Value (NAV) if:

 

   

The proposal to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date no more than one year from the date shareholders approve the underlying proposal, as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940;

   

The sale is deemed to be in the best interests of shareholders by (1) a majority of the company’s independent directors and (2) a majority of the company’s directors who have no financial interest in the issuance; and

   

The company has demonstrated responsible past use of share issuances by either:

   

Outperforming peers in its 8-digit GICS group as measured by one- and three-year median TSRs; or

   

Providing disclosure that its past share issuances were priced at levels that resulted in only small or moderate discounts to NAV and economic dilution to existing non-participating shareholders.

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to dispose of assets, to terminate or liquidate, considering the following factors:

 

   

Strategies employed to salvage the company;

   

The fund’s past performance;

   

The terms of the liquidation.

Changes to the Charter Document

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on changes to the charter document, considering the following factors:

 

   

The degree of change implied by the proposal;

   

The efficiencies that could result;

   

The state of incorporation;

   

Regulatory standards and implications.

Vote against any of the following changes:

 

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to reorganize or terminate the trust or any of its series;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement for amendments to the new declaration of trust;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to amend the fund’s management contract, allowing the contract to be modified by the investment manager and the trust management, as permitted by the 1940 Act;

   

Allow the trustees to impose other fees in addition to sales charges on investment in a fund, such as deferred sales charges and redemption fees that may be imposed upon redemption of a fund’s shares;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to engage in and terminate subadvisory arrangements;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to change the domicile of the fund.

Changing the Domicile of a Fund

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on re-incorporations, considering the following factors:

 

   

Regulations of both states;

   

Required fundamental policies of both states;

   

The increased flexibility available.

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisers Without Shareholder Approval

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals authorizing the board to hire or terminate subadvisers without shareholder approval if the investment adviser currently employs only one subadviser.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      70 of 72  

 

A-70


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Distribution Agreements

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on distribution agreement proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Fees charged to comparably sized funds with similar objectives;

   

The proposed distributor’s reputation and past performance;

   

The competitiveness of the fund in the industry;

   

The terms of the agreement.

Master-Feeder Structure

General Recommendation: Vote for the establishment of a master-feeder structure.

Mergers

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on merger proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Resulting fee structure;

   

Performance of both funds;

   

Continuity of management personnel;

   

Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

Shareholder Proposals for Mutual Funds

Establish Director Ownership Requirement

General Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals that mandate a specific minimum amount of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses. When supporting the dissidents, vote for the reimbursement of the proxy solicitation expenses.

Terminate the Investment Advisor

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to terminate the investment advisor, considering the following factors:

 

   

Performance of the fund’s Net Asset Value (NAV);

   

The fund’s history of shareholder relations;

   

The performance of other funds under the advisor’s management.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      71 of 72  

 

A-71


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

We empower investors and companies to build

for long-term and sustainable growth by providing

high-quality data, analytics, and insight.

G E T   S T A R T E D   W I T H   I S S   S O L U T I O N S

Email [email protected] or visit www.issgovernance.com for more information.

Founded in 1985, Institutional Shareholder Services group of companies (ISS) empowers investors and companies to build for long-term and sustainable growth by providing high-quality data, analytics and insight. ISS, which is majority owned by Deutsche Bourse Group, along with Genstar Capital and ISS management, is a leading provider of corporate governance and responsible investment solutions, market intelligence, fund services, and events and editorial content for institutional investors and corporations, globally. ISS’ 2,600 employees operate worldwide across 29 global locations in 15 countries. Its approximately 3,400 clients include many of the world’s leading institutional investors who rely on ISS’ objective and impartial offerings, as well as public companies focused on ESG and governance risk mitigation as a shareholder value enhancing measure. Clients rely on ISS’ expertise to help them make informed investment decisions. This document and all of the information contained in it, including without limitation all text, data, graphs, and charts (collectively, the “Information”) is the property of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), its subsidiaries, or, in some cases third party suppliers.

The Information has not been submitted to, nor received approval from, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. None of the Information constitutes an offer to sell (or a solicitation of an offer to buy), or a promotion or recommendation of, any security, financial product or other investment vehicle or any trading strategy, and ISS does not endorse, approve, or otherwise express any opinion regarding any issuer, securities, financial products or instruments or trading strategies.

The user of the Information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of the Information.

ISS MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ORIGINALITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS for A PARTICULAR PURPOSE) WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE INFORMATION.

Without limiting any of the foregoing and to the maximum extent permitted by law, in no event shall ISS have any liability regarding any of the Information for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential (including lost profits), or any other damages even if notified of the possibility of such damages. The foregoing shall not exclude or limit any liability that may not by applicable law be excluded or limited.

© 2022 | Institutional Shareholder Services and/or its affiliates

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      72 of 72  

 

A-72


LOGO

 

B-1


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S

 

 

Introduction

     7  
1.  

Routine/Miscellaneous

     8  
 

Adjourn Meeting

     8  
 

Amend Quorum Requirements

     8  
 

Amend Minor Bylaws

     8  
 

Change Company Name

     8  
 

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

     8  
 

Other Business

     8  
 

Audit-Related

     9  
 

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

     9  
 

Auditor Ratification

     9  
 

Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services

     9  
 

Shareholder Proposals on Audit Firm Rotation

     9  
2.  

Board of Directors

     11  
 

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

     11  
 

Accountability

     11  
 

Problematic Takeover Defenses, Capital Structure, and Governance Structures

     11  
 

Problematic Audit-Related Practices

     14  
 

Problematic Compensation Practices

     14  
 

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Failures

     15  
 

Climate Risk Mitigation and Net Zero

     15  
 

Responsiveness

     16  
 

Composition

     16  
 

Gender Diversity

     17  
 

Racial and/or Ethnic Diversity

     17  
 

Independence

     17  
 

Sustainability Policy Classification of Directors – U.S.

     18  
 

Other Board-Related Proposals

     20  
 

Board Refreshment

     20  
 

Board Size

     20  
 

Classification/Declassification of the Board

     20  
 

CEO Succession Planning

     21  
 

Cumulative Voting

     21  
 

Director and Officer Indemnification, Liability Protection, and Exculpation

     21  
 

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

     21  
 

Establish Other Board Committee Proposals

     22  
 

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

     22  
 

Independent Board Chair

     22  
 

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

     22  
 

Majority Vote Standard for the Election of Directors

     23  
 

Proxy Access

     23  
 

Require More Nominees than Open Seats

     23  
 

Shareholder Engagement Policy (Shareholder Advisory Committee)

     23  
 

Proxy Contests/Proxy Access -Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

     23  
 

Vote-No Campaigns

     24  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      2 of 78  

 

B-2


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

3.  

Shareholder Rights & Defenses

     25  
 

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

     25  
 

Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent

     25  
 

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

     25  
 

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

     25  
 

Disgorgement Provisions

     26  
 

Fair Price Provisions

     26  
 

Freeze-Out Provisions

     26  
 

Greenmail

     26  
 

Shareholder Litigation Rights

     26  
 

Federal Forum Selection Provisions

     26  
 

Exclusive Forum Provisions for State Law Matters

     27  
 

Fee Shifting

     27  
 

Net Operating Loss (NOL) Protective Amendments

     27  
 

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

     28  
 

Shareholder Proposals to Put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

     28  
 

Management Proposals to Ratify a Poison Pill

     28  
 

Management Proposals to Ratify a Pill to Preserve Net Operating Losses (NOLs)

     29  
 

Proxy Voting Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tabulation

     29  
 

Ratification Proposals: Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions

     29  
 

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

     30  
 

Reincorporation Proposals

     30  
 

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

     30  
 

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

     31  
 

Stakeholder Provisions

     31  
 

State Antitakeover Statutes

     31  
 

Supermajority Vote Requirements

     31  
 

Virtual Shareholder Meetings

     32  
4.  

Capital/Restructuring

     33  
 

Capital

     33  
 

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

     33  
 

Common Stock Authorization

     33  
 

General Authorization Requests

     33  
 

Specific Authorization Requests

     34  
 

Dual Class Structure

     34  
 

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

     34  
 

Preemptive Rights

     34  
 

Preferred Stock Authorization

     34  
 

General Authorization Requests

     34  
 

Specific Authorization Requests

     35  
 

Recapitalization Plans

     36  
 

Reverse Stock Splits

     36  
 

Share Repurchase Programs

     36  
 

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

     36  
 

Tracking Stock

     37  
 

Share Issuance Mandates at U.S. Domestic Issuers Incorporated Outside the U.S

     37  
 

Restructuring

     37  
 

Appraisal Rights

     37  
 

Asset Purchases

     37  
 

Asset Sales

     38  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      3 of 78  

 

B-3


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

 

Bundled Proposals

     38  
 

Conversion of Securities

     38  
 

Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans

     38  
 

Formation of Holding Company

     39  
 

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)

     39  
 

Joint Ventures

     39  
 

Liquidations

     40  
 

Mergers and Acquisitions

     40  
 

Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

     40  
 

Reorganization/Restructuring Plan (Bankruptcy)

     41  
 

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

     42  
 

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)—Proposals for Extensions

     42  
 

Spin-offs

     43  
 

Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals

     43  
5.  

Compensation

     44  
 

Executive Pay Evaluation

     44  
 

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation—Management Proposals (Management Say-on-Pay)

     44  
 

Pay-for-Performance Evaluation

     45  
 

Problematic Pay Practices

     46  
 

Compensation Committee Communications and Responsiveness

     47  
 

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say When on Pay”)

     47  
 

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

     47  
 

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

     48  
 

Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT)

     49  
 

Three-Year Value-Adjusted Burn Rate

     49  
 

Egregious Factors

     49  
 

Liberal Change in Control Definition

     49  
 

Repricing Provisions

     50  
 

Problematic Pay Practices or Significant Pay-for-Performance Disconnect

     50  
 

Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations

     50  
 

Dividend Equivalent Rights

     50  
 

Operating Partnership (OP) Units in Equity Plan Analysis of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

     51  
 

Other Compensation Plans

     51  
 

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

     51  
 

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

     51  
 

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Qualified Plans

     51  
 

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Non-Qualified Plans

     51  
 

Amending Cash and Equity Plans (including Approval for Tax Deductibility (162(m))

     52  
 

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

     52  
 

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

     53  
 

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

     53  
 

Director Compensation

     54  
 

Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs

     54  
 

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors

     54  
 

Non-Employee Director Retirement Plans

     54  
 

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

     55  
 

Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy

     55  
 

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”

     55  
 

Compensation Consultants—Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

     55  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      4 of 78  

 

B-4


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

 

Disclosure/Setting Levels or Types of Compensation for Executives and Directors

     55  
 

Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits

     55  
 

Hold Equity Past Retirement or for a Significant Period of Time

     56  
 

Pay Disparity

     56  
 

Pay for Performance/Performance-Based Awards

     56  
 

Pay for Superior Performance

     56  
 

Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)

     57  
 

Prohibit Outside CEOs from Serving on Compensation Committees

     57  
 

Recoupment of Incentive or Stock Compensation in Specified Circumstances

     57  
 

Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes

     58  
 

Share Buyback Proposals

     58  
 

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

     58  
 

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

     58  
 

Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment/Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity

     59  
6.  

Social and Environmental Issues

     60  
 

Global Approach

     60  
 

Animal Welfare

     60  
 

Animal Welfare Policies

     60  
 

Animal Testing

     60  
 

Animal Slaughter

     61  
 

Consumer Issues

     61  
 

Genetically Modified Ingredients

     61  
 

Reports on Potentially Controversial Business/Financial Practices

     61  
 

Consumer Lending

     61  
 

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, Product Reimportation and Health Pandemics

     62  
 

Health Pandemics

     62  
 

Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials

     62  
 

Tobacco-Related Proposals

     63  
 

Climate Change

     63  
 

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

     63  
 

Say on Climate (SoC) Management Proposals

     64  
 

Say on Climate (SoC) Shareholder Proposals

     64  
 

Energy Efficiency

     64  
 

Renewable Energy

     64  
 

Diversity

     65  
 

Board Diversity

     65  
 

Equality of Opportunity

     65  
 

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

     65  
 

Gender, Race/Ethnicity Pay Gap

     65  
 

Racial Equity and/or Civil Rights Audits

     65  
 

Environment and Sustainability

     66  
 

Facility and Workplace Safety

     66  
 

Hydraulic Fracturing

     66  
 

Operations in Protected Areas

     66  
 

Recycling

     66  
 

Sustainability Reporting

     66  
 

Water Issues

     67  
 

Equator Principles

     67  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      5 of 78  

 

B-5


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

 

General Corporate Issues

     67  
 

Charitable Contributions

     67  
 

Data Security, Privacy, and Internet Issues

     68  
 

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Compensation-Related Proposals

     68  
 

Human Rights, Labor Issues, and International Operations

     68  
 

Human Rights Proposals

     68  
 

Mandatory Arbitration

     69  
 

MacBride Principles

     69  
 

Community Social and Environmental Impact Assessments

     70  
 

Operations in High-Risk Markets

     70  
 

Outsourcing/Offshoring

     70  
 

Sexual Harassment

     70  
 

Weapons and Military Sales

     71  
 

Political Activities

     71  
 

Lobbying

     71  
 

Political Contributions

     71  
 

Political Ties

     71  
 

Political Expenditures and Lobbying Congruency

     72  
7.  

Mutual Fund Proxies

     73  
 

Election of Directors

     73  
 

Closed End Funds- Unilateral Opt-In to Control Share Acquisition Statutes

     73  
 

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

     73  
 

Proxy Contests

     73  
 

Investment Advisory Agreements

     73  
 

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

     73  
 

Preferred Stock Proposals

     74  
 

1940 Act Policies

     74  
 

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

     74  
 

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental

     74  
 

Name Change Proposals

     74  
 

Change in Fund’s Subclassification

     74  
 

Business Development Companies—Authorization to Sell Shares of Common Stock at a Price below Net Asset Value

     75  
 

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

     75  
 

Changes to the Charter Document

     75  
 

Changing the Domicile of a Fund

     75  
 

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisers Without Shareholder Approval

     76  
 

Distribution Agreements

     76  
 

Master-Feeder Structure

     76  
 

Mergers

     76  
 

Shareholder Proposals for Mutual Funds

     76  
 

Establish Director Ownership Requirement

     76  
 

Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred

     76  
 

Terminate the Investment Advisor

     76  
8.  

Foreign Private Issuers Listed on U.S. Exchanges

     77  

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      6 of 78  

 

B-6


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Introduction

ISS recognizes the growing view among investment professionals that sustainability or environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors could present material risks to portfolio investments. Whereas investment managers have traditionally analyzed topics such as board accountability and executive compensation to mitigate risk, greater numbers are incorporating ESG performance into their investment making decisions in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of the overall risk profile of the companies in which they invest and ensure sustainable long-term profitability for their beneficiaries.

Investors concerned with portfolio value preservation and enhancement through the incorporation of sustainability factors can also carry out this active ownership approach through their proxy voting activity. In voting their shares, sustainability-minded investors are concerned not only with economic returns to shareholders and good corporate governance, but also with ensuring corporate activities and practices are aligned with the broader objectives of society. These investors seek standardized reporting on ESG issues, request information regarding an issuer’s adoption of, or adherence to, relevant norms, standards, codes of conduct or universally recognized international initiatives including affirmative support for related shareholder resolutions advocating enhanced disclosure and transparency.

ISS’ Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines

ISS has, therefore, developed proxy voting guidelines that are consistent with the objectives of sustainability-minded investors and fiduciaries. On matters of ESG import, ISS’ Sustainability Policy seeks to promote support for recognized global governing bodies promoting sustainable business practices advocating for stewardship of environment, fair labor practices, non-discrimination, and the protection of human rights. Generally, ISS’ Sustainability Policy will take as its frame of reference internationally recognized sustainability-related initiatives such as the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI), United Nations Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Carbon Principles, International Labour Organization Conventions (ILO), Ceres Roadmap 2030, Global Sullivan Principles, MacBride Principles, and environmental and social European Union Directives. Each of these efforts promote a fair, unified and productive reporting and compliance environment which advances positive corporate ESG actions that promote practices that present new opportunities or that mitigate related financial and reputational risks.

On matters of corporate governance, executive compensation, and corporate structure, the Sustainability Policy guidelines are based on a commitment to create and preserve economic value and to advance principles of good corporate governance.

These guidelines provide an overview of how ISS approaches proxy voting issues for subscribers of the Sustainability Policy. We note there may be cases in which the final vote recommendation at a particular company varies from the voting guidelines due to the fact that we closely examine the merits of each proposal and consider relevant information and company-specific circumstances in arriving at our decisions. To that end, ISS engages with both interested shareholders as well as issuers to gain further insight into contentious issues facing the company. Where ISS acts as voting agent for clients, it follows each client’s voting policy, which may differ in some cases from the policies outlined in this document. ISS updates its guidelines on an annual basis to take into account emerging issues and trends on environmental, social and corporate governance topics, as well as the evolution of market standards, regulatory changes and client feedback.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      7 of 78  

 

B-7


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

1.   Routine/Miscellaneous

Adjourn Meeting

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to provide management with the authority to adjourn an annual or special meeting absent compelling reasons to support the proposal.

 

   

Vote for proposals that relate specifically to soliciting votes for a merger or transaction if supporting that merger or transaction.

   

Vote against proposals if the wording is too vague or if the proposal includes “other business.”

Amend Quorum Requirements

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding, taking into consideration:

 

   

The new quorum threshold requested;

   

The rationale presented for the reduction;

   

The market capitalization of the company (size, inclusion in indices);

   

The company’s ownership structure;

   

Previous voter turnout or attempts to achieve quorum;

   

Any provisions or commitments to restore quorum to a majority of shares outstanding, should voter turnout improve sufficiently; and

   

Other factors as appropriate.

In general, a quorum threshold kept as close to a majority of shares outstanding as is achievable is preferred.

Vote case-by-case on directors who unilaterally lower the quorum requirements below a majority of the shares outstanding, taking into consideration the factors listed above.

Amend Minor Bylaws

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for bylaw or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (updates or corrections).

Change Company Name

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to change the corporate name unless there is compelling evidence that the change would adversely impact shareholder value.

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable.

Vote against shareholder proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable.

Other Business

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals to approve other business when it appears as voting item.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      8 of 78  

 

B-8


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Audit-Related

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the issue of auditor indemnification and limitation of liability. Factors to be assessed include, but are not limited to:

 

   

The terms of the auditor agreement—the degree to which these agreements impact shareholders’ rights;

   

The motivation and rationale for establishing the agreements;

   

The quality of the company’s disclosure; and

   

The company’s historical practices in the audit area.

Vote against or withhold from members of an audit committee in situations where there is persuasive evidence that the audit committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.

Auditor Ratification

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to ratify auditors unless any of the following apply:

 

   

An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent;

   

There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;

   

Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a serious level of concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures; or

   

Fees for non-audit services (“Other” fees) are excessive.

Non-audit fees are excessive if:

 

   

Non-audit (“other”) fees > audit fees + audit-related fees + tax compliance/preparation fees

Tax compliance and preparation include the preparation of original and amended tax returns and refund claims, and tax payment planning. All other services in the tax category, such as tax advice, planning, or consulting, should be added to “Other” fees. If the breakout of tax fees cannot be determined, add all tax fees to “Other” fees.

In circumstances where “Other” fees include fees related to significant one-time capital structure events (such as initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs) and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees that are an exception to the standard “non-audit fee” category, then such fees may be excluded from the non-audit fees considered in determining the ratio of non-audit to audit/audit-related fees/tax compliance and preparation for purposes of determining whether non-audit fees are excessive.

Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services.

Shareholder Proposals on Audit Firm Rotation

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking for audit firm rotation, taking into account:

 

   

The tenure of the audit firm;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      9 of 78  

 

B-9


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

The length of rotation specified in the proposal;

   

Any significant audit-related issues at the company;

   

The number of audit committee meetings held each year;

   

The number of financial experts serving on the committee; and

   

Whether the company has a periodic renewal process where the auditor is evaluated for both audit quality and competitive price.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      10 of 78  

 

B-10


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

2.   Board of Directors

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Four fundamental principles apply when determining votes on director nominees:

 

   

Accountability: Boards should be sufficiently accountable to shareholders, including through transparency of the company’s governance practices and regular board elections, by the provision of sufficient information for shareholders to be able to assess directors and board composition, and through the ability of shareholders to remove directors.

 

   

Responsiveness: Directors should respond to investor input, such as that expressed through significant opposition to management proposals, significant support for shareholder proposals (whether binding or non-binding), and tender offers where a majority of shares are tendered.

 

   

Composition: Companies should seek directors who can add value to the board through specific skills or expertise and who can devote sufficient time and commitment to serve effectively. Boards should be of a size appropriate to accommodate diversity, expertise, and independence, while ensuring active and collaborative participation by all members. Boards should be sufficiently diverse to ensure consideration of a wide range of perspectives.

 

   

Independence: Boards should be sufficiently independent from management (and significant shareholders) so as to ensure that they are able and motivated to effectively supervise management’s performance for the benefit of all shareholders, including in setting and monitoring the execution of corporate strategy, with appropriate use of shareholder capital, and in setting and monitoring executive compensation programs that support that strategy. The chair of the board should ideally be an independent director, and all boards should have an independent leadership position or a similar role in order to help provide appropriate counterbalance to executive management, as well as having sufficiently independent committees that focus on key governance concerns such as audit, compensation, and nomination of directors.

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for director nominees, except under the following circumstances (with new nominees1 considered on a case-by-case basis):

Accountability

Problematic Takeover Defenses, Capital Structure, and Governance Structures

Classified Board Structure: The board is classified, and a continuing director responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level that would warrant a withhold/against vote recommendation is not up for election. All appropriate nominees (except new) may be held accountable.

Removal of Shareholder Discretion on Classified Boards: The company has opted into, or failed to opt out of, state laws requiring a classified board structure.

Director Performance Evaluation: The board lacks mechanisms to promote accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers. Sustained poor performance is measured by one-, three-, and five-year total shareholder returns in the bottom half of a company’s four-digit GICS industry group (Russell 3000

 

1 A “new nominee” is a director who is being presented for election by shareholders for the first time. Recommendations on new nominees who have served for less than one year are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the timing of their appointment and the problematic governance issue in question.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      11 of 78  

 

B-11


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

companies only). Take into consideration the company’s operational metrics and other factors as warranted. Problematic provisions include but are not limited to:

 

   

A classified board structure;

   

A supermajority vote requirement;

   

Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections or a majority vote standard with no plurality carve-out for contested elections;

   

The inability of shareholders to call special meetings;

   

The inability of shareholders to act by written consent;

   

A multi-class capital structure; and/or

   

A non-shareholder-approved poison pill.

Poison Pills: Generally vote against or withhold from all nominees (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if:

 

   

The company has a poison pill with a deadhand or slowhand feature2;

   

The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval; or

   

The company has a long-term poison pill (with a term of over one year) that was not approved by the public shareholders3.

Vote case-by-case on nominees if the board adopts an initial short-term pill3 (with a term of one year or less) without shareholder approval, taking into consideration:

 

   

The disclosed rationale for the adoption;

   

The trigger;

   

The company’s market capitalization (including absolute level and sudden changes);

   

A commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder vote; and

   

Other factors as relevant.

Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments: Generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees2, who should be considered case-by-case) if the board amends the company’s bylaws or charter without shareholder approval in a manner that materially diminishes shareholders’ rights or that could adversely impact shareholders, considering the following factors:

 

   

The board’s rationale for adopting the bylaw/charter amendment without shareholder ratification;

   

Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment;

   

The level of impairment of shareholders’ rights caused by the board’s unilateral amendment to the bylaws/charter;

   

The board’s track record with regard to unilateral board action on bylaw/charter amendments or other entrenchment provisions;

   

The company’s ownership structure;

   

The company’s existing governance provisions;

   

The timing of the board’s amendment to the bylaws/charter in connection with a significant business development; and,

   

Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the amendment on shareholders.

Unless the adverse amendment is reversed or submitted to a binding shareholder vote, in subsequent years vote case-by-case on director nominees.

 

2 If the short-term pill with a deadhand or slowhand feature is enacted but expires before the next shareholder vote, ISS will generally still recommend withhold/against nominees at the next shareholder meeting following its adoption.

3 Approval prior to, or in connection, with a company’s becoming publicly-traded, or in connection with a de-SPAC transaction, is insufficient.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      12 of 78  

 

B-12


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Generally vote against (except new nominees, who should be considered case-by-case) if the directors:

 

   

Classified the board;

   

Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter;

   

Eliminated shareholders’ ability to amend bylaws;

   

Adopted a fee-shifting provision; or

   

Adopted another provision deemed egregious.

Problematic Governance Structure: For companies that hold or held their first annual meeting7 of public shareholders after Feb. 1, 2015, generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if, prior to or in connection with the company’s public offering, the company or its board adopted the following bylaw or charter provisions that are considered to be materially adverse to shareholder rights

 

   

Supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter;

   

A classified board structure; or

   

Other egregious provisions.

A provision which specifies that the problematic structure(s) will be sunset within seven years of the date of going public will be considered a mitigating factor.

Unless the adverse provision is reversed or removed, vote case-by-case on director nominees in subsequent years.

Unequal Voting Rights: Generally vote withhold or against directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case), if the company employs a common stock structure with unequal voting rights5.

Exceptions to this policy will generally be limited to:

 

   

Newly-public companies6 with a sunset provision of no more than seven years from the date of going public;

   

Limited Partnerships and the Operating Partnership (OP) unit structure of REITs;

   

Situations where the unequal voting rights are considered de minimis; or

   

The company provides sufficient protections for minority shareholders, such as allowing minority shareholders a regular binding vote on whether the capital structure should be maintained.

Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions: Vote against/withhold from individual directors, members of the governance committee, or the full board, where boards ask shareholders to ratify existing charter or bylaw provisions considering the following factors:

 

   

The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;

   

The board’s rationale for seeking ratification;

   

Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;

 

4 Includes companies that emerge from bankruptcy, SPAC transactions, spin-offs, direct listings, and those who complete a traditional initial public offering.

5 This generally includes classes of common stock that have additional votes per share than other shares; classes of shares that are not entitled to vote on all the same ballot items or nominees; or stock with time-phased voting rights (“loyalty shares”).

6 Newly-public companies generally include companies that emerge from bankruptcy, SPAC transactions, spin-offs, direct listings, and those who complete a traditional initial public offering.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      13 of 78  

 

B-13


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;

   

The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision;

   

The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings;

   

Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.

Restricting Binding Shareholder Proposals: Generally vote against or withhold from members of the governance committee if:

 

   

The company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws. Such restrictions include but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals, or share ownership requirements, subject matter restrictions, or time holding requirement in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8. Vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis.

Submission of management proposals to approve or ratify requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8 for the submission of binding bylaw amendments will generally be viewed as an insufficient restoration of shareholders’ rights. Generally, continue to vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis until shareholders are provided with an unfettered ability to amend the bylaws or a proposal providing for such unfettered right is submitted for shareholder approval.

Problematic Audit-Related Practices

Generally, vote against or withhold from the members of the audit committee if:

 

   

The non-audit fees paid to the auditor are excessive (see discussion under “Auditor Ratification”);

   

The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor; or

   

There is persuasive evidence that the audit committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.

Vote case-by-case on members of the audit committee and potentially the full board if:

 

   

Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a level of serious concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures. Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence, and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether withhold/against votes are warranted.

Problematic Compensation Practices

In the absence of an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) ballot item or in egregious situations, vote against or withhold from the members of the compensation committee and potentially the full board if:

 

   

There is a significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

   

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices;

   

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders;

   

The company fails to include a Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions, or under the company’s declared frequency of say on pay; or

   

The company fails to include a Frequency of Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions.

Generally vote against members of the board committee responsible for approving/setting non-employee director compensation if there is a pattern (i.e. two or more years) of awarding excessive non-employee director compensation without disclosing a compelling rationale or other mitigating factors.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      14 of 78  

 

B-14


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Problematic Pledging of Company Stock: Vote against the members of the committee that oversees risks related to pledging, or the full board, where a significant level of pledged company stock by executives or directors raises concerns. The following factors will be considered:

 

   

The presence of an anti-pledging policy, disclosed in the proxy statement, that prohibits future pledging activity;

   

The magnitude of aggregate pledged shares in terms of total common shares outstanding, market value, and trading volume;

   

Disclosure of progress or lack thereof in reducing the magnitude of aggregate pledged shares over time;

   

Disclosure in the proxy statement that shares subject to stock ownership and holding requirements do not include pledged company stock; and

   

Any other relevant factors.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Failures

Under extraordinary circumstances, vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board, due to:

 

   

Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight7, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company, including failure to adequately guard against or manage ESG risks;

   

A lack of sustainability reporting in the company’s public documents and/or website in conjunction with a failure to adequately manage or mitigate ESG risks;

   

Failure to replace management as appropriate; or

   

Egregious actions related to a director’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.

Climate Risk Mitigation and Net Zero

For companies that are significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, through their operations or value chain8, generally vote against or withhold from the incumbent chair of the responsible committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) in cases where Sustainability Advisory Services determines that the company is not taking the minimum steps need to be aligned with a Net Zero by 2050 trajectory.

For 2023, the minimum steps needed to be considered to be aligned with a Net Zero by 2050 trajectory are (all minimum criteria will be required to be in alignment with the policy):

 

   

The company has detailed disclosure of climate-related risks, such as according to the framework established by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), including:

   

Board governance measures;

   

Corporate strategy;

   

Risk management analyses; and

   

Metrics and targets.

 

   

The company has declared a Net Zero target by 2050 or sooner and the target includes scope 1, 2, and relevant scope 3 emissions.

   

The company has set a medium-term target for reducing its GHG emissions.

 

7 Examples of failure of risk oversight include, but are not limited to: bribery; large or serial fines or sanctions from regulatory bodies; demonstrably poor risk oversight of environmental and social issues, including climate change; significant environmental incidents including spills and pollution; large scale or repeat workplace fatalities or injuries; significant adverse legal judgments or settlements; or hedging of company stock.

8 For 2023, companies defined as “significant GHG emitters” will be those on the current Climate Action 100+ Focus Group list.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      15 of 78  

 

B-15


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Expectations about what constitutes “minimum steps needed to be aligned with a Net Zero by 2050 trajectory” will increase over time.

Responsiveness

Vote case-by-case on individual directors, committee members, or the entire board of directors as appropriate if:

 

   

The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year or failed to act on a management proposal seeking to ratify an existing charter/bylaw provision that received opposition of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year. Factors that will be considered are:

   

Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the vote;

   

Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation;

   

The subject matter of the proposal;

   

The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings;

   

Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement with shareholders;

   

The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals); and

   

Other factors as appropriate.

   

The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are tendered;

   

At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.

Vote case-by-case on compensation committee members (or, in exceptional cases, the full board) and the Say on Pay proposal if:

 

   

The company’s previous say-on-pay received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast. Factors that will be considered are:

   

The company’s response, including:

   

Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors regarding the issues that contributed to the low level of support (including the timing and frequency of engagements and whether independent directors participated);

   

Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;

   

Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns;

   

Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;

   

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.

   

The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that received the plurality of votes cast.

Composition

Attendance at Board and Committee Meetings: Generally vote against or withhold from directors (except nominees who served only part of the fiscal year9) who attend less than 75 percent of the aggregate of their board and committee meetings for the period for which they served, unless an acceptable reason for absences is disclosed in the proxy or another SEC filing. Acceptable reasons for director absences are generally limited to the following:

 

   

Medical issues/illness;

   

Family emergencies; and

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      16 of 78  

 

B-16


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Missing only one meeting (when the total of all meetings is three or fewer).

   

In cases of chronic poor attendance without reasonable justification, in addition to voting against the director(s) with poor attendance, generally vote against or withhold from appropriate members of the nominating/governance committees or the full board.

If the proxy disclosure is unclear and insufficient to determine whether a director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate of his/her board and committee meetings during his/her period of service, vote against or withhold from the director(s) in question.

Overboarded Directors: Generally, vote against or withhold from individual directors who:

 

   

Sit on more than five public company boards; or

   

Are CEOs of public companies who sit on the boards of more than two public companies besides their own—withhold only at their outside boards10.

Gender Diversity

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against or withhold from the chair of the nominating committee, or other nominees on a case-by-case basis, if the board lacks at least one director of an underrepresented gender identity11.

Racial and/or Ethnic Diversity

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against or withhold from the chair of the nominating committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) where the board has no apparent racially or ethnically diverse members12.

Independence

Vote against or withhold from non-independent directors (Executive Directors and Non-Independent Non-Executive Directors per Sustainability Advisory Services’ Classification of Directors) when:

 

   

Independent directors comprise 50 percent or less of the board;

   

The non-independent director serves on the audit, compensation, or nominating committee;

   

The company lacks an audit, compensation, or nominating committee so that the full board functions as that committee; or

   

The company lacks a formal nominating committee, even if the board attests that the independent directors fulfill the functions of such a committee.

 

9 Nominees who served for only part of the fiscal year are generally exempted from the attendance policy.

10 Although all of a CEO’s subsidiary boards will be counted as separate boards, Sustainability Advisory Services will not recommend a withhold vote for the CEO of a parent company board or any of the controlled (>50 percent ownership) subsidiaries of that parent, but may do so at subsidiaries that are less than 50 percent controlled and boards outside the parent/subsidiary relationships.

11 Underrepresented gender identity includes directors who identify as women or as non-binary.

12 Aggregate diversity statistics provided by the board will only be considered if specific to racial and/or ethnic diversity.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      17 of 78  

 

B-17


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Sustainability Policy Classification of Directors – U.S.

 

 

 

  1.

Executive Director

 

  1.1.

Current officer[1] of the company or one of its affiliates[2].

 

  2.

Non-Independent Non-Executive Director

 

  Board Identification

 

  2.1.

Director identified as not independent by the board.

 

  Controlling/Significant Shareholder

  2.2.

Beneficial owner of more than 50 percent of the company’s voting power (this may be aggregated if voting power is distributed among more than one member of a group).

 

  Current Employment at Company or Partnership

 

  2.3.

Non-officer employee of the firm (including employee representatives).

  2.4.

Officer[1], former officer, or general or limited partner of a joint venture or partnership with the company.

 

  Former Employment

 

  2.5.

Former CEO of the company.[3],[4]

  2.6.

Former non-CEO officer[1] of the company or an affiliate[2] within the past five years.

  2.7.

Former officer[1] of an acquired company within the past five years[4].

  2.8.

Officer [1] of a former parent or predecessor firm at the time the company was sold or split off within the past five years.

  2.9.

Former interim officer if the service was longer than 18 months. If the service was between 12 and 18 months an assessment of the interim officer’s employment agreement will be made.[5]

 

  Family Members

 

  2.10.

Immediate family member[6] of a current or former officer[1] of the company or its affiliates[2] within the last five years.

 

  2.11.

Immediate family member[6] of a current employee of company or its affiliates[2] where additional factors raise concern (which may include, but are not limited to, the following: a director related to numerous employees; the company or its affiliates employ relatives of numerous board members; or a non-Section 16 officer in a key strategic role).

 

  Professional, Transactional, and Charitable Relationships

 

  2.12.

Director who (or whose immediate family member[6]) currently provides professional services[7] in excess of $10,000 per year to: the company, an affiliate[2], or an individual officer of the company or an affiliate; either directly or is (or whose family member is) a partner, employee, or controlling shareholder of an organization which provides the services.

 
  2.13.

Director who (or whose immediate family member[6]) currently has any material transactional relationship[8] with the company or its affiliates[2]; or who is (or whose immediately family member[6] is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an executive officer of, an organization which has the material transactional relationship[8] (excluding investments in the company through a private placement).

 
  2.14.

Director who (or whose immediate family member[6]) is a trustee, director, or employee of a charitable or non-profit organization that receives material grants or endowments[8] from the company or its affiliates[2].

 

  Other Relationships

 

  2.15.

Party to a voting agreement[9] to vote in line with management on proposals being brought to shareholder vote.

  2.16.

Has (or an immediate family member[6] has) an interlocking relationship as defined by the SEC involving members of the board of directors or its Compensation Committee[10].

  2.17.

Founder[11] of the company but not currently an employee.

  2.18.

Director with pay comparable to Named Executive Officers.

  2.19.

Any material[12] relationship with the company.

 

  3.

Independent Director

 

  3.1.

No material[12] connection to the company other than a board seat.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      18 of 78  

 

B-18


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Footnotes:

[1] The definition of officer will generally follow that of a “Section 16 officer” (officers subject to Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) and includes the chief executive, operating, financial, legal, technology, and accounting officers of a company (including the president, treasurer, secretary, controller, or any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or policy function). Current interim officers are included in this category. For private companies, the equivalent positions are applicable. A non-employee director serving as an officer due to statutory requirements (e.g. corporate secretary) will be classified as an Affiliated Outsider under “Any material relationship with the company.” However, if the company provides explicit disclosure that the director is not receiving additional compensation in excess of $10,000 per year for serving in that capacity, then the director will be classified as an Independent Outsider.

[2] “Affiliate” includes a subsidiary, sibling company, or parent company. Sustainability Advisory Services uses 50 percent control ownership by the parent company as the standard for applying its affiliate designation. The manager/advisor of an externally managed issuer (EMI) is considered an affiliate.

[3] Includes any former CEO of the company prior to the company’s initial public offering (IPO).

[4] When there is a former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) serving on the board of an acquired company, Sustainability Advisory Services will generally classify such directors as independent unless determined otherwise taking into account the following factors: the applicable listing standards determination of such director’s independence; any operating ties to the firm; and the existence of any other conflicting relationships or related party transactions.

[5] Sustainability Advisory Services will look at the terms of the interim officer’s employment contract to determine if it contains severance pay, long-term health and pension benefits, or other such standard provisions typically contained in contracts of permanent, non-temporary CEOs. Sustainability Advisory Services will also consider if a formal search process was under way for a full-time officer at the time.

[6] “Immediate family member” follows the SEC’s definition of such and covers spouses, parents, children, step-parents, step-children, siblings, in-laws, and any person (other than a tenant or employee) sharing the household of any director, nominee for director, executive officer, or significant shareholder of the company.

[7] Professional services can be characterized as advisory in nature, generally involve access to sensitive company information or to strategic decision-making, and typically have a commission- or fee-based payment structure. Professional services generally include, but are not limited to the following: investment banking/financial advisory services; commercial banking (beyond deposit services); investment services; insurance services; accounting/audit services; consulting services; marketing services; legal services; property management services; realtor services; lobbying services; executive search services; and IT consulting services. The following would generally be considered transactional relationships and not professional services: deposit services; IT tech support services; educational services; and construction services. The case of participation in a banking syndicate by a non-lead bank should be considered a transactional (and hence subject to the associated materiality test) rather than a professional relationship. “Of Counsel” relationships are only considered immaterial if the individual does not receive any form of compensation (in excess of $10,000 per year) from, or is a retired partner of, the firm providing the professional service. The case of a company providing a professional service to one of its directors or to an entity with which one of its directors is affiliated, will be considered a transactional rather than a professional relationship. Insurance services and marketing services are assumed to be professional services unless the company explains why such services are not advisory.

[8] A material transactional relationship, including grants to non-profit organizations, exists if the company makes annual payments to, or receives annual payments from, another entity exceeding the greater of $200,000 or 5 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, in the case of a company which follows NASDAQ listing standards; or the greater of $1,000,000 or 2 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, in the case of a company which follows NYSE listing standards. In the case of a company which follows neither of the preceding standards, Sustainability Advisory Services will apply the NASDAQ-based materiality test. (The recipient is the party receiving the financial proceeds from the transaction).

[9] Dissident directors who are parties to a voting agreement pursuant to a settlement or similar arrangement may be classified as independent outsiders if an analysis of the following factors indicates that the voting agreement does not compromise their alignment with all shareholders’ interests: the terms of the agreement; the duration of the standstill provision in the agreement; the limitations and requirements of actions that are agreed upon; if the dissident director nominee(s) is subject to the standstill; and if there any conflicting relationships or related party transactions.

[10] Interlocks include: executive officers serving as directors on each other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board); or executive officers sitting on each other’s boards and at least one serves on the other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board).

    

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      19 of 78  

 

B-19


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

[11] The operating involvement of the founder with the company will be considered; if the founder was never employed by the company, Sustainability Advisory Services may deem him or her an independent outsider.

[12] For purposes of Sustainability Advisory Services’ director independence classification, “material” will be defined as a standard of relationship (financial, personal or otherwise) that a reasonable person might conclude could potentially influence one’s objectivity in the boardroom in a manner that would have a meaningful impact on an individual’s ability to satisfy requisite fiduciary standards on behalf of shareholders.

Other Board-Related Proposals

Board Refreshment

Board refreshment is best implemented through an ongoing program of individual director evaluations, conducted annually, to ensure the evolving needs of the board are met and to bring in fresh perspectives, skills, and diversity as needed.

Term/Tenure Limits

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals regarding director term/tenure limits, considering:

 

   

The rationale provided for adoption of the term/tenure limit;

   

The robustness of the company’s board evaluation process;

   

Whether the limit is of sufficient length to allow for a broad range of director tenures;

   

Whether the limit would disadvantage independent directors compared to non-independent directors; and

   

Whether the board will impose the limit evenly, and not have the ability to waive it in a discriminatory manner.

Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking for the company to adopt director term/tenure limits, considering:

 

   

The scope of the shareholder proposal; and

   

Evidence of problematic issues at the company combined with, or exacerbated by, a lack of board refreshment.

Age Limits

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against management and shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of independent directors through mandatory retirement ages. Vote for proposals to remove mandatory age limits.

Board Size

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals seeking to fix the board size or designate a range for the board size.

Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board outside of a specified range without shareholder approval.

Classification/Declassification of the Board

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals to classify (stagger) the board.

Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      20 of 78  

 

B-20


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

CEO Succession Planning

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking disclosure on a CEO succession planning policy, considering, at a minimum, the following factors:

 

   

The reasonableness/scope of the request; and

   

The company’s existing disclosure on its current CEO succession planning process.

Cumulative Voting

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to eliminate cumulate voting, and for shareholder proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting, unless:

 

   

The company has proxy access, thereby allowing shareholders to nominate directors to the company’s ballot; and

   

The company has adopted a majority vote standard, with a carve-out for plurality voting in situations where there are more nominees than seats, and a director resignation policy to address failed elections.

Vote for proposals for cumulative voting at controlled companies (insider voting power > 50%).

Director and Officer Indemnification, Liability Protection, and Exculpation

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals on director and officer indemnification liability protection, and exculpation13.

Consider the stated rationale for the proposed change. Also consider, among other factors, the extent to which the proposal would:

 

   

Eliminate entirely directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care.

   

Eliminate directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of loyalty.

   

Expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to liability for acts that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere carelessness.

   

Expand the scope of indemnification to provide for mandatory indemnification of company officials in connection with acts that previously the company was permitted to provide indemnification for, at the discretion of the company’s board (i.e., “permissive indemnification”), but that previously the company was not required to indemnify.

Vote for only those proposals providing such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if both of the following apply:

 

   

If the individual was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that the individual reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and

   

If only the director’s legal expenses would be covered.

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Votes should be based on the reasonableness of the criteria and the degree to which they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.

 

13 Indemnification: the condition of being secured against loss or damage.

Limited liability: a person’s financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, or personal financial assets are not at risk if the individual loses a lawsuit that results in financial award/damages to the plaintiff.

Exculpation: to eliminate or limit the personal liability of a director or officer to the corporation or its shareholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director or officer.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      21 of 78  

 

B-21


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote case-by-case on shareholder resolutions seeking a director nominee who possesses a particular subject matter expertise, considering:

 

   

The company’s board committee structure, existing subject matter expertise, and board nomination provisions relative to that of its peers;

   

The company’s existing board and management oversight mechanisms regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

The company’s disclosure and performance relating to the issue for which board oversight is sought and any significant related controversies; and

   

The scope and structure of the proposal.

Establish Other Board Committee Proposals

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals to establish a new board committee, as such proposals seek a specific oversight mechanism/structure that potentially limits a company’s flexibility to determine an appropriate oversight mechanism for itself. However, the following factors will be considered:

 

   

Existing oversight mechanisms (including current committee structure) regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

Level of disclosure regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

Company performance related to the issue for which board oversight is sought;

   

Board committee structure compared to that of other companies in its industry sector; and

   

The scope and structure of the proposal.

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

 

   

Vote for proposals to restore shareholders’ ability to remove directors with or without cause.

   

Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

   

Vote for proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Independent Board Chair

 

  One of the principal functions of the board is to monitor and evaluate the performance of the CEO and other executive officers. The board chair’s duty to oversee management may be compromised when he/she is connected to or a part of the management team. Generally, Sustainability Advisory Services recommends supporting shareholder proposals that would require that the position of board chair be held by an individual with no materials ties to the company other than their board seat.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally, support shareholder proposals that would require the board chair to be independent of management.

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals asking that a majority or more of directors be independent unless the board composition already meets the proposed threshold by the Sustainability policy’s definition of independent outsider. (See Sustainability Policy Classification of Directors – U.S.)

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      22 of 78  

 

B-22


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote for shareholder proposals asking that board audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees be composed exclusively of independent directors unless they currently meet that standard.

Majority Vote Standard for the Election of Directors

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals to adopt a majority of votes cast standard for directors in uncontested elections. Vote against if no carve-out for a plurality vote standard in contested elections is included.

Generally vote for precatory and binding shareholder resolutions requesting that the board change the company’s bylaws to stipulate that directors need to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast, provided it does

not conflict with the state law where the company is incorporated. Binding resolutions need to allow for a carve-out for a plurality vote standard when there are more nominees than board seats.

Companies are strongly encouraged to also adopt a post-election policy (also known as a director resignation policy) that will provide guidelines so that the company will promptly address the situation of a holdover director.

Proxy Access

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals for proxy access with the following provisions:

 

   

Ownership threshold: maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power;

   

Ownership duration: maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group;

   

Aggregation: minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group;

   

Cap: cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board.

Review for reasonableness any other restrictions on the right of proxy access.

Generally vote against proposals that are more restrictive than these guidelines.

Require More Nominees than Open Seats

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against shareholder proposals that would require a company to nominate more candidates than the number of open board seats.

Shareholder Engagement Policy (Shareholder Advisory Committee)

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board establish an internal mechanism/process, which may include a committee, in order to improve communications between directors and shareholders, unless the company has the following features, as appropriate:

 

   

Established a communication structure that goes beyond the exchange requirements to facilitate the exchange of information between shareholders and members of the board;

   

Effectively disclosed information with respect to this structure to its shareholders;

   

Company has not ignored majority-supported shareholder proposals or a majority withhold vote on a director nominee; and

   

The company has an independent chair or a lead director, according to ISS’ Sustainability policy definition. This individual must be made available for periodic consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.

Proxy Contests/Proxy Access -Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following factors:

 

   

Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      23 of 78  

 

B-23


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Management’s track record;

   

Background to the contested election;

   

Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements;

   

Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of the critique against management;

   

Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and

   

Stock ownership positions.

In the case of candidates nominated pursuant to proxy access, vote case-by-case considering any applicable factors listed above or additional factors which may be relevant, including those that are specific to the company, to the nominee(s) and/or to the nature of the election (such as whether or not there are more candidates than board seats).

Vote-No Campaigns

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: In cases where companies are targeted in connection with public “vote-no” campaigns, evaluate director nominees under the existing governance policies for voting on director nominees in uncontested elections. Take into consideration the arguments submitted by shareholders and other publicly available information.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      24 of 78  

 

B-24


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

3.   Shareholder Rights & Defenses

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on advance notice proposals, giving support to those proposals which allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations as close to the meeting date as reasonably possible and within the broadest window possible, recognizing the need to allow sufficient notice for company, regulatory, and shareholder review.

 

  To be reasonable, the company’s deadline for shareholder notice of a proposal/nominations must be no earlier than 120 days prior to the anniversary of the previous year’s meeting and have a submittal window of no shorter than 30 days from the beginning of the notice period (also known as a 90-120 day window). The submittal window is the period under which shareholders must file their proposal/nominations prior to the deadline.

 

  In general, support additional efforts by companies to ensure full disclosure in regard to a proponent’s economic and voting position in the company so long as the informational requirements are reasonable and aimed at providing shareholders with the necessary information to review such proposals.

Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the bylaws.

 

  Vote for proposals giving the board the ability to amend the bylaws in addition to shareholders.

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

 

  Control share acquisition statutes function by denying shares their voting rights when they contribute to ownership in excess of certain thresholds. Voting rights for those shares exceeding ownership limits may only be restored by approval of either a majority or supermajority of disinterested shares. Thus, control share acquisition statutes effectively require a hostile bidder to put its offer to a shareholder vote or risk voting disenfranchisement if the bidder continues buying up a large block of shares.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes unless doing so would enable the completion of a takeover that would be detrimental to shareholders.

 

  Vote against proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions.

 

  Vote for proposals to restore voting rights to the control shares.

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

 

  Control share cash-out statutes give dissident shareholders the right to “cash-out” of their position in a company at the expense of the shareholder who has taken a control position. In other words, when an investor crosses a preset threshold level, remaining shareholders are given the right to sell their shares to the acquirer, who must buy them at the highest acquiring price.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of control share cash-out statutes.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      25 of 78  

 

B-25


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Disgorgement Provisions

 

  Disgorgement provisions require an acquirer or potential acquirer of more than a certain percentage of a company’s stock to disgorge, or pay back, to the company any profits realized from the sale of that company’s stock purchased 24 months before achieving control status. All sales of company stock by the acquirer occurring within a certain period of time (between 18 months and 24 months) prior to the investor’s gaining control status are subject to these recapture-of-profits provisions.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions.

Fair Price Provisions

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to adopt fair price provisions (provisions that stipulate that an acquirer must pay the same price to acquire all shares as it paid to acquire the control shares), evaluating factors such as the vote required to approve the proposed acquisition, the vote required to repeal the fair price provision, and the mechanism for determining the fair price.

 

  Generally vote against fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.

Freeze-Out Provisions

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of state freeze-out provisions. Freeze-out provisions force an investor who surpasses a certain ownership threshold in a company to wait a specified period of time before gaining control of the company.

Greenmail

 

  Greenmail payments are targeted share repurchases by management of company stock from individuals or groups seeking control of the company. Since only the hostile party receives payment, usually at a substantial premium over the market value of its shares, the practice discriminates against all other shareholders.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

 

  Vote case-by-case on anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

Shareholder Litigation Rights

Federal Forum Selection Provisions

 

  Federal forum selection provisions require that U.S. federal courts be the sole forum for shareholders to litigate claims arising under federal securities law.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for federal forum selection provisions in the charter or bylaws that specify “the district courts of the United States” as the exclusive forum for federal securities law matters, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      26 of 78  

 

B-26


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

  Vote against provisions that restrict the forum to a particular federal district court; unilateral adoption (without a shareholder vote) of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Exclusive Forum Provisions for State Law Matters

 

  Exclusive forum provisions in the charter or bylaws restrict shareholders’ ability to bring derivative lawsuits against the company, for claims arising out of state corporate law, to the courts of a particular state (generally the state of incorporation).

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for charter or bylaw provisions that specify courts located within the state of Delaware as the exclusive forum for corporate law matters for Delaware corporations, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

 

  For states other than Delaware, vote case-by-case on exclusive forum provisions, taking into consideration:

 

   

The company’s stated rationale for adopting such a provision;

   

Disclosure of past harm from duplicative shareholder lawsuits in more than one forum;

   

The breadth of application of the charter or bylaw provision, including the types of lawsuits to which it would apply and the definition of key terms; and

   

Governance features such as shareholders’ ability to repeal the provision at a later date (including the vote standard applied when shareholders attempt to amend the charter or bylaws) and their ability to hold directors accountable through annual director elections and a majority vote standard in uncontested elections.

 

  Generally vote against provisions that specify a state other than the state of incorporation as the exclusive forum for corporate law matters, or that specify a particular local court within the state; unilateral adoption of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Fee Shifting

 

  Fee-shifting provisions in the charter or bylaws require that a shareholder who sues a company unsuccessfully pay all litigation expenses of the defendant corporation and its directors and officers.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against provisions that mandate fee-shifting whenever plaintiffs are not completely successful on the merits (i.e., including cases where the plaintiffs are partially successful).

 

  Unilateral adoption of a fee-shifting provision will generally be considered an ongoing failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments and Problematic Capital Structures policy.

Net Operating Loss (NOL) Protective Amendments

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals to adopt a protective amendment for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the effective term of the protective amendment would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      27 of 78  

 

B-27


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

  Vote case-by-case, considering the following factors, for management proposals to adopt an NOL protective amendment that would remain in effect for the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL:

 

   

The ownership threshold (NOL protective amendments generally prohibit stock ownership transfers that would result in a new 5-percent holder or increase the stock ownership percentage of an existing 5-percent holder);

   

The value of the NOLs;

   

Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision or commitment to cause expiration of the protective amendment upon exhaustion or expiration of the NOL);

   

The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and

   

Any other factors that may be applicable.

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Shareholder Proposals to Put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote or redeem it unless the company has: (1) A shareholder approved poison pill in place; or (2) The company has adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying that the board will only adopt a shareholder rights plan if either:

 

   

Shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan; or

   

The board, in its exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities, determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders under the circumstances to adopt a pill without the delay in adoption that would result from seeking stockholder approval (i.e., the “fiduciary out” provision). A poison pill adopted under this fiduciary out will be put to a shareholder ratification vote within 12 months of adoption or expire. If the pill is not approved by a majority of the votes cast on this issue, the plan will immediately terminate.

 

  If the shareholder proposal calls for a time period of less than 12 months for shareholder ratification after adoption, vote for the proposal, but add the caveat that a vote within 12 months would be considered sufficient implementation.

Management Proposals to Ratify a Poison Pill

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan. Rights plans should contain the following attributes:

 

   

No lower than a 20% trigger, flip-in or flip-over;

   

A term of no more than three years;

   

No dead-hand, slow-hand, no-hand or similar feature that limits the ability of a future board to redeem the pill;

   

Shareholder redemption feature (qualifying offer clause); if the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after a qualifying offer is announced, 10 percent of the shares may call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill.

 

  In addition, the rationale for adopting the pill should be thoroughly explained by the company. In examining the request for the pill, take into consideration the company’s existing governance structure, including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, and any problematic governance concerns.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      28 of 78  

 

B-28


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Management Proposals to Ratify a Pill to Preserve Net Operating Losses (NOLs)

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals to adopt a poison pill for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the term of the pill would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.

 

  Vote case-by-case on management proposals for poison pill ratification, considering the following factors, if the term of the pill would be the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL:

 

   

The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL pills generally have a trigger slightly below 5 percent);

   

The value of the NOLs;

   

Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision, or commitment to cause expiration of the pill upon exhaustion or expiration of NOLs);

   

The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and

   

Any other factors that may be applicable.

Proxy Voting Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tabulation

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding proxy voting mechanics, taking into consideration whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder rights. Specific issues covered under the policy include, but are not limited to, confidential voting of individual proxies and ballots, confidentiality of running vote tallies, and the treatment of abstentions and/or broker non-votes in the company’s vote-counting methodology.

 

  While a variety of factors may be considered in each analysis, the guiding principles are: transparency, consistency, and fairness in the proxy voting process. The factors considered, as applicable to the proposal, may include:

 

   

The scope and structure of the proposal;

   

The company’s stated confidential voting policy (or other relevant policies) and whether it ensures a “level playing field” by providing shareholder proponents with equal access to vote information prior to the annual meeting;

   

The company’s vote standard for management and shareholder proposals and whether it ensures consistency and fairness in the proxy voting process and maintains the integrity of vote results;

   

Whether the company’s disclosure regarding its vote counting method and other relevant voting policies with respect to management and shareholder proposals are consistent and clear;

   

Any recent controversies or concerns related to the company’s proxy voting mechanics;

   

Any unintended consequences resulting from implementation of the proposal; and

   

Any other factors that may be relevant.

Ratification Proposals: Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to ratify provisions of the company’s existing charter or bylaws, unless these governance provisions align with best practice.

 

  In addition, voting against/withhold from individual directors, members of the governance committee, or the full board may be warranted, considering:

 

   

The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;

   

The board’s rationale for seeking ratification;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      29 of 78  

 

B-29


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;

   

Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;

   

The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision;

   

The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings;

   

Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.

 

  When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, vote for the reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election.

 

  Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for the reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in connection with nominating one or more candidates in a contested election where the following apply:

 

   

The election of fewer than 50% of the directors to be elected is contested in the election;

   

One or more of the dissident’s candidates is elected;

   

Shareholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for directors; and

   

The election occurred, and the expenses were incurred, after the adoption of this bylaw.

Reincorporation Proposals

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be evaluated case-by-case, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance concerns including the following:

 

   

Reasons for reincorporation;

   

Comparison of company’s governance practices and provisions prior to and following the reincorporation; and

   

Comparison of corporation laws of original state and destination state.

   

Vote for reincorporation when the economic factors outweigh any neutral or negative governance changes.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against management and shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to act by written consent.

 

  Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to act by written consent, taking into account the following factors:

 

   

Shareholders’ current right to act by written consent;

   

The consent threshold;

   

The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;

   

Investor ownership structure; and

   

Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      30 of 78  

 

B-30


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

  Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals if, in addition to the considerations above, the company has the following governance and antitakeover provisions:

 

   

An unfettered14 right for shareholders to call special meetings at a 10 percent threshold;

   

A majority vote standard in uncontested director elections;

   

No non-shareholder-approved pill; and

   

An annually elected board.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against management or shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to call special meetings.

 

  Generally vote for management or shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings taking into account the following factors:

 

   

Shareholders’ current right to call special meetings;

   

Minimum ownership threshold necessary to call special meetings (10% preferred);

   

The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;

   

Investor ownership structure; and

   

Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.

Stakeholder Provisions

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non-financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

State Antitakeover Statutes

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, and anti-greenmail provisions).

Supermajority Vote Requirements

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote.

 

  Vote for management or shareholder proposals to reduce supermajority vote requirements. However, for companies with shareholder(s) who have significant ownership levels, vote case-by-case, taking into account:

 

   

Ownership structure;

   

Quorum requirements; and

   

Vote requirements.

 

14 “Unfettered” means no restrictions on agenda items, no restrictions on the number of shareholders who can group together to reach the 10 percent threshold, and only reasonable limits on when a meeting can be called: no greater than 30 days after the last annual meeting and no greater than 90 prior to the next annual meeting.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      31 of 78  

 

B-31


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Virtual Shareholder Meetings

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals allowing for the convening of shareholder meetings by electronic means, so long as they do not preclude in-person meetings. Companies are encouraged to disclose the circumstances under which virtual-only15 meetings would be held, and to allow for comparable rights and opportunities for shareholders to participate electronically as they would have during an in-person meeting.

 

  Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals concerning virtual-only meetings, considering:

 

   

Scope and rationale of the proposal; and

   

Concerns identified with the company’s prior meeting practices.

 

15 Virtual-only shareholder meeting” refers to a meeting of shareholders that is held exclusively using technology without a corresponding in-person meeting.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      32 of 78  

 

B-32


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

4. Capital/Restructuring

Capital

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock unless the action is being taken to facilitate an anti-takeover device or some other negative corporate governance action.

 

  Vote for management proposals to eliminate par value.

Common Stock Authorization

General Authorization Requests

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

 

   

If share usage (outstanding plus reserved) is less than 50% of the current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to 50% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is 50% to 100% of the current authorized, vote for an increase of up to 100% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is greater than current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to the current share usage.

   

In the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization.

 

  Generally vote against proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

 

   

The proposal seeks to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of common stock that has superior voting rights to other share classes;

   

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

   

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); or

   

The company has previous sizeable placements (within the past 3 years) of stock with insiders at prices substantially below market value, or with problematic voting rights, without shareholder approval.

 

  However, generally vote for proposed increases beyond the above ratios or problematic situations when there is disclosure of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request, such as:

 

   

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

   

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

   

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

 

  For companies incorporated in states that allow increases in authorized capital without shareholder approval, generally vote withhold or against all nominees if a unilateral capital authorization increase does not conform to the above policies.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      33 of 78  

 

B-33


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Specific Authorization Requests

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support. For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

 

   

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

   

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

Dual Class Structure

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to create a new class of common stock unless:

 

   

The company discloses a compelling rationale for the dual-class capital structure, such as:

   

The company’s auditor has concluded that there is substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern; or

   

The new class of shares will be transitory;

   

The new class is intended for financing purposes with minimal or no dilution to current shareholders in both the short term and long term; and

   

The new class is not designed to preserve or increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder.

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a non-shareholder- approved shareholder rights plan (poison pill).

Preemptive Rights

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights, taking into consideration:

 

   

The size of the company;

   

The shareholder base; and

   

The liquidity of the stock.

Preferred Stock Authorization

General Authorization Requests

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

 

   

If share usage (outstanding plus reserved) is less than 50% of the current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to 50% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is 50% to 100% of the current authorized, vote for an increase of up to 100% of current authorized shares.

   

If share usage is greater than current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to the current share usage.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      34 of 78  

 

B-34


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

In the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization.

   

If no preferred shares are currently issued and outstanding, vote against the request, unless the company discloses a specific use for the shares.

 

  Generally vote against proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

 

   

If the shares requested are blank check preferred shares that can be used for antitakeover purposes;16

   

The company seeks to increase a class of non-convertible preferred shares entitled to more than one vote per share on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders “supervoting shares”);

   

The company seeks to increase a class of convertible preferred shares entitled to a number of votes greater than the number of common shares into which they’re convertible (“supervoting shares”) on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders;

   

The stated intent of the increase in the general authorization is to allow the company to increase an existing designated class of supervoting preferred shares;

   

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

   

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); or

   

The company has previous sizeable placements (within the past 3 years) of stock with insiders at prices substantially below market value, or with problematic voting rights, without shareholder approval.

 

  However, generally vote for proposed increases beyond the above ratios or problematic situations when there is disclosure of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request, such as:

 

   

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

   

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

   

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

 

  For companies incorporated in states that allow increases in authorized capital without shareholder approval, generally vote withhold or against all nominees if a unilateral capital authorization increase does not conform to the above policies.

Specific Authorization Requests

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized preferred shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support. For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

 

   

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

   

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

 

16 To be acceptable, appropriate disclosure would be needed that the shares are “declawed”: i.e., representation by the board that it will not, without prior stockholder approval, issue or use the preferred stock for any defensive or anti-takeover purpose or for the purpose of implementing any stockholder rights plan.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      35 of 78  

 

B-35


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Recapitalization Plans

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on recapitalizations (reclassifications of securities), taking into account the following:

 

   

More simplified capital structure;

   

Enhanced liquidity;

   

Fairness of conversion terms;

   

Impact on voting power and dividends;

   

Reasons for the reclassification;

   

Conflicts of interest; and

   

Other alternatives considered.

Reverse Stock Splits

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to implement a reverse stock split if:

 

   

The number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced; or

   

The effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with Sustainability Advisory Services’ Common Stock Authorization policy.

 

  Vote case-by-case on proposals that do not meet either of the above conditions, taking into consideration the following factors:

 

   

Stock exchange notification to the company of a potential delisting;

   

Disclosure of substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern without additional financing;

   

The company’s rationale; or

   

Other factors as applicable.

Share Repurchase Programs

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: For U.S.-incorporated companies, and foreign-incorporated U.S. Domestic Issuers that are traded solely on U.S. exchanges, vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms, or to grant the board authority to conduct open-market repurchases, in the absence of company-specific concerns regarding:

 

   

Greenmail,

   

The use of buybacks to inappropriately manipulate incentive compensation metrics,

   

Threats to the company’s long-term viability, or

   

Other company-specific factors as warranted.

 

  Vote case-by-case on proposals to repurchase shares directly from specified shareholders, balancing the stated rationale against the possibility for the repurchase authority to be misused, such as to repurchase shares from insiders at a premium to market price.

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

 

 

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals to increase the common share authorization for stock split or stock dividend, provided that the effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      36 of 78  

 

B-36


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

 

is less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with Sustainability Advisory Services’ Common Stock Authorization policy.

Tracking Stock

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the creation of tracking stock, weighing the strategic value of the transaction against such factors as:

 

   

Adverse governance changes;

   

Excessive increases in authorized capital stock;

   

Unfair method of distribution;

   

Diminution of voting rights;

   

Adverse conversion features;

   

Negative impact on stock option plans; and

   

Alternatives such as spin-off.

Share Issuance Mandates at U.S. Domestic Issuers Incorporated Outside the U.S.

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: For U.S. domestic issuers incorporated outside the U.S. and listed solely on a U.S. exchange, generally vote for resolutions to authorize the issuance of common shares up to 20 percent of currently issued common share capital, where not tied to a specific transaction or financing proposal.

 

  For pre-revenue or other early-stage companies that are heavily reliant on periodic equity financing, generally vote for resolutions to authorize the issuance of common shares up to 50 percent of currently issued common share capital. The burden of proof will be on the company to establish that it has a need for the higher limit.

 

  Renewal of such mandates should be sought at each year’s annual meeting.

 

  Vote case-by-case on share issuances for a specific transaction or financing proposal.

Restructuring

Appraisal Rights

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to restore or provide shareholders with rights of appraisal.

Asset Purchases

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on asset purchase proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Purchase price;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

Financial and strategic benefits;

   

How the deal was negotiated;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Other alternatives for the business;

   

Non-completion risk.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      37 of 78  

 

B-37


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Asset Sales

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on asset sales, considering the following factors:

 

   

Impact on the balance sheet/working capital;

   

Potential elimination of diseconomies;

   

Anticipated financial and operating benefits;

   

Anticipated use of funds;

   

Value received for the asset;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

How the deal was negotiated;

   

Conflicts of interest.

Bundled Proposals

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on bundled or “conditional” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

Conversion of Securities

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding conversion of securities. When evaluating these proposals, the investor should review the dilution to existing shareholders, the conversion price relative to market value, financial issues, control issues, termination penalties, and conflicts of interest.

 

  Vote for the conversion if it is expected that the company will be subject to onerous penalties or will be forced to file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan, after evaluating:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ positions;

   

Terms of the offer - discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion; termination penalties; exit strategy;

   

Financial issues - company’s financial situation; degree of need for capital; use of proceeds; effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

   

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

   

Control issues - change in management; change in control, guaranteed board and committee seats; standstill provisions; voting agreements; veto power over certain corporate actions; and

   

Conflict of interest - arm’s length transaction, managerial incentives.

 

  Vote for the debt restructuring if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      38 of 78  

 

B-38


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Formation of Holding Company

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding the formation of a holding company, taking into consideration the following:

 

   

The reasons for the change;

   

Any financial or tax benefits;

   

Regulatory benefits;

   

Increases in capital structure; and

   

Changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the company.

 

  Absent compelling financial reasons to recommend for the transaction, vote against the formation of a holding company if the transaction would include either of the following:

 

   

Increases in common or preferred stock in excess of the allowable maximum (see discussion under “Capital”); or

   

Adverse changes in shareholder rights.

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on going private transactions, taking into account the following:

 

   

Offer price/premium;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

How the deal was negotiated;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Other alternatives/offers considered; and

   

Non-completion risk.

 

  Vote case-by-case on going dark transactions, determining whether the transaction enhances shareholder value by taking into consideration:

 

   

Whether the company has attained benefits from being publicly-traded (examination of trading volume, liquidity, and market research of the stock);

   

Balanced interests of continuing vs. cashed-out shareholders, taking into account the following:

   

Are all shareholders able to participate in the transaction?

   

Will there be a liquid market for remaining shareholders following the transaction?

   

Does the company have strong corporate governance?

   

Will insiders reap the gains of control following the proposed transaction?

   

Does the state of incorporation have laws requiring continued reporting that may benefit shareholders?

Joint Ventures

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to form joint ventures, taking into account the following:

 

   

Percentage of assets/business contributed;

   

Percentage ownership;

   

Financial and strategic benefits;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      39 of 78  

 

B-39


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Governance structure;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Other alternatives; and

   

Non-completion risk.

Liquidations

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on liquidations, taking into account the following:

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

   

Appraisal value of assets; and

   

The compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

 

  Vote for the liquidation if the company will file for bankruptcy if the proposal is not approved.

Mergers and Acquisitions

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on mergers and acquisitions. Review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:

 

   

Valuation - Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While the fairness opinion may provide an initial starting point for assessing valuation reasonableness, emphasis is placed on the offer premium, market reaction and strategic rationale.

   

Market reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction should cause closer scrutiny of a deal.

   

Strategic rationale - Does the deal make sense strategically? From where is the value derived? Cost and revenue synergies should not be overly aggressive or optimistic, but reasonably achievable. Management should also have a favorable track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions.

   

Negotiations and process - Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s-length? Was the process fair and equitable? A fair process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Significant negotiation “wins” can also signify the deal makers’ competency. The comprehensiveness of the sales process (e.g., full auction, partial auction, no auction) can also affect shareholder value.

   

Conflicts of interest - Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? As the result of potential conflicts, the directors and officers of the company may be more likely to vote to approve a merger than if they did not hold these interests. Consider whether these interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger.

   

Governance - Will the combined company have a better or worse governance profile than the current governance profiles of the respective parties to the transaction? If the governance profile is to change for the worse, the burden is on the company to prove that other issues (such as valuation) outweigh any deterioration in governance.

Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding private placements, warrants, and convertible debentures taking into consideration:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position: The amount and timing of shareholder ownership dilution should be weighed against the needs and proposed shareholder benefits of the capital infusion. Although newly issued common stock, absent preemptive rights, is typically dilutive to existing shareholders, share price appreciation is

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      40 of 78  

 

B-40


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

 

often the necessary event to trigger the exercise of “out of the money” warrants and convertible debt. In these instances from a value standpoint, the negative impact of dilution is mitigated by the increase in the company’s stock price that must occur to trigger the dilutive event.

 

   

Terms of the offer (discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion, conversion features, termination penalties, exit strategy):

   

The terms of the offer should be weighed against the alternatives of the company and in light of company’s financial condition. Ideally, the conversion price for convertible debt and the exercise price for warrants should be at a premium to the then prevailing stock price at the time of private placement.

 

   

When evaluating the magnitude of a private placement discount or premium, consider factors that influence the discount or premium, such as, liquidity, due diligence costs, control and monitoring costs, capital scarcity, information asymmetry and anticipation of future performance.

 

   

Financial issues:

   

The company’s financial condition;

   

Degree of need for capital;

   

Use of proceeds;

   

Effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

   

Current and proposed cash burn rate;

   

Going concern viability and the state of the capital and credit markets.

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue alternatives and whether the company engaged in a process to evaluate alternatives: A fair, unconstrained process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Financing alternatives can include joint ventures, partnership, merger or sale of part or all of the company.

 

   

Control issues:

   

Change in management;

   

Change in control;

   

Guaranteed board and committee seats;

   

Standstill provisions;

   

Voting agreements;

   

Veto power over certain corporate actions; and

   

Minority versus majority ownership and corresponding minority discount or majority control premium

 

   

Conflicts of interest:

   

Conflicts of interest should be viewed from the perspective of the company and the investor.

   

Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s length? Are managerial incentives aligned with shareholder interests?

 

   

Market reaction:

   

The market’s response to the proposed deal. A negative market reaction is a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one day impact on the unaffected stock price.

 

  Vote for the private placement, or for the issuance of warrants and/or convertible debentures in a private placement, if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Reorganization/Restructuring Plan (Bankruptcy)

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to common shareholders on bankruptcy plans of reorganization, considering the following factors including, but not limited to:

 

   

Estimated value and financial prospects of the reorganized company;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      41 of 78  

 

B-41


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Percentage ownership of current shareholders in the reorganized company;

   

Whether shareholders are adequately represented in the reorganization process (particularly through the existence of an official equity committee);

   

The cause(s) of the bankruptcy filing, and the extent to which the plan of reorganization addresses the cause(s);

   

Existence of a superior alternative to the plan of reorganization; and

   

Governance of the reorganized company.

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on SPAC mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following:

 

   

Valuation - Is the value being paid by the SPAC reasonable? SPACs generally lack an independent fairness opinion and the financials on the target may be limited. Compare the conversion price with the intrinsic value of the target company provided in the fairness opinion. Also, evaluate the proportionate value of the combined entity attributable to the SPAC IPO shareholders versus the pre-merger value of SPAC. Additionally, a private company discount may be applied to the target, if it is a private entity.

   

Market reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction may be a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one-day impact on the unaffected stock price.

   

Deal timing - A main driver for most transactions is that the SPAC charter typically requires the deal to be complete within 18 to 24 months, or the SPAC is to be liquidated. Evaluate the valuation, market reaction, and potential conflicts of interest for deals that are announced close to the liquidation date.

   

Negotiations and process - What was the process undertaken to identify potential target companies within specified industry or location specified in charter? Consider the background of the sponsors.

   

Conflicts of interest - How are sponsors benefiting from the transaction compared to IPO shareholders? Potential conflicts could arise if a fairness opinion is issued by the insiders to qualify the deal rather than a third party or if management is encouraged to pay a higher price for the target because of an 80% rule (the charter requires that the fair market value of the target is at least equal to 80% of net assets of the SPAC). Also, there may be sense of urgency by the management team of the SPAC to close the deal since its charter typically requires a transaction to be completed within the 18-24 month timeframe.

   

Voting agreements - Are the sponsors entering into enter into any voting agreements/ tender offers with shareholders who are likely to vote against the proposed merger or exercise conversion rights?

   

Governance - What is the impact of having the SPAC CEO or founder on key committees following the proposed merger?

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs) - Proposals for Extensions

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on SPAC extension proposals taking into account the length of the requested extension, the status of any pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process, any added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders, and any prior extension requests.

 

   

Length of request: Typically, extension requests range from two to six months, depending on the progression of the SPAC’s acquistion process.

   

Pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process: Sometimes an intial business combination was already put to a shareholder vote, but, for varying reasons, the transaction could not be consummated by the termination date and the SPAC is requesting an extension. Other times, the SPAC has entered into a definitive transaction agreement, but needs additional time to consummate or hold the shareholder meeting.

   

Added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders: Sometimes the SPAC sponsor (or other insiders) will contribute, typically as a loan to the company, additional funds that will be added to the redemption value of each public share as long as such shares are not redeemed in connection with the extension request. The

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      42 of 78  

 

B-42


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

 

purpose of the “equity kicker” is to incentivize shareholders to hold their shares through the end of the requested extension or until the time the transaction is put to a shareholder vote, rather than electing redeemption at the extension proposal meeting.

   

Prior extension requests: Some SPACs request additional time beyond the extension period sought in prior extension requests.

Spin-offs

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on spin-offs, considering:

 

   

Tax and regulatory advantages;

   

Planned use of the sale proceeds;

   

Valuation of spinoff;

   

Fairness opinion;

   

Benefits to the parent company;

   

Conflicts of interest;

   

Managerial incentives;

   

Corporate governance changes;

   

Changes in the capital structure.

Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking to maximize shareholder value by:

 

   

Hiring a financial advisor to explore strategic alternatives;

   

Selling the company; or

   

Liquidating the company and distributing the proceeds to shareholders.

 

  These proposals should be evaluated based on the following factors:

 

   

Prolonged poor performance with no turnaround in sight;

   

Signs of entrenched board and management (such as the adoption of takeover defenses);

   

Strategic plan in place for improving value;

   

Likelihood of receiving reasonable value in a sale or dissolution; and

   

The company actively exploring its strategic options, including retaining a financial advisor.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      43 of 78  

 

B-43


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

5.   Compensation

Executive Pay Evaluation

Underlying all evaluations are five global principles that most investors expect corporations to adhere to in designing and administering executive and director compensation programs:

 

  1.

Maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value: This principle encompasses overall executive pay practices, which must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive shareholder value creation over the long term. It will take into consideration, among other factors, the link between pay and performance; the mix between fixed and variable pay; performance goals; and equity-based plan costs;

  2.

Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”: This principle addresses the appropriateness of long or indefinite contracts, excessive severance packages, and guaranteed compensation;

  3.

Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee: This principle promotes oversight of executive pay programs by directors with appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and a sound process for compensation decision-making (e.g., including access to independent expertise and advice when needed);

  4.

Provide shareholders with clear, comprehensive compensation disclosures: This principle underscores the importance of informative and timely disclosures that enable shareholders to evaluate executive pay practices fully and fairly;

  5.

Avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors: This principle recognizes the interests of shareholders in ensuring that compensation to outside directors does not compromise their independence and ability to make appropriate judgments in overseeing managers’ pay and performance. At the market level, it may incorporate a variety of generally accepted best practices.

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation—Management Proposals (Management Say-on-Pay)

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on ballot items related to executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation.

Vote against Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay or “SOP”) if:

 

   

There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

   

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices;

   

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Vote against or withhold from the members of the compensation committee and potentially the full board if:

 

   

There is no SOP on the ballot, and an against vote on an SOP is warranted due to pay for performance misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues raised previously, or a combination thereof;

   

The board fails to respond adequately to a previous SOP proposal that received less than 70 percent support of votes cast;

   

The company has recently practiced or approved problematic pay practices, such as option repricing or option backdating; or

   

The situation is egregious.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      44 of 78  

 

B-44


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Primary Evaluation Factors for Executive Pay

Pay-for-Performance Evaluation

Sustainability Advisory Services annually conducts a pay-for-performance analysis to identify strong or satisfactory alignment between pay and performance over a sustained period. With respect to companies in the Russell 3000 or Russell 3000E Indices17, this analysis considers the following:

 

  1.

  Peer Group18 Alignment:

 

   

The degree of alignment between the company’s annualized TSR rank and the CEO’s annualized total pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

   

The rankings of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

   

The multiple of the CEO’s total pay relative to the peer group median in the most recent fiscal year.

 

  2.

Absolute Alignment19 – the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior five fiscal years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR during the period.

If the above analysis demonstrates significant unsatisfactory long-term pay-for-performance alignment or, in the case of companies outside the Russell indices, misaligned pay and performance are otherwise suggested, our analysis may include any of the following qualitative factors, as relevant to evaluating how various pay elements may work to encourage or to undermine long-term value creation and alignment with shareholder interests:

 

   

The ratio of performance- to time-based incentive awards;

   

The overall ratio of performance-based compensation;

   

The rigor of performance goals;

   

The complexity and risks around pay program design;

   

The transparency and clarity of disclosure;

   

The company’s peer group benchmarking practices;

   

Financial/operational results, both absolute and relative to peers;

   

Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g., bi-annual awards);

   

Realizable pay20 compared to grant pay; and

   

Any other factors deemed relevant.

 

17 The Russell 3000E Index includes approximately 4,000 of the largest U.S. equity securities.

18 The revised peer group is generally comprised of 14-24 companies that are selected using market cap, revenue (or assets for certain financial firms), GICS industry group, and company’s selected peers’ GICS industry group, with size constraints, via a process designed to select peers that are comparable to the subject company in terms of revenue/assets and industry, and also within a market cap bucket that is reflective of the company’s. For Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels companies, market cap is the only size determinant.

19 Only Russell 3000 Index companies are subject to the Absolute Alignment analysis.

20 Sustainability Advisory Services research reports include realizable pay for S&P1500 companies.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      45 of 78  

 

B-45


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Problematic Pay Practices

Problematic pay elements are generally evaluated case-by-case considering the context of a company’s overall pay program and demonstrated pay-for-performance philosophy. The focus is on executive compensation practices that contravene the global pay principles, including:

 

   

Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements;

   

Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking or present a windfall risk; and

   

Pay decisions that circumvent pay-for-performance, such as options backdating or waiving performance requirements.

The list of examples below highlights certain problematic practices that carry significant weight in this overall consideration and may result in adverse vote recommendations:

 

   

Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARs without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options);

   

Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups;

   

New or materially amended agreements that provide for:

   

Excessive termination or CIC severance payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and average/target/most recent bonus);

   

CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties (“single” or “modified single” triggers) or in connection with a problematic Good Reason definition;

   

CIC excise tax gross-up entitlements (including “modified” gross-ups);

   

Multi-year guaranteed awards that are not at risk due to rigorous performance conditions;

   

Liberal CIC definition combined with any single-trigger CIC benefits;

   

Severance payments made when the termination is not clearly disclosed as involuntary (for example, a termination without cause or resignation for good reason);

   

Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally-managed issuers (EMIs) such that a reasonable assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI’s executives is not possible;

   

Any other provision or practice deemed to be egregious and present a significant risk to investors.

The above examples are not an exhaustive list. Please refer to ISS’ U.S. Compensation Policies FAQ document for additional detail on specific pay practices that have been identified as problematic and may lead to negative vote recommendations.

Options Backdating

The following factors should be examined case-by-case to allow for distinctions to be made between “sloppy” plan administration versus deliberate action or fraud:

 

   

Reason and motive for the options backdating issue, such as inadvertent vs. deliberate grant date changes;

   

Duration of options backdating;

   

Size of restatement due to options backdating;

   

Corrective actions taken by the board or compensation committee, such as canceling or re-pricing backdated options, the recouping of option gains on backdated grants; and

   

Adoption of a grant policy that prohibits backdating, and creates a fixed grant schedule or window period for equity grants in the future.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      46 of 78  

 

B-46


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Compensation Committee Communications and Responsiveness

Consider the following factors case-by-case when evaluating ballot items related to executive pay on the board’s responsiveness to investor input and engagement on compensation issues:

 

   

Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or

   

Failure to adequately respond to the company’s previous say-on-pay proposal that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast, taking into account:

   

The company’s response, including:

   

Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors regarding the issues that contributed to the low level of support (including the timing and frequency of engagements and whether independent directors participated);

   

Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;

   

Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns;

   

Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;

   

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;

   

The company’s ownership structure; and

   

Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say When on Pay”)

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for annual advisory votes on compensation, which provide the most consistent and clear communication channel for shareholder concerns about companies’ executive pay programs.

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on say on Golden Parachute proposals, including consideration of existing change-in-control arrangements maintained with named executive officers rather than focusing primarily on new or extended arrangements.

Features that may result in an “against” recommendation include one or more of the following, depending on the number, magnitude, and/or timing of issue(s):

 

   

Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance;

   

Single-trigger acceleration of unvested equity awards;

   

Full acceleration of equity awards granted shortly before the change in control;

   

Acceleration of performance awards above the target level of performance without compelling rationale;

   

Excessive cash severance (>3x base salary and bonus);

   

Excise tax gross-ups triggered and payable;

   

Excessive golden parachute payments (on an absolute basis or as a percentage of transaction equity value); or

   

Recent amendments that incorporate any problematic features (such as those above) or recent actions (such as extraordinary equity grants) that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may not be in the best interests of shareholders; or

   

The company’s assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden parachute advisory vote.

Recent amendment(s) that incorporate problematic features will tend to carry more weight on the overall analysis. However, the presence of multiple legacy problematic features will also be closely scrutinized.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      47 of 78  

 

B-47


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

In cases where the golden parachute vote is incorporated into a company’s advisory vote on compensation (management say-on-pay), the say-on-pay proposal will be evaluated in accordance with these guidelines, which may give higher weight to that component of the overall evaluation.

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

Please refer to ISS’ U.S. Equity Compensation Plans FAQ document for additional details on the Equity Plan Scorecard policy.

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on certain equity-based compensation plans21 depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated using an “Equity Plan Scorecard” (EPSC) approach with three pillars:

 

   

Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both:

   

SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants; and

   

SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants.

 

   

Plan Features:

   

Quality of disclosure around vesting upon a change in control (CIC);

   

Discretionary vesting authority;

   

Liberal share recycling on various award types;

   

Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan;

   

Dividends payable prior to award vesting.

 

   

Grant Practices:

   

The company’s three year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers;

   

Vesting requirements in CEO’S recent equity grants (3-year look-back);

   

The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years);

   

The proportion of the CEO’s most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions;

   

Whether the company maintains a sufficient claw-back policy;

   

Whether the company maintains sufficient post exercise/vesting share-holding requirements.

Generally vote against the plan proposal if the combination of above factors indicates that the plan is not, overall, in shareholders’ interests, or if any of the following egregious factors (“overriding factors”) apply:

 

   

Awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition;

   

The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval (either by expressly permitting it – for NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies – or by not prohibiting it when the company has a history of repricing – for non-listed companies);

   

The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a significant pay-for-performance disconnect under certain circumstances;

   

The plan is excessively dilutive to shareholders’ holdings;

   

The plan contains an evergreen (automatic share replenishment) feature; or

   

Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

 

21 Proposals evaluated under the EPSC policy generally include those to approve or amend (1) stock option plans for employees and/or employees and directors, (2) restricted stock plans for employees and/or employees and directors, and (3) omnibus stock incentive plans for employees and/or employees and directors; amended plans will be further evaluated case-by-case.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      48 of 78  

 

B-48


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Further Information on certain EPSC Factors

Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT)

The cost of the equity plans is expressed as Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT), which is measured using a binomial option pricing model that assesses the amount of shareholders’ equity flowing out of the company to employees and directors. SVT is expressed as both a dollar amount and as a percentage of market value, and includes the new shares proposed, shares available under existing plans, and shares granted but unexercised (using two measures, in the case of plans subject to the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, as noted above). All award types are valued. For omnibus plans, unless limitations are placed on the most expensive types of awards (for example, full value awards), the assumption is made that all awards to be granted will be the most expensive types.

For proposals subject to Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, Shareholder Value Transfer is reasonable if it falls below a company-specific benchmark. The benchmark is determined as follows: The top quartile performers in each industry group (using the Global Industry Classification Standard: GICS) are identified. Benchmark SVT levels for each industry are established based on these top performers’ historic SVT. Regression analyses are run on each industry group to identify the variables most strongly correlated to SVT. The benchmark industry SVT level is then adjusted upwards or downwards for the specific company by plugging the company-specific performance measures, size and cash compensation into the industry cap equations to arrive at the company’s benchmark.22

Three-Year Value-Adjusted Burn Rate

A “Value-Adjusted Burn Rate” is used for stock plan evaluations. Value-Adjusted Burn Rate benchmarks are calculated as the greater of: (1) an industry-specific threshold based on three-year burn rates within the company’s GICS group segmented by S&P 500, Russell 3000 index (less the S&P 500) and non-Russell 3000 index; and (2) a de minimis threshold established separately for each of the S&P 500, the Russell 3000 index less the S&P 500, and the non-Russell 3000 index. Year-over-year burn-rate benchmark changes will be limited to a predetermined range above or below the prior year’s burn-rate benchmark.

The Value-Adjusted Burn Rate will be calculated as follows:

Value-Adjusted Burn Rate = ((# of options * option’s dollar value using a Black-Scholes model) + (# of full-value awards * stock price)) / (Weighted average common shares * stock price).

Egregious Factors

Liberal Change in Control Definition

Generally vote against equity plans if the plan has a liberal definition of change in control and the equity awards could vest upon such liberal definition of change-in-control, even though an actual change in control may not occur. Examples of such a definition include, but are not limited to, announcement or commencement of a tender offer, provisions for acceleration upon a “potential” takeover, shareholder approval of a merger or other transactions, or similar language.

 

22 For plans evaluated under the Equity Plan Scorecard policy, the company’s SVT benchmark is considered along with other factors.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      49 of 78  

 

B-49


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Repricing Provisions

Vote against plans that expressly permit the repricing or exchange of underwater stock options/stock appreciate rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval. “Repricing” includes the ability to do any of the following:

 

   

Amend the terms of outstanding options or SARs to reduce the exercise price of such outstanding options or SARs;

   

Cancel outstanding options or SARs in exchange for options or SARs with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the original options or SARs;

   

Cancel underwater options in exchange for stock awards; or

   

Provide cash buyouts of underwater options.

While the above cover most types of repricing, Sustainability Advisory Services may view other provisions as akin to repricing depending on the facts and circumstances.

Also, vote against or withhold from members of the Compensation Committee who approved repricing (as defined above or otherwise determined by Sustainability Advisory Services) without prior shareholder approval, even if such repricings are allowed in their equity plan.

Vote against plans that do not expressly prohibit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval if the company has a history of repricing/buyouts without shareholder approval, and the applicable listing standards would not preclude them from doing so.

Problematic Pay Practices or Significant Pay-for-Performance Disconnect

If the equity plan on the ballot is a vehicle for problematic pay practices, vote against the plan.

If a significant portion of the CEO’s misaligned pay is attributed to non-performance-based equity awards, and there is an equity plan on the ballot with the CEO as one of the participants, Sustainability Advisory Services may recommend a vote against the equity plan. Considerations in voting against the equity plan may include, but are not limited to:

 

   

Magnitude of pay misalignment;

   

Contribution of non–performance-based equity grants to overall pay; and

   

The proportion of equity awards granted in the last three fiscal years concentrated at the named executive officer level.

Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations

Dividend Equivalent Rights

Options that have Dividend Equivalent Rights (DERs) associated with them will have a higher calculated award value than those without DERs under the binomial model, based on the value of these dividend streams. The higher value will be applied to new shares, shares available under existing plans, and shares awarded but not exercised per the plan specifications. DERS transfer more shareholder equity to employees and non-employee directors and this cost should be captured.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      50 of 78  

 

B-50


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Operating Partnership (OP) Units in Equity Plan Analysis of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

For Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS), include the common shares issuable upon conversion of outstanding Operating Partnership (OP) units in the share count for the purposes of determining: (1) market capitalization in the Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) analysis and (2) shares outstanding in the burn rate analysis.

Other Compensation Plans

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals to implement an ESOP or increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, unless the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is excessive (more than five percent of outstanding shares).

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Qualified Plans

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on qualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for employee stock purchase plans where all of the following apply:

 

   

Purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value;

   

Offering period is 27 months or less; and

   

The number of shares allocated to the plan is 10 percent or less of the outstanding shares.

Vote against qualified employee stock purchase plans where any of the following apply:

 

   

Purchase price is less than 85 percent of fair market value; or

   

Offering period is greater than 27 months; or

   

The number of shares allocated to the plan is more than ten percent of the outstanding shares.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Non-Qualified Plans

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on nonqualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for nonqualified employee stock purchase plans with all the following features:

 

   

Broad-based participation (i.e., all employees of the company with the exclusion of individuals with 5 percent or more of beneficial ownership of the company);

   

Limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percent of base salary;

   

Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value;

   

No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase when there is a company matching contribution.

Vote against nonqualified employee stock purchase plans when any of the plan features do not meet the above criteria. If the company matching contribution or effective discount exceeds the above, Sustainability Advisory Services may evaluate the SVT cost as part of the assessment.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      51 of 78  

 

B-51


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Amending Cash and Equity Plans (including Approval for Tax Deductibility (162(m))

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on amendments to cash and equity incentive plans.

Generally vote for proposals to amend executive cash, stock, or cash and stock incentive plans if the proposal:

 

   

Addresses administrative features only; or

   

Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee consists entirely of independent outsiders, per Sustainability Advisory Services’ Classification of Directors. Note that if the company is presenting the plan to shareholders for the first time after the company’s initial public offering (IPO), or if the proposal is bundled with other material plan amendments, then the recommendation will be case-by-case (see below).

Vote against such proposals to amend executive cash, stock, or cash and stock incentive plans if the proposal:

 

   

Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee does not consist entirely of independent outsiders, per Sustainability Advisory Services’ Classification of Directors.

Vote case-by-case on all other proposals to amend cash incentive plans. This includes plans presented to shareholders for the first time after the company’s IPO and/or proposals that bundle material amendment(s) other than those for Section 162(m) purposes

Vote case-by-case on all other proposals to amend equity incentive plans, considering the following:

 

   

If the proposal requests additional shares and/or the amendments may potentially increase the transfer of shareholder value to employees, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments.

   

If the plan is being presented to shareholders for the first time after the company’s IPO, whether or not additional shares are being requested, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of any amendments.

   

If there is no request for additional shares and the amendments are not deemed to potentially increase the transfer of shareholder value to employees, then the recommendation will be based entirely on an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments, and the EPSC evaluation will be shown for informational purposes.

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice options taking into consideration:

 

   

Historic trading patterns—the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term;

   

Rationale for the re-pricing—was the stock price decline beyond management’s control?

   

Is this a value-for-value exchange?

   

Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?

   

Timing—repricing should occur at least one year out from any precipitous drop in company’s stock price;

   

Option vesting—does the new option vest immediately or is there a black-out period?

   

Term of the option--the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option;

   

Exercise price—should be set at fair market or a premium to market;

   

Participants—executive officers and directors must be excluded.

If the surrendered options are added back to the equity plans for re-issuance, then also take into consideration the company’s total cost of equity plans and its three-year average burn rate.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      52 of 78  

 

B-52


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

In addition to the above considerations, evaluate the intent, rationale, and timing of the repricing proposal. The proposal should clearly articulate why the board is choosing to conduct an exchange program at this point in time. Repricing underwater options after a recent precipitous drop in the company’s stock price demonstrates poor timing. and warrants additional scrutiny. Also, consider the terms of the surrendered options, such as the grant date, exercise price and vesting schedule. Grant dates of surrendered options should be far enough back (two to three years) so as not to suggest that repricings are being done to take advantage of short-term downward price movements. Similarly, the exercise price of surrendered options should be above the 52-week high for the stock price.

Vote for shareholder proposals to put option repricings to a shareholder vote.

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on plans that provide participants with the option of taking all or a portion of their cash compensation in the form of stock.

Vote for non-employee director-only equity plans that provide a dollar-for-dollar cash-for-stock exchange.

Vote case-by-case on plans which do not provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange. In cases where the exchange is not dollar-for-dollar, the request for new or additional shares for such equity program will be considered using the binomial option pricing model. In an effort to capture the total cost of total compensation, no adjustments will be made to carve out the in-lieu-of cash compensation.

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: One-time Transfers: Vote against or withhold from compensation committee members if they fail to submit one-time transfers to shareholders for approval.

Vote case-by-case on one-time transfers. Vote for if:

 

   

Executive officers and non-employee directors are excluded from participating;

   

Stock options are purchased by third-party financial institutions at a discount to their fair value using option pricing models such as Black-Scholes or a Binomial Option Valuation or other appropriate financial models;

   

There is a two-year minimum holding period for sale proceeds (cash or stock) for all participants.

Additionally, management should provide a clear explanation of why options are being transferred to a third-party institution and whether the events leading up to a decline in stock price were beyond management’s control. A review of the company’s historic stock price volatility should indicate if the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term.

Ongoing TSO program: Vote against equity plan proposals if the details of ongoing TSO programs are not provided to shareholders. Since TSOs will be one of the award types under a stock plan, the ongoing TSO program, structure and mechanics must be disclosed to shareholders. The specific criteria to be considered in evaluating these proposals include, but not limited, to the following:

 

   

Eligibility;

   

Vesting;

   

Bid-price;

   

Term of options;

   

Cost of the program and impact of the TSOs on company’s total option expense

   

Option repricing policy.

Amendments to existing plans that allow for introduction of transferability of stock options should make clear that only options granted post-amendment shall be transferable.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      53 of 78  

 

B-53


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Director Compensation

Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking ratification of non-employee director compensation, based on the following factors:

 

   

If the equity plan under which non-employee director grants are made is on the ballot, whether or not it warrants support; and

   

An assessment of the following qualitative factors:

   

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

   

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

   

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

   

Equity award vesting schedules;

   

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

   

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

   

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

   

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on compensation plans for non-employee directors, based on:

 

   

The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants;

   

The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers; and

   

The presence of any egregious plan features (such as an option repricing provision or liberal CIC vesting risk).

On occasion, director stock plans will exceed the plan cost or burn rate benchmarks when combined with employee or executive stock plans. In such cases, vote case-by-case on the plan taking into consideration the following qualitative factors:

 

   

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

   

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

   

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

   

Equity award vesting schedules;

   

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

   

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

   

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

   

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Non-Employee Director Retirement Plans

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against retirement plans for non-employee directors.

Vote for shareholder proposals to eliminate retirement plans for non-employee directors.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      54 of 78  

 

B-54


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits named executive officers from engaging in derivative or speculative transactions involving company stock, including hedging, holding stock in a margin account, or pledging stock as collateral for a loan. However, the company’s existing policies regarding responsible use of company stock will be considered.

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals seeking deferral of a portion of annual bonus pay, with ultimate payout linked to sustained results for the performance metrics on which the bonus was earned (whether for the named executive officers or a wider group of employees), taking into account the following factors:

 

   

The company’s past practices regarding equity and cash compensation;

   

Whether the company has a holding period or stock ownership requirements in place, such as a meaningful retention ratio (at least 50 percent for full tenure); and

   

Whether the company has a rigorous claw-back policy in place.

Compensation Consultants—Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking disclosure regarding the company, board, or compensation committee’s use of compensation consultants, such as company name, business relationship(s), and fees paid.

Disclosure/Setting Levels or Types of Compensation for Executives and Directors

 

  Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking additional disclosure of executive and director pay information, provided the information requested is relevant to shareholders’ needs, would not put the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its industry, and is not unduly burdensome to the company.

Vote against shareholder proposals seeking to set absolute levels on compensation or otherwise dictate the amount or form of compensation.

Vote against shareholder proposals seeking to eliminate stock options or any other equity grants to employees or directors.

Vote against shareholder proposals requiring director fees be paid in stock only.

Generally vote against shareholder proposals that mandate a minimum amount of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

Vote case-by-case on all other shareholder proposals regarding executive and director pay, taking into account company performance, pay level versus peers, pay level versus industry, and long-term corporate outlook.

Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals calling companies to adopt a policy of obtaining shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make payments or awards following the death of a senior executive in the form of unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      55 of 78  

 

B-55


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. This would not apply to any benefit programs or equity plan proposals that the broad-based employee population is eligible.

Hold Equity Past Retirement or for a Significant Period of Time

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to adopt policies requiring senior executive officers to retain a portion of net shares acquired through compensation plans. The following factors will be taken into account:

 

   

The percentage/ratio of net shares required to be retained;

   

The time period required to retain the shares;

   

Whether the company has equity retention, holding period, and/or stock ownership requirements in place and the robustness of such requirements;

   

Whether the company has any other policies aimed at mitigating risk taking by executives;

   

Executives’ actual stock ownership and the degree to which it meets or exceeds the proponent’s suggested holding period/retention ratio or the company’s existing requirements; and

Pay Disparity

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case on proposals calling for an analysis of the pay disparity between corporate executives and other non-executive employees.

Pay for Performance/Performance-Based Awards

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals requesting that a significant amount of future long-term incentive compensation awarded to senior executives shall be performance-based and requesting that the board adopt and disclose challenging performance metrics to shareholders, based on the following analytical steps:

 

   

First, vote for shareholder proposals advocating the use of performance-based equity awards, such as performance contingent options or restricted stock, indexed options or premium-priced options, unless the proposal is overly restrictive or if the company has demonstrated that it is using a “substantial” portion of performance-based awards for its top executives. Standard stock options and performance-accelerated awards do not meet the criteria to be considered as performance-based awards. Further, premium-priced options should have a meaningful premium to be considered performance-based awards.

   

Second, assess the rigor of the company’s performance-based equity program. If the bar set for the performance-based program is too low based on the company’s historical or peer group comparison, generally vote for the proposal. Furthermore, if target performance results in an above target payout, vote for the shareholder proposal due to program’s poor design. If the company does not disclose the performance metric of the performance-based equity program, vote for the shareholder proposal regardless of the outcome of the first step to the test.

In general, vote for the shareholder proposal if the company does not meet both of the above two steps.

Pay for Superior Performance

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that request the board establish a pay-for-superior performance standard in the company’s executive compensation plan for senior executives. These proposals generally include the following principles:

 

   

Set compensation targets for the plan’s annual and long-term incentive pay components at or below the peer group median;

   

Deliver a majority of the plan’s target long-term compensation through performance-vested, not simply time-vested, equity awards;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      56 of 78  

 

B-56


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Provide the strategic rationale and relative weightings of the financial and non-financial performance metrics or criteria used in the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan;

   

Establish performance targets for each plan financial metric relative to the performance of the company’s peer companies;

   

Limit payment under the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan to when the company’s performance on its selected financial performance metrics exceeds peer group median performance.

Consider the following factors in evaluating this proposal:

 

   

What aspects of the company’s annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven?

   

If the annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven, are the performance criteria and hurdle rates disclosed to shareholders or are they benchmarked against a disclosed peer group?

   

Can shareholders assess the correlation between pay and performance based on the current disclosure?

   

What type of industry and stage of business cycle does the company belong to?

Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for the addition of certain safeguards in prearranged trading plans (10b5-1 plans) for executives. Safeguards may include:

 

   

Adoption, amendment, or termination of a 10b5-1 Plan must be disclosed in a Form 8-K;

   

Amendment or early termination of a 10b5-1 Plan allowed only under extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the board;

   

Request that a certain number of days that must elapse between adoption or amendment of a 10b5-1 Plan and initial trading under the plan;

   

Reports on Form 4 must identify transactions made pursuant to a 10b5-1 Plan;

   

An executive may not trade in company stock outside the 10b5-1 Plan;

   

Trades under a 10b5-1 Plan must be handled by a broker who does not handle other securities transactions for the executive.

Prohibit Outside CEOs from Serving on Compensation Committees

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals seeking a policy to prohibit any outside

CEO from serving on a company’s compensation committee, unless the company has demonstrated problematic pay practices that raise concerns about the performance and composition of the committee.

Recoupment of Incentive or Stock Compensation in Specified Circumstances

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to recoup incentive cash or stock compensation made to senior executives if it is later determined that the figures upon which incentive compensation is earned turn out to have been in error, or if the senior executive has breached company policy or has engaged in misconduct that may be significantly detrimental to the company’s financial position or reputation, or if the senior executive failed to manage or monitor risks that subsequently led to significant financial or reputational harm to the company. Many companies have adopted policies that permit recoupment in cases where an executive’s fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation. However, such policies may be narrow given that not all misconduct or negligence may result in significant financial restatements. Misconduct, negligence or lack of sufficient oversight by senior executives may lead to significant financial loss or reputational damage that may have long-lasting impact.

In considering whether to support such shareholder proposals, the following factors will be taken into consideration:

 

   

If the company has adopted a formal recoupment policy;

   

The rigor of the recoupment policy focusing on how and under what circumstances the company may recoup incentive or stock compensation;

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      57 of 78  

 

B-57


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Whether the company has chronic restatement history or material financial problems;

   

Whether the company’s policy substantially addresses the concerns raised by the proponent;

   

Disclosure of recoupment of incentive or stock compensation from senior executives or lack thereof; or

   

Any other relevant factors.

Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals requiring that golden parachutes or executive severance agreements be submitted for shareholder ratification, unless the proposal requires shareholder approval prior to entering into employment contracts.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to ratify or cancel golden parachutes. An acceptable parachute should include, but is not limited to, the following:

 

   

The triggering mechanism should be beyond the control of management;

   

The amount should not exceed three times base amount (defined as the average annual taxable W-2 compensation during the five years prior to the year in which the change of control occurs);

   

Change-in-control payments should be double-triggered, i.e., (1) after a change in control has taken place, and (2) termination of the executive as a result of the change in control. Change in control is defined as a change in the company ownership structure.

Share Buyback Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals prohibiting executives from selling shares of company stock during periods in which the company has announced that it may or will be repurchasing shares of its stock. Vote for the proposal when there is a pattern of abuse by executives exercising options or selling shares during periods of share buybacks.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the company exclude the impact of share buybacks from the calculation of incentive program metrics, considering the following factors:

 

   

The frequency and timing of the company’s share buybacks;

   

The use of per-share metrics in incentive plans;

   

The effect of recent buybacks on incentive metric results and payouts; and

   

Whether there is any indication of metric result manipulation.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in SERP agreements to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to limit the executive benefits provided under the company’s supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) by limiting covered compensation to a senior executive’s annual salary or those pay elements covered for the general employee population.

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of not providing tax gross-up payments to executives, except in situations where gross-ups are provided pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company, such as a relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      58 of 78  

 

B-58


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment/Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking a policy requiring termination of employment prior to severance payment and/or eliminating accelerated vesting of unvested equity.

The following factors will be considered:

 

   

The company’s current treatment of equity in change-of-control situations (i.e. is it double triggered, does it allow for the assumption of equity by acquiring company, the treatment of performance shares, etc.);

   

Current employment agreements, including potential poor pay practices such as gross-ups embedded in those agreements.

Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits acceleration of the vesting of equity awards to senior executives in the event of a change in control (except for pro rata vesting considering the time elapsed and attainment of any related performance goals between the award date and the change in control).

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      59 of 78  

 

B-59


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

6.   Social and Environmental Issues

Global Approach

Socially responsible shareholder resolutions receive a great deal more attention from institutional shareholders today than in the past. While focusing on value enhancement through risk mitigation and exposure to new sustainability-related opportunities, these resolutions also seek standardized reporting on ESG issues, request information regarding an issuer’s adoption of, or adherence to, relevant norms, standards, codes of conduct or universally recognized international initiatives to promote disclosure and transparency. ISS’ Sustainability Policy generally supports standards-based ESG shareholder proposals that enhance long-term shareholder and stakeholder value while aligning the interests of the company with those of society at large. In particular, the policy will focus on resolutions seeking greater transparency and/or adherence to internationally recognized standards and principles.

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: In determining our vote recommendation on standardized ESG reporting shareholder proposals, we also analyze the following factors:

 

   

Whether the proposal itself is well framed and reasonable;

   

Whether adoption of the proposal would have either a positive or negative impact on the company’s short-term or long-term share value;

   

The percentage of sales, assets and earnings affected;

   

Whether the company has already responded in some appropriate manner to the request embodied in a proposal;

   

Whether the company’s analysis and voting recommendation to shareholders is persuasive;

   

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s environmental or social practices;

   

What other companies have done in response to the issue addressed in the proposal;

   

Whether implementation of the proposal would achieve the objectives sought in the proposal; and

   

The degree to which the company’s stated position on the issues raised in the proposal could affect its reputation or sales, or leave it vulnerable to a boycott or selective purchasing.

Animal Welfare

Animal Welfare Policies

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking a report on a company’s animal welfare standards, or animal welfare-related risks, unless:

 

   

The company has already published a set of animal welfare standards and monitors compliance;

   

The company’s standards are comparable to industry peers; and

   

There are no recent significant fines, litigation, or controversies related to the company’s and/or its suppliers’ treatment of animals.

Animal Testing

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to phase out the use of animals in product testing, unless:

 

   

The company is conducting animal testing programs that are unnecessary or not required by regulation;

   

The company is conducting animal testing when suitable alternatives are commonly accepted and used by industry peers; or

   

There are recent, significant fines or litigation related to the company’s treatment of animals.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      60 of 78  

 

B-60


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Animal Slaughter

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting the implementation of Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK) methods at company and/or supplier operations unless such methods are required by legislation or generally accepted as the industry standard.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting a report on the feasibility of implementing CAK methods at company and/or supplier operations considering the availability of existing research conducted by the company or industry groups on this topic and any fines or litigation related to current animal processing procedures at the company.

Consumer Issues

Genetically Modified Ingredients

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting that a company voluntarily label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in its products. The labeling of products with GE ingredients is best left to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

Vote case-by-case on proposals asking for a report on the feasibility of labeling products containing GE ingredients, taking into account:

 

   

The potential impact of such labeling on the company’s business;

   

The quality of the company’s disclosure on GE product labeling, related voluntary initiatives, and how this disclosure compares with industry peer disclosure; and

   

Company’s current disclosure on the feasibility of GE product labeling.

Generally vote FOR proposals seeking a report on the social, health, and environmental effects of genetically modified organism (GMOs).

Generally vote against proposals to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products, or proposals asking for reports outlining the steps necessary to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products. Such decisions are more appropriately made by management with consideration of current regulations.

Reports on Potentially Controversial Business/Financial Practices

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company’s potentially controversial business or financial practices or products, taking into account:

 

   

Whether the company has adequately disclosed mechanisms in place to prevent abuses;

   

Whether the company has adequately disclosed the financial risks of the products/practices in question;

   

Whether the company has been subject to violations of related laws or serious controversies; and

   

Peer companies’ policies/practices in this area.

Consumer Lending

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on the company’s lending guidelines and procedures taking into account:

 

   

Whether the company has adequately disclosed mechanisms in place to prevent abusive lending practices;

   

Whether the company has adequately disclosed the financial risks of the lending products in question;

   

Whether the company has been subject to violations of lending laws or serious lending controversies; and

   

Peer companies’ policies to prevent abusive lending practices.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      61 of 78  

 

B-61


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, Product Reimportation and Health Pandemics

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting that companies implement specific price restraints on pharmaceutical products unless the company fails to adhere to legislative guidelines or industry norms in its product pricing practices.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting that a company report on its product pricing or access to medicine policies, considering:

 

   

The potential for reputational, market, and regulatory risk exposure;

   

Existing disclosure of relevant policies;

   

Deviation from established industry norms;

   

Relevant company initiatives to provide research and/or products to disadvantaged consumers;

   

Whether the proposal focuses on specific products or geographic regions;

   

The potential burden and scope of the requested report; and

   

Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines at the company.

Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on the financial and legal impact of its prescription drug reimportation policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

Generally vote against proposals requesting that companies adopt specific policies to encourage or constrain prescription drug reimportation. Such matters are more appropriately the province of legislative activity and may place the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its peers.

Health Pandemics

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports outlining the impact of health pandemics (such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and avian flu) on the company’s operations and how the company is responding to the situation, taking into account:

 

   

The scope of the company’s operations in the affected/relevant area(s);

   

The company’s existing healthcare policies, including benefits and healthcare access; and

   

Company donations to relevant healthcare providers.

Vote against proposals asking companies to establish, implement, and report on a standard of response to health pandemics (such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and avian flu), unless the company has significant operations in the affected markets and has failed to adopt policies and/or procedures to address these issues comparable to those of industry peers.

Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives/procedures, and oversight mechanisms related to toxic/hazardous materials or product safety in its supply chain.

Generally vote for resolutions requesting that companies develop a feasibility assessment to phase-out of certain toxic/hazardous materials, or evaluate and disclose the potential financial and legal risks associated with utilizing certain materials.

Generally vote against resolutions requiring that a company reformulate its products.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      62 of 78  

 

B-62


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Tobacco-Related Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on resolutions regarding the advertisement of tobacco products, considering:

 

   

Recent related fines, controversies, or significant litigation;

   

Whether the company complies with relevant laws and regulations on the marketing of tobacco;

   

Whether the company’s advertising restrictions deviate from those of industry peers;

   

Whether the company entered into the Master Settlement Agreement, which restricts marketing of tobacco to youth; and

   

Whether restrictions on marketing to youth extend to foreign countries.

Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding second-hand smoke, considering;

 

   

Whether the company complies with all laws and regulations;

   

The degree that voluntary restrictions beyond those mandated by law might hurt the company’s competitiveness; and

   

The risk of any health-related liabilities.

Generally vote against resolutions to cease production of tobacco-related products, to avoid selling products to tobacco companies, to spin-off tobacco-related businesses, or prohibit investment in tobacco equities. Such business decisions are better left to company management or portfolio managers.

Generally vote against proposals regarding tobacco product warnings. Such decisions are better left to public health authorities.

Climate Change

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Climate change has emerged as the most significant environmental threat to the planet to date. Scientists agree that gases released by chemical reactions including the burning of fossil fuels contribute to a “greenhouse effect” that traps the planet’s heat. Environmentalists claim that the greenhouse gases produced by the industrial age have caused recent weather crises such as heat waves, rainstorms, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and receding coastlines. With notable exceptions, business leaders have described the rise and fall of global temperatures as naturally occurring phenomena and depicted corporate impact on climate change as minimal. Shareholder proposals asking a company to issue a report to shareholders, “at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information,” on greenhouse gas emissions ask that the report include descriptions of efforts within companies to reduce emissions, their financial exposure and potential liability from operations that contribute to global warming, their direct or indirect efforts to promote the view that global warming is not a threat and their goals in reducing these emissions from their operations. Proponents argue that there is scientific proof that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming, that future legislation may make companies financially liable for their contributions to global warming, and that a report on the company’s role in global warming can be assembled at reasonable cost.

Sustainability Policy Recommendation:

 

   

Vote for shareholder proposals seeking information on the financial, physical, or regulatory risks it faces related to climate change- on its operations and investments, or on how the company identifies, measures, and manage such risks.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals calling for the reduction of GHG emissions.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals seeking reports on responses to regulatory and public pressures surrounding climate change, and for disclosure of research that aided in setting company policies around climate change.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals requesting a report/disclosure of goals on GHG emissions from company operations and/or products.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      63 of 78  

 

B-63


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Say on Climate (SoC) Management Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals that request shareholders to approve the company’s climate transition action plan23, taking into account the completeness and rigor of the plan. Information that will be considered where available includes the following:

 

   

The extent to which the company’s climate related disclosures are in line with TCFD recommendations and meet other market standards;

   

Disclosure of its operational and supply chain GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3);

   

The completeness and rigor of company’s short-, medium-, and long-term targets for reducing operational and supply chain GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3 if relevant);

   

Whether the company has sought and received third-party approval that its targets are science-based;

   

Whether the company has made a commitment to be “net zero” for operational and supply chain emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) by 2050;

   

Whether the company discloses a commitment to report on the implementation of its plan in subsequent years;

   

Whether the company’s climate data has received third-party assurance;

   

Disclosure of how the company’s lobbying activities and its capital expenditures align with company strategy;

   

Whether there are specific industry decarbonization challenges; and

   

The company’s related commitment, disclosure, and performance compared to its industry peers.

Say on Climate (SoC) Shareholder Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that request the company to disclose a report providing its GHG emissions levels and reduction targets and/or its upcoming/approved climate transition action plan and provide shareholders the opportunity to express approval or disapproval of its GHG emissions reduction plan, taking into account information such as the following:

 

   

The completeness and rigor of the company’s climate-related disclosure;

   

The company’s actual GHG emissions performance;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to its GHG emissions; and

   

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive.

Energy Efficiency

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its energy efficiency policies.

Renewable Energy

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on the feasibility of developing renewable energy resources.

Generally vote for proposals requesting that the company invest in renewable energy resources.

23 Variations of this request also include climate transition related ambitions, or commitment to reporting on the implementation of a climate plan.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      64 of 78  

 

B-64


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Diversity

Board Diversity

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on a company’s efforts to diversify the board, unless:

 

   

The gender and racial minority representation of the company’s board is reasonably inclusive in relation to companies of similar size and business; and

   

The board already reports on its nominating procedures and gender and racial minority initiatives on the board and within the company.

Generally vote for shareholder proposals that ask the company to take reasonable steps to increase the levels of underrepresented gender identities and racial minorities on the board.

Equality of Opportunity

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting a company disclose its diversity policies or initiatives, or proposals requesting disclosure of a company’s comprehensive workforce diversity data, including requests for EEO-1 data.

Generally vote for proposals seeking information on the diversity efforts of suppliers and service providers.

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking to amend a company’s EEO statement or diversity policies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, unless the change would be unduly burdensome.

Generally vote for proposals to extend company benefits to domestic partners.

Gender, Race/Ethnicity Pay Gap

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company’s pay data by gender or race/ethnicity or a report on a company’s policies and goals to reduce any gender or race/ethnicity pay gaps, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices and its compensation philosophy and fair and equitable compensation practices;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap issues;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers; and

   

Local laws regarding categorization of race and/or ethnicity and definitions of ethnic and/or racial minorities.

Racial Equity and/or Civil Rights Audits

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company conduct an independent racial equity and/or civil rights audit, considering company disclosures, policies, actions, and engagements.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      65 of 78  

 

B-65


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Environment and Sustainability

Facility and Workplace Safety

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on resolutions requesting that a company report on safety and/or security risks associated with its operations and/or facilities, considering:

 

   

The company’s compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines;

   

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its security and safety policies, procedures, and compliance monitoring; and

   

The existence of recent, significant violations, fines, or controversy regarding the safety and security of the company’s operations and/or facilities.

Hydraulic Fracturing

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s (natural gas) hydraulic fracturing operations, including measures the company has taken to manage and mitigate the potential community and environmental impacts of those operations.

Operations in Protected Areas

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on potential environmental damage as a result of company operations in protected regions, unless:

 

   

Operations in the specified regions are not permitted by current laws or regulations;

   

The company does not currently have operations or plans to develop operations in these protected regions; or

   

The company’s disclosure of its operations and environmental policies in these regions is comparable to industry peers.

Recycling

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote FOR proposals to adopt a comprehensive recycling strategy, taking into account:

 

   

The nature of the company’s business;

   

The current level of disclosure of the company’s existing related programs;

   

The timetable and methods of program implementation prescribed by the proposal;

   

The company’s ability to address the issues raised in the proposal; and

   

How the company’s recycling programs compare to similar programs of its industry peers.

Sustainability Reporting

The concept of sustainability is commonly understood as meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Indeed, the term sustainability is complex and poses significant challenges for companies on many levels. Many in the investment community have termed this broader responsibility the “triple bottom line,” referring to the triad of performance goals related to economic prosperity, social responsibility and environmental quality. In essence, the concept requires companies to balance the needs and interests of their various stakeholders while operating in a manner that sustains business growth for the long-term, supports local communities and protects the environment and natural capital for future generations.

Shareholders may request general environmental reports or reports on a specific location/operation, often requesting that the company detail the environmental risks and potential liabilities of a specific project. Companies have begun to report on environmental and sustainability issues using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. The GRI was established in 1997 with the mission of developing globally applicable guidelines for

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      66 of 78  

 

B-66


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

reporting on economic, environmental, and social performance. The GRI was developed by Ceres (formerly known as the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, CERES) in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Sustainability Policy Recommendation:

 

   

Vote for shareholder proposals seeking greater disclosure on the company’s environmental and social practices, and/or associated risks and liabilities.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals asking companies to report in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

   

Vote for shareholder proposals to prepare a sustainability report.

Water Issues

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for on proposals requesting a company to report on, or to adopt a new policy on, water-related risks and concerns, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current disclosure of relevant policies, initiatives, oversight mechanisms, and water usage metrics;

   

Whether or not the company’s existing water-related policies and practices are consistent with relevant internationally recognized standards and national/local regulations;

   

The potential financial impact or risk to the company associated with water-related concerns or issues; and

   

Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding water use by the company and its suppliers.

Equator Principles

The Equator Principles are the financial industry’s benchmark for determining, assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing. First launched in June 2003, the Principles were ultimately adopted by over forty financial institutions over a three-year implementation period. Since its adoption, the Principles have undergone a number of revisions, expanding the use of performance standards and signatory banks’ banks’ commitments to social responsibility, including human rights, climate change, and transparency. The fourth iteration of the Principles was launched in November 2019, incorporating amendments and new commitment to human rights, climate change, Indigenous Peoples and biodiversity related topics. Financial institutions adopt these principles to ensure that the projects they finance are developed in a socially responsible manner and reflect sound environmental management practices. As of 2019, 101 financial institutions have officially adopted the Equator Principles.

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals to study or implement the Equator Principles.

General Corporate Issues

Charitable Contributions

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals restricting a company from making charitable contributions. Charitable contributions are generally useful for assisting worthwhile causes and for creating goodwill in the community. In the absence of bad faith, self-dealing, or gross negligence, management should determine which, and if, contributions are in the best interests of the company.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      67 of 78  

 

B-67


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Data Security, Privacy, and Internet Issues

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the disclosure or implementation of data security, privacy, or information access and management policies and procedures, considering:

 

   

The level of disclosure of company policies and procedures relating to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, information access and management, and Internet censorship;

   

Engagement in dialogue with governments or relevant groups with respect to data security, privacy, or the free flow of information on the Internet;

   

The scope of business involvement and of investment in countries whose governments censor or monitor the Internet and other telecommunications;

   

Applicable market-specific laws or regulations that may be imposed on the company; and

   

Controversies, fines, or litigation related to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, or Internet censorship.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Compensation-Related Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to link, or report on linking, executive compensation to environmental and social criteria (such as corporate downsizings, customer or employee satisfaction, community involvement, human rights, environmental performance, or predatory lending).

Human Rights, Labor Issues, and International Operations

Investors, international human rights groups, and labor advocacy groups have long been making attempts to safeguard worker rights in the international marketplace. In instances where companies themselves operate factories in developing countries for example, these advocates have asked that the companies adopt global corporate human rights standards that guarantee sustainable wages and safe working conditions for their workers abroad. Companies that contract out portions of their manufacturing operations to foreign companies have been asked to ensure that the products they receive from those contractors have not been made using forced labor, child labor, or sweatshop labor. These companies are asked to adopt formal vendor standards that, among other things, include monitoring or auditing mechanisms. Globalization, relocation of production overseas, and widespread use of subcontractors and vendors, often make it difficult to obtain a complete picture of a company’s labor practices in global markets. Many Investors believe that companies would benefit from adopting a human rights policy based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labor Organization’s Core Labor Standards. Efforts that seek greater disclosure on a company’s labor practices and that seek to establish minimum standards for a company’s operations will be supported. In addition, requests for independent monitoring of overseas operations will be supported.

The Sustainability Policy generally supports proposals that call for the adoption and/or enforcement of principles or codes relating to countries in which there are systematic violations of human rights; such as the use of slave, child, or prison labor; a government that is illegitimate; or there is a call by human rights advocates, pro-democracy organizations, or legitimately-elected representatives for economic sanctions. The use of child, sweatshop, or forced labor is unethical and can damage corporate reputations. Poor labor practices can lead to litigation against the company, which can be costly and time consuming.

Human Rights Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation:

 

   

Generally vote for proposals requesting a report on company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals to implement human rights standards and workplace codes of conduct.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals calling for the implementation and reporting on ILO codes of conduct, SA 8000 Standards, or the Global Sullivan Principles.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      68 of 78  

 

B-68


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

   

Vote for shareholder proposals that call for the adoption and/or enforcement of principles or codes relating to countries in which there are systematic violations of human rights.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals that call for independent monitoring programs in conjunction with local and respected religious and human rights groups to monitor supplier and licensee compliance with codes.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals that seek publication of a “Code of Conduct” to the company’s foreign suppliers and licensees, requiring they satisfy all applicable standards and laws protecting employees’ wages, benefits, working conditions, freedom of association, and other rights.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals seeking reports on, or the adoption of, vendor standards including: reporting on incentives to encourage suppliers to raise standards rather than terminate contracts and providing public disclosure of contract supplier reviews on a regular basis.

   

Vote for shareholder proposals to adopt labor standards for foreign and domestic suppliers to ensure that the company will not do business with foreign suppliers that manufacture products for sale using forced labor, child labor, or that fail to comply with applicable laws protecting employee’s wages and working conditions.

   

Vote for proposals requesting that a company conduct an assessment of the human rights risks in its operations or in its supply chain, or report on its human rights risk assessment process.

Mandatory Arbitration

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on a company’s use of mandatory arbitration on employment-related claims, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims; and

   

The company’s disclosure of its policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements compared to its peers.

MacBride Principles

These resolutions have called for the adoption of the MacBride Principles for operations located in Northern Ireland. They request companies operating abroad to support the equal employment opportunity policies that apply in facilities they operate domestically. The principles were established to address the sectarian hiring problems between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. It is well documented that Northern Ireland’s

Catholic community faced much higher unemployment figures than the Protestant community. In response to this problem, the U.K. government instituted the New Fair Employment Act of 1989 (and subsequent amendments) to address the sectarian hiring problems.

Many companies believe that the Act adequately addresses the problems and that further action, including adoption of the MacBride Principles, only duplicates the efforts already underway. In evaluating a proposal to adopt the MacBride Principles, shareholders must decide whether the principles will cause companies to divest, and therefore worsen the unemployment problem, or whether the principles will promote equal hiring practices. Proponents believe that the Fair Employment Act does not sufficiently address the sectarian hiring problems. They argue that the MacBride Principles serve to stabilize the situation and promote further investment.

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Support the MacBride Principles for operations in Northern Ireland that request companies to abide by equal employment opportunity policies.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      69 of 78  

 

B-69


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Community Social and Environmental Impact Assessments

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports outlining policies and/or the potential (community) social and/or environmental impact of company operations considering:

 

   

Current disclosure of applicable policies and risk assessment report(s) and risk management procedures;

   

The impact of regulatory non-compliance, litigation, remediation, or reputational loss that may be associated with failure to manage the company’s operations in question, including the management of relevant community and stakeholder relations;

   

The nature, purpose, and scope of the company’s operations in the specific region(s);

   

The degree to which company policies and procedures are consistent with industry norms; and

   

Scope of the resolution.

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

Operations in High-Risk Markets

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on a company’s potential financial and reputational risks associated with operations in “high-risk” markets, such as a terrorism-sponsoring state or politically/socially unstable region, taking into account:

 

   

The nature, purpose, and scope of the operations and business involved that could be affected by social or political disruption;

   

Current disclosure of applicable risk assessment(s) and risk management procedures;

   

Compliance with U.S. sanctions and laws;

   

Consideration of other international policies, standards, and laws; and

   

Whether the company has been recently involved in recent, significant controversies, fines or litigation related to its operations in “high-risk” markets.

Outsourcing/Offshoring

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals calling for companies to report on the risks associated with outsourcing/plant closures, considering:

 

   

Controversies surrounding operations in the relevant market(s);

   

The value of the requested report to shareholders;

   

The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant information on outsourcing and plant closure procedures; and

   

The company’s existing human rights standards relative to industry peers.

Sexual Harassment

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on company actions taken to strengthen policies and oversight to prevent workplace sexual harassment, or a report on risks posed by a company’s failure to prevent workplace sexual harassment, taking into account:

 

   

The company’s current policies, practices, oversight mechanisms related to preventing workplace sexual harassment;

   

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to workplace sexual harassment issues; and

   

The company’s disclosure regarding workplace sexual harassment policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      70 of 78  

 

B-70


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Weapons and Military Sales

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against reports on foreign military sales or offsets. Such disclosures may involve sensitive and confidential information. Moreover, companies must comply with government controls and reporting on foreign military sales.

Generally vote against proposals asking a company to cease production or report on the risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions or nuclear weapons components and delivery systems, including disengaging from current and proposed contracts. Such contracts are monitored by government agencies, serve multiple military and non-military uses, and withdrawal from these contracts could have a negative impact on the company’s business.

Political Activities

Lobbying

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting information on a company’s lobbying (including direct, indirect, and grassroots lobbying) activities, policies, or procedures, considering:

 

   

The company’s current disclosure of relevant lobbying policies, and management and board oversight;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding trade associations or other groups that it supports, or is a member of, that engage in lobbying activities; and

   

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s lobbying-related activities.

Political Contributions

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities, considering:

 

   

The company’s policies, and management and board oversight related to its direct political contributions and payments to trade associations or other groups that may be used for political purposes;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding its support of, and participation in, trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and

   

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company’s political contributions or political activities.

Vote against proposals barring a company from making political contributions. Businesses are affected by legislation at the federal, state, and local level; barring political contributions can put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Vote against proposals to publish in newspapers and other media a company’s political contributions. Such publications could present significant cost to the company without providing commensurate value to shareholders.

Political Ties

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals asking a company to affirm political nonpartisanship in the workplace, so long as:

 

   

There are no recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s political contributions or trade association spending; and

   

The company has procedures in place to ensure that employee contributions to company-sponsored political action committees (PACs) are strictly voluntary and prohibit coercion.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      71 of 78  

 

B-71


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Vote against proposals asking for a list of company executives, directors, consultants, legal counsels, lobbyists, or investment bankers that have prior government service and whether such service had a bearing on the business of the company. Such a list would be burdensome to prepare without providing any meaningful information to shareholders.

Political Expenditures and Lobbying Congruency

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s alignment of political contributions, lobbying, and electioneering spending with a company’s publicly stated values and policies, unless the terms of the proposal are unduly restrictive. Additionally, Sustainability Advisory Services will consider whether:

 

   

The company’s policies, management, board oversight, governance processes, and level of disclosure related to direct political contributions, lobbying activities, and payments to trade associations, political action committees, or other groups that may be used for political purposes;

   

The company’s disclosure regarding: the reasons for its support of candidates for public offices; the reasons for support of and participation in trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and other political activities;

   

Any incongruencies identified between a company’s direct and indirect political expenditures and its publicly stated values and priorities;

   

Recent significant controversies related to the company’s direct and indirect lobbying, political contributions, or political activities.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      72 of 78  

 

B-72


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

7.   Mutual Fund Proxies

Election of Directors

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of directors and trustees, following the same guidelines for uncontested directors for public company shareholder meetings. However, mutual fund boards do not usually have compensation committees, so do not withhold for the lack of this committee.

Closed End Funds- Unilateral Opt-In to Control Share Acquisition Statutes

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: For closed-end management investment companies (CEFs), vote against or withhold from nominating/governance committee members (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) at CEFs that have not provided a compelling rationale for opting-in to a Control Share Acquisition statute, nor submitted a by-law amendment to a shareholder vote.

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on conversion proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Past performance as a closed-end fund;

   

Market in which the fund invests;

   

Measures taken by the board to address the discount; and

   

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals.

Proxy Contests

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proxy contests, considering the following factors:

 

   

Past performance relative to its peers;

   

Market in which fund invests;

   

Measures taken by the board to address the issues;

   

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals;

   

Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;

   

Independence of directors;

   

Experience and skills of director candidates;

   

Governance profile of the company;

   

Evidence of management entrenchment.

Investment Advisory Agreements

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on investment advisory agreements, considering the following factors:

 

   

Proposed and current fee schedules;

   

Fund category/investment objective;

   

Performance benchmarks;

   

Share price performance as compared with peers;

   

Resulting fees relative to peers;

   

Assignments (where the advisor undergoes a change of control).

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for the establishment of new classes or series of shares.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      73 of 78  

 

B-73


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Preferred Stock Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the authorization for or increase in preferred shares, considering the following factors:

 

   

Stated specific financing purpose;

   

Possible dilution for common shares;

   

Whether the shares can be used for antitakeover purposes.

1940 Act Policies

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on policies under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940, considering the following factors:

 

   

Potential competitiveness;

   

Regulatory developments;

   

Current and potential returns; and

   

Current and potential risk.

Generally vote for these amendments as long as the proposed changes do not fundamentally alter the investment focus of the fund and do comply with the current SEC interpretation.

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to change a fundamental restriction to a non-fundamental restriction, considering the following factors:

 

   

The fund’s target investments;

   

The reasons given by the fund for the change; and

   

The projected impact of the change on the portfolio.

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals to change a fund’s fundamental investment objective to non-fundamental.

Name Change Proposals

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on name change proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Political/economic changes in the target market;

   

Consolidation in the target market; and

   

Current asset composition.

Change in Fund’s Subclassification

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on changes in a fund’s sub-classification, considering the following factors:

 

   

Potential competitiveness;

   

Current and potential returns;

   

Risk of concentration;

   

Consolidation in target industry.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      74 of 78  

 

B-74


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Business Development Companies—Authorization to Sell Shares of Common Stock at a Price below Net Asset Value

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for proposals authorizing the board to issue shares below Net Asset Value (NAV) if:

 

   

The proposal to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date no more than one year from the date shareholders approve the underlying proposal, as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940;

   

The sale is deemed to be in the best interests of shareholders by (1) a majority of the company’s independent directors and (2) a majority of the company’s directors who have no financial interest in the issuance; and

   

The company has demonstrated responsible past use of share issuances by either:

   

Outperforming peers in its 8-digit GICS group as measured by one- and three-year median TSRs; or

   

Providing disclosure that its past share issuances were priced at levels that resulted in only small or moderate discounts to NAV and economic dilution to existing non-participating shareholders.

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to dispose of assets, to terminate or liquidate, considering the following factors:

 

   

Strategies employed to salvage the company;

   

The fund’s past performance;

   

The terms of the liquidation.

Changes to the Charter Document

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on changes to the charter document, considering the following factors:

 

   

The degree of change implied by the proposal;

   

The efficiencies that could result;

   

The state of incorporation;

   

Regulatory standards and implications.

Vote against any of the following changes:

 

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to reorganize or terminate the trust or any of its series;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement for amendments to the new declaration of trust;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to amend the fund’s management contract, allowing the contract to be modified by the investment manager and the trust management, as permitted by the 1940 Act;

   

Allow the trustees to impose other fees in addition to sales charges on investment in a fund, such as deferred sales charges and redemption fees that may be imposed upon redemption of a fund’s shares;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to engage in and terminate subadvisory arrangements;

   

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to change the domicile of the fund.

Changing the Domicile of a Fund

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on re-incorporations, considering the following factors:

 

   

Regulations of both states;

   

Required fundamental policies of both states;

   

The increased flexibility available.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      75 of 78  

 

B-75


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisers Without Shareholder Approval

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against proposals authorizing the board to hire or terminate subadvisers without shareholder approval if the investment adviser currently employs only one subadviser.

Distribution Agreements

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on distribution agreement proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Fees charged to comparably sized funds with similar objectives;

   

The proposed distributor’s reputation and past performance;

   

The competitiveness of the fund in the industry;

   

The terms of the agreement.

Master-Feeder Structure

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote for the establishment of a master-feeder structure.

Mergers

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on merger proposals, considering the following factors:

 

   

Resulting fee structure;

   

Performance of both funds;

   

Continuity of management personnel;

   

Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

Shareholder Proposals for Mutual Funds

Establish Director Ownership Requirement

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals that mandate a specific minimum amount of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses. When supporting the dissidents, vote for the reimbursement of the proxy solicitation expenses.

Terminate the Investment Advisor

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to terminate the investment advisor, considering the following factors:

 

   

Performance of the fund’s Net Asset Value (NAV);

   

The fund’s history of shareholder relations;

   

The performance of other funds under the advisor’s management.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      76 of 78  

 

B-76


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

8.   Foreign Private Issuers Listed on U.S. Exchanges

Sustainability Policy Recommendation: Vote against (or withhold from) non-independent director nominees at companies which fail to meet the following criteria: a majority-independent board, and the presence of an audit, a compensation, and a nomination committee, each of which is entirely composed of independent directors.

Where the design and disclosure levels of equity compensation plans are comparable to those seen at U.S. companies, U.S. compensation policy will be used to evaluate the compensation plan proposals. Otherwise, they, and all other voting items, will be evaluated using the relevant regional or market approach under the Sustainability proxy voting guidelines.

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      77 of 78  

 

B-77


U N I T E D  S T A T E S

2 0 2 3  S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y  P R O X Y  V O T I N G  G U I D E L I N E S

                             LOGO  

 

We empower investors and companies to build

for long-term and sustainable growth by providing

high-quality data, analytics, and insight.

G E T  S T A R T E D  W I T H  I S S  S O L U T I O N S

Email [email protected] or visit www.issgovernance.com for more information.

Founded in 1985, Institutional Shareholder Services group of companies (ISS) empowers investors and companies to build for long-term and sustainable growth by providing high-quality data, analytics and insight. ISS, which is majority owned by Deutsche Bourse Group, along with Genstar Capital and ISS management, is a leading provider of corporate governance and responsible investment solutions, market intelligence, fund services, and events and editorial content for institutional investors and corporations, globally. ISS’ 2,600 employees operate worldwide across 29 global locations in 15 countries. Its approximately 3,400 clients include many of the world’s leading institutional investors who rely on ISS’ objective and impartial offerings, as well as public companies focused on ESG and governance risk mitigation as a shareholder value enhancing measure. Clients rely on ISS’ expertise to help them make informed investment decisions. This document and all of the information contained in it, including without limitation all text, data, graphs, and charts (collectively, the “Information”) is the property of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), its subsidiaries, or, in some cases third party suppliers.

The Information has not been submitted to, nor received approval from, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. None of the Information constitutes an offer to sell (or a solicitation of an offer to buy), or a promotion or recommendation of, any security, financial product or other investment vehicle or any trading strategy, and ISS does not endorse, approve, or otherwise express any opinion regarding any issuer, securities, financial products or instruments or trading strategies.

The user of the Information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of the Information.

ISS MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ORIGINALITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS for A PARTICULAR PURPOSE) WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE INFORMATION.

Without limiting any of the foregoing and to the maximum extent permitted by law, in no event shall ISS have any liability regarding any of the Information for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential (including lost profits), or any other damages even if notified of the possibility of such damages. The foregoing shall not exclude or limit any liability that may not by applicable law be excluded or limited.

© 2023 | Institutional Shareholder Services and/or its affiliates

 

   
W W W . I S S G O V E R N A N C E . C O M      78 of 78  

 

B-78


 

MAI-WINSL-1123P