Columbia Management^®

COLUMBIA FUNDS SERIES TRUST

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

September 27, 2010

Fund
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II
Class A: PHAAX	Class B: NBASX	Class C: NAACX	Class Z: NPRAX
Columbia California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Class A: NACMX	Class B: —	Class C: —	Class Z: NCMAX
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund
Class A: PACIX	Class B: NCVBX	Class C: PHIKX	Class I: —
Class Z: NCIAX
Columbia Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Class A: NGIMX	Class B: NGITX	Class C: NGINX	Class Z: NGAMX
Columbia Global Value Fund
Class A: NVVAX	Class B: NGLBX	Class C: NCGLX	Class Z: NVPAX
Columbia High Income Fund
Class A: NAHAX	Class B: NHYBX	Class C: NYICX	Class Z: NYPAX
Columbia International Value Fund
Class A: NIVLX	Class B: NBIVX	Class C: NVICX	Class I: —
Class R: CIVRX	Class Z: EMIEX
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund
Class A: NSGAX	Class B: NSIBX	Class C: NSGCX	Class I: —
Class W: CLCWX	Class Z: NSEPX
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Class A: NMIAX	Class R: CCERX	Class I: —	Class Y: CECYX
Class Z: NMIMX
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund
Class A: NEIAX	Class B: CLIBX	Class Z: NINDX
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund
Class A: NVLEX	Class B: NVLNX	Class C: NVALX	Class I: —
Class R: CVURX	Class W: CLVWX	Class Y: CLCYX	Class Z: NVLUX
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
Class A: NBIAX	Class B: NLBBX	Class C: NBICX	Class R: CLBRX
Class Z: NBGPX
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
Class A: NLGIX	Class B: NLGBX	Class C: NLGCX	Class R: CLGRX
Class Z: NGPAX
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
Class A: NLGAX	Class B: NLIBX	Class C: NIICX	Class R: CLIRX
Class Z: NIPAX
Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Class A: NLFAX	Class B: NLOBX	Class C: NLFCX	Class Z: CLGZX
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund
Class A: NMTAX	Class B: NMTBX	Class C: NMYCX	Class R: CMTRX
Class Z: NMYAX
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Class A: NFEAX	Class B: NFEBX	Class C: NFECX	Class I: —
Class Z: NFEPX
Columbia Marsico Global Fund
Class A: COGAX	Class C: COGCX	Class R: COGRX	Class Z: COGZX

Fund
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund
Class A: NMGIX	Class B: NGIBX	Class C: NMICX	Class I: —
Class R: CMWRX	Class W: CMSWX	Class Z: NGIPX
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Class A: MAIOX	Class B: MBIOX	Class C: MCIOX	Class I: —
Class R: CMORX	Class Z: NMOAX
Columbia Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Class A: NMDMX	Class B: NMITX	Class C: NMINX	Class Z: NMDBX
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio
Class A: CMTAX	Class B: CMTBX	Class C: CMTCX	Class R: CMERX
Class Z: CMTZX
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund
Class A: NTIAX	Class R: —	Class Z: NMPAX
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund
Class A: CMUAX	Class B: CMUBX	Class C: CMUCX	Class I: —
Class R: CMVRX	Class R4*: —	Class W: CMUWX	Class Y: CMVYX
Class Z: NAMAX
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Class A: NIIAX	Class B: NIENX	Class C: NITRX	Class I: —
Class R: CIERX	Class R4*: —	Class W: CMAWX	Class Z: NEIQX
Columbia North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Class A: NNCIX	Class B: NNITX	Class C: NNINX	Class Z: NNIBX
Columbia Overseas Value Fund
Class A: ––	Class C: —	Class R: —	Class Z: COSZX
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund
Class A: NSTRX	Class B: NSTFX	Class C: NSTIX	Class I: ––
Class R: CSBRX	Class R4*: —	Class W: CSBWX	Class Y: CSBYX
Class Z: NSTMX
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Class A: NSMMX	Class B: NSMNX	Class C: NSMUX	Class Z: NSMIX
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II
Class A: NSCGX	Class B: NCPBX	Class C: NCPCX	Class Z: PSCPX
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund
Class A: NMSAX	Class Z: NMSCX
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II
Class A: COVAX	Class B: COVBX	Class C: COVCX	Class I: —
Class R: CCTRX	Class Z: NSVAX
Columbia South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Class A: NSCIX	Class B: NISCX	Class C: NSICX	Class Z: NSCMX
Columbia Total Return Bond Fund
Class A: NSFAX	Class B: NSFNX	Class C: NSFCX	Class Z: NSFIX
Columbia Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Class A: NVAFX	Class B: NVANX	Class C: NVRCX	Class Z: NVABX
Columbia Corporate Bond Portfolio
Shares: NCOBX
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio
Shares: NMTGX

This Statement of Additional Information (SAI) is not a prospectus, is not a substitute for reading any prospectus and is intended to be read in conjunction with a Fund’s current prospectus. Share classes marked with an “*” have not yet commenced operations as of the date of this SAI. The most recent annual report for each Fund, which includes the Fund’s audited financial statements for its most recent fiscal period, are incorporated by reference into this SAI.

Copies of the Funds’ current prospectuses and annual and semi-annual reports may be obtained without charge by writing Columbia Management Investment Services Corp., P.O. Box 8081, Boston, MA 02266-8081, by calling Columbia Funds at 800.345.6611 or by visiting the Columbia Funds’ website at www.columbiamanagement.com.

C-6518 A (9/10)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SAI PRIMER	1
ABOUT THE TRUST	6
ABOUT THE FUNDS’ INVESTMENTS	8
Certain Investment Activity Limits	8
Fundamental and Non-Fundamental Investment Policies	8
Exemptive Orders	11
Permissible Investments and Related Risks	12
Borrowings	53
Short Sales	53
Lending Securities	55
Portfolio Turnover	55
Disclosure of Portfolio Information	56
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES	61
The Adviser and Investment Advisory Services	61
The Subadvisers and Investment Subadvisory Services	84
The Administrator	98
Pricing and Bookkeeping Services	102
The Principal Underwriter/Distributor	106
Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates – Certain Conflicts of Interest	113
Other Services Provided	117
Distribution and Servicing Plans	119
Expense Limitations	125
Codes of Ethics	127
Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures	128
Expenses Paid by Third Parties	128
FUND GOVERNANCE	130
The Board	130
The Officers	143
BROKERAGE ALLOCATION AND OTHER PRACTICES	149
General Brokerage Policy, Brokerage Transactions and Broker Selection	149
Brokerage Commissions	151
Directed Brokerage	154
Securities of Regular Broker/Dealers	155
Additional Shareholder Servicing Payments	158
Additional Financial Intermediary Payments	160
CAPITAL STOCK AND OTHER SECURITIES	163
Description of the Trust’s Shares	163
PURCHASE, REDEMPTION AND PRICING OF SHARES	167
Purchase and Redemption	167
Offering Price	170
TAXATION	172
CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS	190
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	237
APPENDIX A — DESCRIPTIONS OF SECURITIES RATINGS	A-1
APPENDIX B — PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES	B-1
APPENDIX C — SALES CHARGE WAIVERS	C-1
APPENDIX D — DESCRIPTION OF STATE CONDITIONS	D-1
APPENDIX E — LEGACY COLUMBIA FUNDS	E-1
APPENDIX F — LEGACY RIVERSOURCE FUNDS	F-1

SAI PRIMER

The SAI is a part of the Funds’ registration statement that is filed with the SEC. The registration statement includes the Funds’ prospectuses, the SAI and certain exhibits. The SAI, and any supplements to it, can be found online at www.columbiamanagement.com, or by accessing the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

The SAI generally provides additional information about the Funds that is not required to be in the Funds’ prospectuses. The SAI expands discussions of certain matters described in the Funds’ prospectuses and provides certain additional information about the Funds that may be of interest to some investors. Among other things, the SAI provides information about:

• the organization of the Trust;

• the Funds’ investments;

• the Funds’ investment adviser, investment subadviser(s) (if any) and other service providers, including roles and relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, and conflicts of interest;

• the governance of the Funds;

• the Funds’ brokerage practices;

• the share classes offered by the Funds;

• the purchase, redemption and pricing of Fund shares; and

• the application of U.S. federal income tax laws.

Investors may find this information important and helpful. If you have any questions about the Funds, please call Columbia Funds at 800.345.6611 or contact your financial advisor.

Before reading the SAI, you should consult the Glossary below, which defines certain of the terms used in the SAI.

Glossary

1933 Act	Securities Act of 1933, as amended
1934 Act	Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
1940 Act	Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
Administrative Services Agreement	The administrative services agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Funds, and the Administrator
Administrator	Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC
Adviser	Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC
Ameriprise Financial	Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
Asset Allocation Fund II	Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II
BANA	Bank of America, National Association
Bank of America	Bank of America Corporation
BFDS/DST	Boston Financial Data Services, Inc./DST Systems, Inc.
Board	The Trust’s Board of Trustees
Brandes	Brandes Investment Partners, L.P.

1

California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
CMOs	Collateralized mortgage obligations
Code	Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
Codes of Ethics	The codes of ethics adopted by the Board pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act
Columbia Funds Complex	The mutual fund complex that is comprised of the open-end investment management companies advised by the Adviser or its affiliates and principally underwritten by Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc., including funds using the RiverSource, Threadneedle and Seligman brands and funds using the Columbia brand
Columbia Funds or Columbia Funds Family	The funds within the Columbia Funds Complex using the Columbia brand
Convertible Securities Fund	Columbia Convertible Securities Fund
Custodian or State Street	State Street Bank and Trust Company
Distribution Agreement	The distribution agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Funds, and the Distributor
Distribution Plan(s)	One or more of the plans adopted by the Board pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act for the distribution of the Funds’ shares
Distributor	Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc.
FDIC	Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Feeder Fund(s)	One or more of the series of CFST that invests all of its assets in a corresponding Master Portfolio that is a series of Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC (CMIT)
FHLMC	The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Fitch	Fitch, Inc.
FNMA	Federal National Mortgage Association
The Fund(s) or a Fund	One or more of the open-end management investment companies listed on the front cover of this SAI that are series of the Trust.
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Global Value Fund	Columbia Global Value Fund
GNMA	Government National Mortgage Association
High Income Fund	Columbia High Income Fund
Independent Trustees	The Trustees of the Board who are not “interested persons” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Funds
Interested Trustee	A Trustee of the Board who is currently treated as an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Funds
International Value Fund	Columbia International Value Fund

2

Investment Management Services Agreement	The investment management services agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Funds, and the Adviser
Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement	The investment subadvisory agreement among the Trust on behalf of the Fund(s), the Adviser and a Fund’s investment subadviser(s), as the context may require
IRS	United States Internal Revenue Service
Large Cap Core Fund	Columbia Large Cap Core Fund
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Large Cap Index Fund	Columbia Large Cap Index Fund
Large Cap Value Fund	Columbia Large Cap Value Fund
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
LifeGoal® Portfolios	Each of LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio and LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
LIBOR	London Interbank Offered Rate
MacKay Shields	MacKay Shields LLC, the investment subadviser to High Income Fund
Marsico	Marsico Capital Management, LLC
Marsico 21st Century Fund	Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Marsico Global Fund	Columbia Marsico Global Fund
Marsico Growth Fund	Columbia Marsico Growth Fund
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Masters International Equity Portfolio	Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio
Mid Cap Index Fund	Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund
Mid Cap Value Fund	Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund
Moody’s	Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
NASDAQ	National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations system

3

North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
NRSRO	Nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (such as Moody’s, Fitch or S&P)
NSCC	National Securities Clearing Corporation
NYSE	New York Stock Exchange
Overseas Value Fund	Columbia Overseas Value Fund
The Portfolio(s) or a Portfolio	One or more of the open-end management investment companies listed on the front cover of this SAI that are series of the Trust
Previous Administrator	Columbia Management Advisors, LLC
Previous Adviser	Columbia Management Advisors, LLC
Previous Distributor	Columbia Management Distributors, Inc.
Previous Transfer Agent	Columbia Management Services, Inc.
REIT	Real estate investment trust
REMIC	Real estate mortgage investment conduit
RIC	A “regulated investment company,” as such term is used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
S&P	Standard & Poor’s, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“Standard & Poor’s” and “S&P” are trademarks of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. and have been licensed for use by the Adviser. The Columbia Funds are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by Standard & Poor’s and Standard & Poor’s makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in the Columbia Funds).
SAI	This Statement of Additional Information
SEC	United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Selling Agent(s)	One or more of the banks, broker/dealers or other financial institutions that have entered into a sales support agreement with the Distributor
Servicing Agent(s)	One or more of the banks, broker/dealers or other financial institutions that have entered into a shareholder servicing agreement with the Distributor
Short Term Bond Fund	Columbia Short Term Bond Fund
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Small Cap Growth Fund II	Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II
Small Cap Index Fund	Columbia Small Cap Index Fund
Small Cap Value Fund II	Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Total Return Bond Fund	Columbia Total Return Bond Fund

4

Transfer Agency Agreement	The transfer agency agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Funds, and Columbia Management Investment Services Corp.
Transfer Agent	Columbia Management Investment Services Corp.
The Trust	Columbia Funds Series Trust, the registered investment company in the Columbia Funds Family to which this SAI relates
Trustee(s)	One or more of the Board’s Trustees
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

5

ABOUT THE TRUST

The Trust is a registered investment company under the 1940 Act within the Columbia Funds Family. Columbia Funds currently include more than 100 mutual funds in major asset classes, and the Adviser had approximately $301.8 billion assets under management as of June 30, 2010.

The Trust was organized as a Delaware business trust, a form of entity now known as a statutory trust, on October 22, 1999. On September 26, 2005, the Trust changed its name from Nations Funds Trust to Columbia Funds Series Trust.

Funds and portfolios that bore the “Columbia” and “Columbia Acorn” brands prior to September 27, 2010 are collectively referred to herein as the Legacy Columbia funds. For a list of Legacy Columbia funds, see Appendix E. Funds and portfolios that historically bore the RiverSource, Seligman and Threadneedle brands, including those renamed to bear the “Columbia” brand effective September 27, 2010, as well as certain other funds are collectively referred to as the Legacy RiverSource funds. For a list of Legacy RiverSource funds, see Appendix F.

Funds with a fiscal year end of February 28

On or about September 26, 2005, the names of certain of the Funds were changed as follows: Nations Convertible Securities Fund to Columbia Convertible Securities Fund, Nations Value Fund to Columbia Large Cap Value Fund, Nations Marsico 21^st Century Fund to Columbia Marsico 21^st Century Fund, Nations MidCap Value Fund to Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund, Nations SmallCap Value Fund to Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II, Nations Strategic Growth Fund to Columbia Large Cap Core Fund, Nations Marsico Focused Equities Fund to Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund, Nations Marsico Growth Fund to Columbia Marsico Growth Fund, Nations Small Company Fund to Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II, Nations Global Value Fund to Columbia Global Value Fund, Nations Marsico International Opportunities Fund to Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund, Nations International Equity Fund to Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund, Nations International Value Fund to Columbia International Value Fund, Nations LargeCap Index Fund to Columbia Large Cap Index Fund, Nations MidCap Index Fund to Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund, Nations SmallCap Index Fund to Columbia Small Cap Index Fund and Nations LargeCap Enhanced Core Fund to Nations Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund.

On February 28, 2008, each of Large Cap Core Fund, Marsico Focused Equities Fund and Small Cap Growth Fund II converted from a feeder fund in a master/feeder structure to a stand-alone fund. On November 10, 2008, Marsico Growth Fund converted from a feeder fund in a master/feeder structure to a stand-alone fund.

Prior to August 2006, Convertible Securities Fund, Global Value Fund, Large Cap Value Fund, Marsico 21^st Century Fund, Marsico International Opportunities Fund, Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund, Mid Cap Value Fund, Small Cap Value Fund II, Large Cap Index Fund, Mid Cap Index Fund, Small Cap Index Fund, Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund each had a fiscal year end of March 31.

Prior to October 2007, International Value Fund, Large Cap Core Fund, Marsico Focused Equities Fund, Marsico Growth Fund and Small Cap Growth Fund II each had a fiscal year end of March 31.

International Value Fund is a Feeder Fund that seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its assets in another mutual fund (the Master Portfolio) with the same investment objective, principal investment strategies and investment risks. The Master Portfolio is a separate series of Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC. As of March 30, 2007, Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC converted from a Delaware statutory trust to a Delaware limited liability company. Remember that the terms “Fund” and “Master Portfolio” are sometimes used interchangeably in this SAI.

6

Each of the Funds represents a separate series of the Trust and is an open-end management investment company. Each of the Funds is diversified, except Marsico Focused Equities Fund. Each of the Funds has a fiscal year end of February 28. For more information on the classes of shares offered by the Funds, see Capital Stock and Other Securities.

Funds with a fiscal year end of March 31

On September 26, 2005, the names of certain of the Funds were changed as follows: Asset Allocation Fund to Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II, Nations California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund to Columbia California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, Nations Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund to Columbia Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, Nations Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund to Columbia Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, Nations North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund to Columbia North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, Nations South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund to Columbia South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund and Nations Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund to Columbia Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, Nations Short-Term Income Fund to Columbia Short Term Bond Fund, Nations Short-Term Municipal Income Fund to Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund, Nations Bond Fund to Columbia Total Return Bond Fund, Nations High Yield Bond Fund to Columbia High Income Fund, Nations LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio to Columbia LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio, Nations LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio to Columbia LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio, Nations LifeGoal^® Income and Growth Portfolio to Columbia LifeGoal^® Income and Growth Portfolio and Nations LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio to Columbia LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio.

On February 28, 2008, High Income Fund converted from a feeder fund in a master/feeder structure to a stand-alone fund.

Each of the LifeGoal^® Portfolios is a “fund of funds” that invests its assets in a mix of Underlying Funds using an asset allocation approach.

Masters International Equity Portfolio was first offered as a series of the Trust on February 15, 2006. The Portfolio is a “fund of funds” that invests its assets in a mix of Underlying Funds using an asset allocation approach.

Each of the Funds represents a separate series of the Trust and, except for the Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, is an open-end diversified management investment company. Each of the Funds has a fiscal year end of March 31. For more information on the classes of shares offered by the Funds, see Capital Stock and Other Securities.

7

ABOUT THE FUNDS’ INVESTMENTS

The investment objectives, principal investment strategies (i.e., as used in this SAI and the corresponding prospectuses, a strategy which generally involves the ability to invest 10% or more of a Fund’s total assets) and related principal risks for each Fund are discussed in each Fund’s prospectuses.

Certain Investment Activity Limits

The overall investment and other activities of the Adviser and its affiliates may limit the investment opportunities for each Fund in certain markets where limitations are imposed by regulators upon the amount of investment by affiliated investors, in the aggregate or in individual issuers. From time to time, each Fund’s activities also may be restricted because of regulatory restrictions applicable to the Adviser and its affiliates and/or because of their internal policies. See Investment Advisory and Other Services — Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates — Certain Conflicts of Interest.

Fundamental and Non-Fundamental Investment Policies

The following discussion of “fundamental” and “non-fundamental” investment policies and limitations for each Fund supplements the discussion of investment policies in the Funds’ prospectuses. A fundamental policy may be changed only with Board and shareholder approval. A non-fundamental policy may be changed by the Board and does not require shareholder approval, but may require notice to shareholders in certain instances.

Unless otherwise noted, whenever an investment policy or limitation states a maximum percentage of a Fund’s assets that may be invested in any security or other asset, or sets forth a policy regarding an investment standard, compliance with such percentage limitation or standard will be determined solely at the time of the Fund’s acquisition of such security or asset. Borrowings and other instruments that may give rise to leverage and the restriction on investing in illiquid securities are monitored on an ongoing basis.

Fundamental Investment Policies

The 1940 Act provides that a “vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities” means the affirmative vote of the lesser of (1) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a Fund, or (2) 67% or more of the shares present at a meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares are represented at the meeting in person or by proxy. The following fundamental investment policies cannot be changed without such a vote.

Overseas Value Fund may not, as a matter of fundamental policy:

1. Underwrite any issue of securities issued by other persons within the meaning of the 1933 Act except when it might be deemed to be an underwriter either: (i) in connection with the disposition of a portfolio security; or (ii) in connection with the purchase of securities directly from the issuer thereof in accordance with the Fund’s investment objective. This restriction shall not limit the Fund’s ability to invest in securities issued by other registered investment companies;

2. Purchase or sell real estate, except the Fund may: (i) purchase securities of issuers which deal or invest in real estate, (ii) purchase securities which are secured by real estate or interests in real estate and (iii) hold and dispose of real estate or interests in real estate acquired through the exercise of its rights as a holder of securities which are secured by real estate or interests therein;

3. Purchase or sell commodities, except that the Fund may to the extent consistent with its investment objective: (i) invest in securities of companies that purchase or sell commodities or which invest in such programs, (ii) purchase and sell options, forward contracts, futures contracts, and options on futures contracts and (iii) enter into swap contracts and other financial transactions relating to commodities. This limitation does not apply to foreign currency transactions including without limitation forward currency contracts;

8

4. Purchase any securities which would cause 25% or more of the value of its total assets at the time of purchase to be invested in the securities of one or more issuers conducting their principal business activities in the same industry, provided that: (i) there is no limitation with respect to obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, any state or territory of the United States or any of their agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions; and (ii) notwithstanding this limitation or any other fundamental investment limitation, assets may be invested in the securities of one or more management investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any applicable exemptive relief;

5. Make loans, except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any applicable exemptive relief;

6. Borrow money or issue senior securities except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any applicable exemptive relief; and

7. Purchase securities (except securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities) of any one issuer if, as a result, more than 5% of its total assets will be invested in the securities of such issuer or it would own more than 10% of the voting securities of such issuer, except that: (i) up to 25% of its total assets may be invested without regard to these limitations and (ii) a Fund’s assets may be invested in the securities of one or more management investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, or any applicable exemptive relief obtained by the Fund.

Each Fund other than Overseas Value Fund may not, as a matter of fundamental policy:

1. Underwrite any issue of securities within the meaning of the 1933 Act except when it might technically be deemed to be an underwriter either: (i) in connection with the disposition of a portfolio security; or (ii) in connection with the purchase of securities directly from the issuer thereof in accordance with its investment objective. This restriction shall not limit the Fund’s ability to invest in securities issued by other registered management investment companies;

2. Purchase or sell real estate, except the Fund may purchase securities of issuers which deal or invest in real estate and may purchase securities which are secured by real estate or interests in real estate;

3. Purchase or sell commodities, except that the Fund may, to the extent consistent with its investment objective, invest in securities of companies that purchase or sell commodities or which invest in such programs, and purchase and sell options, forward contracts, futures contracts, and options on futures contracts. This limitation does not apply to foreign currency transactions, including, without limitation, forward currency contracts;

4. Purchase any securities which would cause 25% or more of the value of its total assets at the time of purchase to be invested in the securities of one or more issuers conducting their principal business activities in the same industry, provided that: (i) there is no limitation with respect to obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, any state or territory of the United States, or any of their agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions; and (ii) notwithstanding this limitation or any other fundamental investment limitation, assets may be invested in the securities of one or more management investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any exemptive relief obtained by the Funds;

5. Make loans, except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any exemptive relief obtained by the Funds;

6. Borrow money or issue senior securities except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any exemptive relief obtained by the Funds; and

7. Except Marsico Focused Equities Fund and Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, purchase securities (except securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities) of any one issuer if, as a result, more than 5% of its total assets will be invested in the

9

securities of such issuer or it would own more than 10% of the voting securities of such issuer, except that: (i) up to 25% of its total assets may be invested without regard to these limitations; and (ii) a Fund’s assets may be invested in the securities of one or more management investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any exemptive relief obtained by the Funds.

As a matter of fundamental policy, under normal circumstances, California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund and Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, each will invest at least 80% of its assets in securities that pay interest exempt from federal income tax, other than the federal alternative minimum tax, and state individual income tax.

As a matter of fundamental policy, under normal circumstances, Short Term Municipal Bond Fund will invest at least 80% of its assets in securities that pay interest exempt from federal income tax, other than the federal alternative minimum tax.

Non-Fundamental Investment Policies

Fund	May Not Invest more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities(a)	May not  sell securities short(b)	May not purchase securities of other investment companies(c)	Provides 60 day notice in connection with Rule 35d-1 changes(d)
Asset Allocation Fund II	ü	ü	ü
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü
Convertible Securities Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Corporate Bond Portfolio	ü	ü	ü	ü
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü
Global Value Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
High Income Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
International Value Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Large Cap Core Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Large Cap Index Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Large Cap Value Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	ü	ü	ü
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	ü	ü	ü
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	ü	ü	ü
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	ü	ü	ü
Marsico 21st Century Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Marsico Global Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Marsico Growth Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü
Masters International Equity Portfolio	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mid Cap Index Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mid Cap Value Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	ü	ü	ü	ü
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü
Overseas Value Fund	ü	ü	ü

10

Fund	May Not Invest more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities(a)	May not  sell securities short(b)	May not purchase securities of other investment companies(c)	Provides 60 day notice in connection with Rule 35d-1 changes(d)
Short Term Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Small Cap Growth Fund II	ü	ü	ü	ü
Small Cap Index Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Small Cap Value Fund II	ü	ü	ü	ü
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü
Total Return Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü

^a Funds with a check mark in this column may not, as a matter of non-fundamental policy, invest more than 15% of their net assets in illiquid securities. “Illiquid Securities” is defined in accordance with the SEC staff’s current guidance and interpretations which provide that an illiquid security is a security which may not be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value at which the fund has valued the security.

^b Funds with a check mark in this column may not, as a matter of non-fundamental policy, sell securities short, except as permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any applicable exemptive relief.

^c Funds with a check mark in this column may not, as a matter of non-fundamental policy, purchase securities of other investment companies except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any applicable exemptive relief. If shares of one of these Funds are purchased by another fund in reliance on Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act, for so long as shares of the Fund are held by such fund, the Fund will not purchase securities of a registered open-end investment company or registered unit investment trust in reliance on Section 12(d)(1)(F) or Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act.

^d To the extent a Fund with a check mark in this column is subject to Rule 35d-1 under the 1940 Act (the Names Rule), and does not otherwise have a fundamental investment policy in place to comply with the Names Rule, such Fund has adopted the following non-fundamental policy: Shareholders will receive at least 60 days’ notice of any change to the Fund’s investment objective or principal investment strategies made in order to comply with the Names Rule. The notice will be provided in plain English in a separate written document, and will contain the following prominent statement or similar statement in bold-face type: “Important Notice Regarding Change in Investment Policy.” This statement will appear on both the notice and the envelope in which it is delivered, unless it is delivered separately from other communications to investors, in which case the statement will appear either on the notice or the envelope in which the notice is delivered.

Marsico Focused Equities Fund and Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund may not purchase securities of any one issuer (other than U.S. Government Obligations and securities of other investment companies) if, immediately after such purchase, more than 25% of the value of the Funds total assets would be invested in the securities of one issuer, and with respect to 50% of the Fund’s total assets, more than 5% of its assets would be invested in the securities of one issuer.

Exemptive Orders

In addition to the policies outlined above, the Columbia Funds Family has received the following exemptive orders from the SEC which enable the Fund to participate in certain transactions beyond the investment limitations described above or described in otherwise applicable restrictions:

1. Pursuant to an exemptive order dated October 5, 1993, all current and future Funds advised by the Adviser may, subject to certain conditions, pool their uninvested cash balances in one or more joint

11

accounts and use the daily balance of such accounts to enter into repurchase agreements, including the condition that such agreements have a maturity of not more than seven days.

2. Pursuant to an exemptive order dated September 5, 2003, the Fund may, subject to certain conditions, borrow money from other Funds in the Columbia Funds Family for temporary emergency purposes in order to facilitate redemption requests, or for other purposes consistent with Fund investment policies and restrictions. All loans are set at an interest rate between the rates charged on overnight repurchase agreements and short-term bank loans.

Permissible Investments and Related Risks

Each Fund’s prospectuses identify and summarize the individual types of securities in which the Fund invests as part of its principal investment strategies and the principal risks associated with such investments.

The table below identifies certain types of securities in which each Fund is permitted to invest, including certain types of securities that are described in each Fund’s prospectuses. A Fund generally has the ability to invest 10% or more of its total assets in each type of security described in its prospectuses (and in each sub-category of such security type described in this SAI). To the extent that a type of security identified below for a Fund is not described in the Fund’s prospectuses (or as a sub-category of such security type in this SAI), the Fund generally invests less than 10% of the Fund’s total assets in such security type.

Information about individual types of securities (including certain of their associated risks) in which some or all of the Funds may invest is set forth below. Each Fund’s investment in these types of securities is subject to its investment objective and fundamental and non-fundamental investment policies.

Temporary Defensive Positions. Each Fund may temporarily invest in money market instruments or hold cash. It may do so without limit, when the Adviser or the Fund’s subadviser, if applicable: (i) believes that the market conditions are not favorable for profitable investing; (ii) is unable to locate favorable investment opportunities; or (iii) determines that a temporary defensive position is advisable or necessary in order to meet anticipated redemption requests, or for other reasons. While a Fund engages in such strategies, it may not achieve its investment objective. See also About the Funds’ Investments — Permissible Investments and Related Risks — Money Market Instruments.

Permissible Fund Investments

Investment Type	Asset Allocation Fund II	California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Convertible Securities Fund	Corporate Bond Portfolio	Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Global Value Fund	High Income Fund	International Value Fund
Asset-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Bank Obligations
Domestic	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Common Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Convertible Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Corporate Debt Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Custody Receipts and Trust Certificates	ü

12

Investment Type	Asset Allocation Fund II	California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Convertible Securities Fund	Corporate Bond Portfolio	Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Global Value Fund	High Income Fund	International Value Fund
Derivatives
Index or Linked Securities (Structured Products)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Futures Contracts and Options on Futures Contracts	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Stock Options and Stock Index Options	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Swap Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Dollar Rolls	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
Foreign Currency Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Guaranteed Investment Contracts (Funding Arrangements)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Illiquid Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Initial Public Offerings			ü	ü		ü	ü	ü
Investing in a Master Portfolio								ü
Investments in Other Investment Companies	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Low and Below Investment Grade Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Money Market Instruments	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mortgage-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
Municipal Securities	ü	ü		ü	ü
Participation Interests	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Preferred Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Real Estate Investment Trusts and Master Limited Partnerships	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Reverse Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
Standby Commitments	ü
Stripped Securities	ü		ü	ü		ü		ü
U.S. Government and Related Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

13

Investment Type	Asset Allocation Fund II	California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Convertible Securities Fund	Corporate Bond Portfolio	Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Global Value Fund	High Income Fund	International Value Fund
Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
Warrants and Rights	ü		ü	ü		ü	ü	ü
When-Issued, Delayed Delivery and Forward Commitment Transactions	ü		ü	ü		ü		ü
Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

Investment Type	Large Cap Core Fund	Large Cap Enhanced Core  Fund	Large Cap Index Fund	Large Cap Value Fund	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Asset-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Bank Obligations
Domestic	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Common Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Convertible Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Corporate Debt Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Custody Receipts and Trust Certificates					ü	ü	ü	ü
Derivatives
Index or Linked Securities (Structured Products)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Futures Contracts and Options on Futures Contracts	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Stock Options and Stock Index Options	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Swap Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Dollar Rolls	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Currency Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Guaranteed Investment Contracts (Funding Arrangements)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Illiquid Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Initial Public Offerings	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Investing in a Master Portfolio					ü	ü	ü	ü

14

Investment Type	Large Cap Core Fund	Large Cap Enhanced Core  Fund	Large Cap Index Fund	Large Cap Value Fund	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Investments in Other Investment Companies	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Low and Below Investment Grade Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Money Market Instruments	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mortgage-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Municipal Securities					ü	ü	ü	ü
Participation Interests	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Preferred Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Real Estate Investment Trusts and Master Limited Partnerships	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Reverse Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Standby Commitments					ü	ü	ü	ü
Stripped Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
U.S. Government and Related Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Warrants and Rights	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
When-Issued, Delayed Delivery and Forward Commitment Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

Investment Type	Marsico  21st Century Fund	Marsico Focused Equities Fund	Marsico Global Fund	Marsico Growth Fund	Marsico International Opportunities Fund	Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Masters International Equity Portfolio
Asset-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Bank Obligations
Domestic	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Common Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Convertible Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Corporate Debt Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Custody Receipts and Trust Certificates							ü

15

Investment Type	Marsico  21st Century Fund	Marsico Focused Equities Fund	Marsico Global Fund	Marsico Growth Fund	Marsico International Opportunities Fund	Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Masters International Equity Portfolio
Derivatives
Index or Linked Securities (Structured Products)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Futures Contracts and Options on Futures Contracts	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Stock Options and Stock Index Options	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Swap Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Dollar Rolls	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Currency Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Guaranteed Investment Contracts (Funding Arrangements)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Illiquid Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Initial Public Offerings	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
Investing in a Master Portfolio
Investments in Other Investment Companies	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Low and Below Investment Grade Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Money Market Instruments	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mortgage-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Municipal Securities			ü			ü	ü
Participation Interests	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Preferred Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Real Estate Investment Trusts and Master Limited Partnerships	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

16

Investment Type	Marsico  21st Century Fund	Marsico Focused Equities Fund	Marsico Global Fund	Marsico Growth Fund	Marsico International Opportunities Fund	Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Masters International Equity Portfolio
Reverse Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Standby Commitments			ü				ü
Stripped Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
U.S. Government and Related Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Warrants and Rights	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
When-Issued, Delayed Delivery and Forward Commitment Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü
Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

Investment Type	Mid Cap Index Fund	Mid Cap Value Fund	Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Overseas Value Fund	Short Term Bond Fund	Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Asset-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Bank Obligations
Domestic	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Common Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Convertible Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Corporate Debt Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Custody Receipts and Trust Certificates
Derivatives
Index or Linked Securities (Structured Products)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Futures Contracts and Options on Futures Contracts	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Stock Options and Stock Index Options	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Swap Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Dollar Rolls	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Foreign Currency Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

17

Investment Type	Mid Cap Index Fund	Mid Cap Value Fund	Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Overseas Value Fund	Short Term Bond Fund	Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Guaranteed Investment Contracts (Funding Arrangements)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Illiquid Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Initial Public Offerings		ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü
Investing in a Master Portfolio
Investments in Other Investment Companies	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Low and Below Investment Grade Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Money Market Instruments	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mortgage-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Municipal Securities			ü		ü		ü	ü
Participation Interests	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Preferred Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Real Estate Investment Trusts and Master Limited Partnerships	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Reverse Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Standby Commitments
Stripped Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü			ü	ü
U.S. Government and Related Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Warrants and Rights	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü
When-Issued, Delayed Delivery and Forward Commitment Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü
Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü

Investment Type	Small Cap Growth Fund II	Small Cap Index Fund	Small Cap Value Fund II	South  Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Total Return Bond Fund	Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Asset-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Bank Obligations
Domestic	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Common Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Convertible Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Corporate Debt Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

18

Investment Type	Small Cap Growth Fund II	Small Cap Index Fund	Small Cap Value Fund II	South  Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Total Return Bond Fund	Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Custody Receipts and Trust Certificates
Derivatives
Index or Linked Securities (Structured Products)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Futures Contracts and Options on Futures Contracts	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Stock Options and Stock Index Options	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Swap Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Dollar Rolls	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Currency Transactions	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Foreign Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Guaranteed Investment Contracts (Funding Arrangements)	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Illiquid Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Initial Public Offerings	ü		ü		ü
Investing in a Master Portfolio
Investments in Other Investment Companies	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Low and Below Investment Grade Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Money Market Instruments	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Mortgage-Backed Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Municipal Securities				ü	ü	ü
Participation Interests	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Preferred Stock	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Real Estate Investment Trusts and Master Limited Partnerships	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Reverse Repurchase Agreements	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Standby Commitments
Stripped Securities	ü	ü	ü		ü
U.S. Government and Related Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Warrants and Rights	ü	ü	ü		ü
When-Issued, Delayed Delivery and Forward Commitment Transactions	ü	ü	ü		ü
Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

19

Asset-Backed Securities

Asset-backed securities represent interests in, or debt instruments that are backed by, pools of various types of assets that generate cash payments generally over fixed periods of time. Such securities entitle the security holders to receive distributions that are tied to the payments made on the underlying assets (less fees paid to the originator, servicer, or other parties, and fees paid for credit enhancement), so that the payments made on the underlying assets effectively pass through to such security holders. Asset-backed securities typically are created by an originator of loans or owner of accounts receivable that sells such underlying assets to a special purpose entity in a process called a securitization. The special purpose entity issues securities that are backed by the payments on the underlying assets, and have a minimum denomination and specific term. Asset-backed securities may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Investing in asset-backed securities is subject to certain risks. For example, the value of asset-backed securities may be affected by, among other factors, changes in: interest rates, the market’s assessment of the quality of underlying assets, the creditworthiness of the servicer for the underlying assets, information concerning the originator of the underlying assets, or the creditworthiness or rating of the entities that provide any supporting letters of credit, surety bonds, derivative instruments, or other credit enhancement. The value of asset-backed securities also will be affected by the exhaustion, termination or expiration of any credit enhancement.

Declining or low interest rates may lead to a more rapid rate of repayment on the underlying assets, resulting in accelerated payments on asset-backed securities that then would be reinvested at a lesser rate of interest. Rising or high interest rates tend to lead to a slower rate of repayment on the underlying assets, resulting in slower than expected payments on asset-backed securities that can, in turn, lead to a decline in value. The impact of changing interest rates on the value of asset-backed securities may be difficult to predict and result in greater volatility. Holders of asset-backed securities generally have no recourse against the originator of the underlying assets in the event of a default on the underlying assets. Credit risk reflects the risk that a holder of asset-backed securities, backed by pools of receivables such as mortgage loans, may not receive all or part of its principal because the issuer, any credit enhancer and/or an underlying obligor has defaulted on its obligations. Credit risk is increased for asset-backed securities that are subordinated to another security (i.e., if the holder of an asset-backed security is entitled to receive payments only after payment obligations to holders of the other security are satisfied). The more deeply subordinated the security, the greater the credit risk associated with the security will be.

Bank Obligations (Domestic and Foreign)

Bank obligations include certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances, time deposits and promissory notes that earn a specified rate of return and may be issued by (i) a domestic branch of a domestic bank, (ii) a foreign branch of a domestic bank, (iii) a domestic branch of a foreign bank or (iv) a foreign branch of a foreign bank. Bank obligations may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations for more information.

Certificates of deposit, or so-called CDs, typically are interest-bearing debt instruments issued by banks and have maturities ranging from a few weeks to several years. Bankers’ acceptances are time drafts drawn on and accepted by banks, are a customary means of effecting payment for merchandise sold in import-export transactions and are a general source of financing. Yankee dollar certificates of deposit are negotiable CDs issued in the United States by branches and agencies of foreign banks. Eurodollar certificates of deposit are CDs issued by foreign (mainly European) banks with interest and principal paid in U.S. dollars. Such CDs typically have maturities of less than two years and have interest rates that typically are pegged to the London Interbank Offered

20

Rate or LIBOR. A time deposit can be either a savings account or CD that is an obligation of a financial institution for a fixed term. Typically, there are penalties for early withdrawals of time deposits. Promissory notes are written commitments of the maker to pay the payee a specified sum of money either on demand or at a fixed or determinable future date, with or without interest.

Bank investment contracts are issued by banks. Pursuant to such contracts, a Fund may make cash contributions to a deposit fund of a bank. The bank then credits to the Fund payments at floating or fixed interest rates. A Fund also may hold funds on deposit with its custodian for temporary purposes.

Investing in bank obligations is subject to certain risks. Certain bank obligations, such as some CDs, are insured by the FDIC up to certain specified limits. Many other bank obligations, however, are neither guaranteed nor insured by the FDIC or the U.S. Government. These bank obligations are “backed” only by the creditworthiness of the issuing bank or parent financial institution. Domestic and foreign banks are subject to different governmental regulation. Accordingly, certain obligations of foreign banks, including Eurodollar and Yankee dollar obligations, involve different investment risks than those affecting obligations of domestic banks, including, among others, the possibilities that: (i) their liquidity could be impaired because of political or economic developments; (ii) the obligations may be less marketable than comparable obligations of domestic banks; (iii) a foreign jurisdiction might impose withholding and other taxes at high levels on interest income; (iv) foreign deposits may be seized or nationalized; (v) foreign governmental restrictions such as exchange controls may be imposed, which could adversely affect the payment of principal or interest on those obligations; (vi) there may be less publicly available information concerning foreign banks issuing the obligations; and (vii) the reserve requirements and accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards, practices and requirements applicable to foreign banks may differ from those applicable to domestic banks. Foreign banks generally are not subject to examination by any U.S. Government agency or instrumentality.

Common Stock

Common stock represents a unit of equity ownership of a corporation. Owners typically are entitled to vote on the selection of directors and other important corporate governance matters, and to receive dividend payments, if any, on their holdings. However, ownership of common stock does not entitle owners to participate in the day-to-day operations of the corporation. Common stocks of domestic and foreign public corporations can be listed, and their shares traded, on domestic stock exchanges, such as the NYSE or the NASDAQ Stock Market. Domestic and foreign corporations also may have their shares traded on foreign exchanges, such as the London Stock Exchange or Tokyo Stock Exchange. Common stock may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Investing in common stocks is subject to certain risks. Stock market risk, for example, is the risk that the value of such stocks, like the broader stock markets, may decline over short or even extended periods of time, perhaps substantially or unexpectedly. Domestic and foreign stock markets tend to be cyclical, with periods when stock prices generally rise and periods when stock prices generally decline. The value of individual stocks will rise and fall based on factors specific to each company, such as changes in earnings or management, as well as general economic and market factors.

If a corporation is liquidated, the claims of secured and unsecured creditors and owners of debt securities and “preferred” stock take priority over the claims of those who own common stock.

Investing in common stocks also poses risks applicable to the particular type of company issuing the common stock. For example, stocks of smaller companies tend to have greater price swings than stocks of larger companies because, among other things, they trade less frequently and in lower volumes, are more susceptible to changes in economic conditions, may be more reliant on singular products or services and are more vulnerable to larger competitors. Common stocks of these types of companies may have a higher potential for gains, but also may be subject to greater risk of loss.

21

Investing in common stocks also poses risks applicable to a particular industry, such as technology, financial services, consumer goods or natural resources (e.g., oil and gas). To some extent, the prices of common stocks tend to move by industry sector. When market conditions favorably affect, or are expected to favorably affect, an industry, the share prices of the common stocks of companies in that industry tend to rise. Conversely, negative news or a poor outlook for a particular industry can cause the share prices of the common stocks of companies in that industry to decline quickly.

Convertible Securities

Convertible securities include bonds, debentures, notes, preferred stocks or other securities that may be converted or exchanged (by the holder or by the issuer) into shares of the underlying common stock (or cash or securities of equivalent value) at a stated exchange ratio or predetermined price (the conversion price). As such, convertible securities combine the investment characteristics of debt securities and equity securities. A holder of convertible securities is entitled to receive the income of a bond, debenture or note or the dividend of a preferred stock until the conversion privilege is exercised. The market value of convertible securities generally is a function of, among other factors, interest rates, the rates of return of similar nonconvertible securities and the financial strength of the issuer. The market value of convertible securities tends to decline as interest rates rise and, conversely, to rise as interest rates decline. However, a convertible security’s market value tends to reflect the market price of the common stock of the issuing company when that stock price approaches or is greater than its conversion price. As the market price of the underlying common stock declines, the price of the convertible security tends to be influenced more by the rate of return of the convertible security. Because both interest rate and market movements can influence their value, convertible securities generally are not as sensitive to changes in interest rates as similar debt securities nor generally are they as sensitive to changes in share price as their underlying common stock. Convertible securities may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Investing in convertible securities is subject to certain risks. Certain convertible securities, particularly securities that are convertible into securities of an issuer other than the issuer of the convertible security, may be illiquid and, therefore, may be more difficult to resell in a timely fashion or for a fair price, which could result in investment losses. Certain convertible securities may 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 exchange ratio. Certain convertible securities may be convertible at the option of the issuer, which may require a holder 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 may be rated below investment grade or may not be rated and, therefore, may be considered speculative investments. Companies that issue convertible securities frequently are small- and mid-capitalization companies and, accordingly, carry the risks associated with such companies. In addition, the credit rating of a company’s convertible securities generally is lower than that of its conventional debt securities. Convertible securities are senior to equity securities and have a claim to the assets of an issuer prior to the holders of the issuer’s common stock in the event of liquidation but generally are subordinate to similar non-convertible debt securities of the same issuer. Some convertible securities are particularly sensitive to changes in interest rates when their predetermined conversion price is much higher than the price for the issuing company’s common stock.

Corporate Debt Securities

Corporate debt securities are fixed income securities typically issued by businesses to finance their operations. Notes, bonds, debentures and commercial paper are the most common types of corporate debt securities, with the primary difference being their interest rates, maturity dates and secured or unsecured status.

22

Commercial paper has the shortest term and usually is unsecured. The broad category of corporate debt securities includes debt issued by domestic or foreign companies of all kinds, including those with small-, mid- and large-capitalizations. The category also includes bank loans, as well as assignments, participations and other interests in bank loans. Corporate debt securities may be rated investment grade or below investment grade and may be structured as fixed-, variable or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Extendible commercial notes (ECNs) are very similar to commercial paper except that with ECNs, the issuer has the option to extend the notes’ maturity. ECNs are issued at a discount rate, with an initial redemption of not more than 90 days from the date of issue. If ECNs are not redeemed by the issuer on the initial redemption date, the issuer will pay a premium (step-up) rate based on the ECN’s credit rating at the time.

Because of the wide range of types and maturities of corporate debt securities, as well as the range of creditworthiness of issuers, corporate debt securities can have widely varying risk/return profiles. For example, commercial paper issued by a large established domestic corporation that is rated by an NRSRO as investment grade may have a relatively modest return on principal but present relatively limited risk. On the other hand, a long-term corporate note issued, for example, by a small foreign corporation from an emerging market country that has not been rated by an NRSRO may have the potential for relatively large returns on principal but carries a relatively high degree of risk.

Investing in corporate debt securities is subject to certain risks including, among others, credit and interest rate risk. Credit risk is the risk that a Fund could lose money if the issuer of a corporate debt security is unable to pay interest or repay principal when it becomes due. Some corporate debt securities that are rated below investment grade by an NRSRO generally are considered speculative because they present a greater risk of loss, including default, than higher quality debt securities. The credit risk of a particular issuer’s debt security may vary based on its priority for repayment. For example, higher ranking (senior) debt securities have a higher priority than and, therefore, may be paid in full before, lower ranking (subordinated) securities. In addition, in the event of bankruptcy, holders of higher-ranking senior securities may receive amounts otherwise payable to the holders of more junior securities. Interest rate risk is the risk that the value of certain corporate debt securities will tend to fall when interest rates rise. In general, corporate debt securities with longer terms tend to fall more in value when interest rates rise than do corporate debt securities with shorter terms.

Custody Receipts and Trust Certificates

Custody receipts and trust certificates are derivative products that evidence direct ownership in a pool of securities. Typically, a sponsor will deposit a pool of securities with a custodian in exchange for custody receipts evidencing interests in those securities. The sponsor generally then will sell the custody receipts or trust certificates in negotiated transactions at varying prices. Each custody receipt or trust certificate evidences the individual securities in the pool and the holder of a custody receipt or trust certificate generally will have all the rights and privileges of owners of those securities.

Investing in custody receipts and trust certificates is subject to certain risks. Custody receipts and trust certificates generally are subject to the same risks as the securities evidenced by the receipts or certificates. Custody receipts and trust certificates also may be less liquid than the underlying securities.

Derivatives

General

Derivatives are financial instruments whose values are based on (or “derived” from) traditional securities (such as a stock or a bond), assets (such as a commodity, like gold), reference rates (such as LIBOR) or market

23

indices (such as the S&P 500^® Index). Some forms of derivatives, such as exchange-traded futures and options on securities, commodities, or indices, are traded on regulated exchanges. These types of derivatives are standardized contracts that can easily be bought and sold, and whose market values are determined and published daily. Non-standardized derivatives, on the other hand, tend to be more specialized or complex, and may be harder to value. Derivatives afford leverage and, when used properly, can enhance returns and be useful in hedging portfolios. Some common types of derivatives include futures; options; options on futures; forward foreign currency exchange contracts; forward contracts on securities and securities indices; linked securities and structured products; CMOs; stripped securities; warrants; swap agreements and swaptions.

A Fund may use derivatives for a variety of reasons, including, for example: (i) to enhance its return; (ii) to attempt to protect against possible changes in the market value of securities held in or to be purchased for its portfolio resulting from securities markets or currency exchange rate fluctuations (i.e., to hedge); (iii) to protect its unrealized gains reflected in the value of its portfolio securities; (iv) to facilitate the sale of such securities for investment purposes; (v) to reduce transaction costs; and/or (vi) to manage the effective maturity or duration of its portfolio.

A Fund’s use of derivatives presents risks different from, and possibly greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in traditional securities. The use of derivatives can lead to losses because of adverse movements in the price or value of the underlying security, asset, index or reference rate, which may be magnified by certain features of the derivatives. These risks are heightened when a Fund uses derivatives to enhance its return or as a substitute for a position or security, rather than solely to hedge or offset the risk of a position or security held by a Fund. There is also a risk that the derivative will not correlate well with the security for which it is substituting. A Fund’s use of derivatives to leverage risk also may exaggerate a loss, potentially causing a Fund to lose more money than if it had invested in the underlying security, or limit a potential gain. The success of management’s derivative strategies will depend on its ability to assess and predict the impact of market or economic developments on the underlying security, asset, index or reference rate and the derivative itself, without necessarily the benefit of observing the performance of the derivative under all possible market conditions. Other risks arise from a Fund’s potential inability to terminate or sell its derivative positions as a liquid secondary market for such positions may not exist at times when a Fund may wish to terminate or sell them. Over-the-counter instruments (investments not traded on an exchange) may be illiquid. Derivatives traded in the over-the-counter market are subject to the risk that the other party will not meet its obligations. Also, with some derivative strategies there is the risk that a Fund may not be able to find a suitable derivative transaction counterparty, and thus may be unable to invest in derivatives altogether. The use of derivatives may also increase the amount and accelerate the timing of taxes payable by shareholders.

A Fund may use any or all of the above investment techniques and may purchase different types of derivative instruments at any time and in any combination. There is no particular strategy that dictates the use of one technique over another, as the use of derivatives is a function of numerous variables, including market conditions.

Index or Linked Securities (Structured Products)

General. Indexed or linked securities, also often referred to as “structured products,” are instruments that may have varying combinations of equity and debt characteristics. These instruments are structured to recast the investment characteristics of the underlying security or reference asset. If the issuer is a unit investment trust or other special purpose vehicle, the structuring will typically involve the deposit with or purchase by such issuer of specified instruments (such as commercial bank loans or securities) and/or the execution of various derivative transactions, and the issuance by that entity of one or more classes of securities (structured securities) backed by, or representing interests in, the underlying instruments. The cash flow on the underlying instruments may be apportioned among the newly issued structured securities to create securities with different investment characteristics, such as varying maturities, payment priorities and interest rate provisions, and the extent of such payments made with respect to structured securities is dependent on the extent of the cash flow on the underlying instruments.

24

Indexed and Inverse Floating Rate Securities. A Fund may invest in securities that provide a potential return based on a particular index of value or interest rates. For example, a Fund may invest in securities that pay interest based on an index of interest rates. The principal amount payable upon maturity of certain securities also may be based on the value of the index. To the extent a Fund invests in these types of securities, a Fund’s return on such securities will rise and fall with the value of the particular index: that is, if the value of the index falls, the value of the indexed securities owned by a Fund will fall. Interest and principal payable on certain securities may also be based on relative changes among particular indices.

A Fund may also invest in so-called “inverse floaters” or “residual interest bonds” on which the interest rates vary inversely with a floating rate (which may be reset periodically by a dutch auction, a remarketing agent, or by reference to a short-term tax-exempt interest rate index). A Fund may purchase synthetically-created inverse floating rate bonds evidenced by custodial or trust receipts. Generally, income on inverse floating rate bonds will decrease when interest rates increase, and will increase when interest rates decrease. Such securities have the effect of providing a degree of investment leverage, since they may increase or decrease in value in response to changes, as an illustration, in market interest rates at a rate that is a multiple of the rate at which fixed-rate securities increase or decrease in response to such changes. As a result, the market values of such securities will generally be more volatile than the market values of fixed-rate securities. To seek to limit the volatility of these securities, a Fund may purchase inverse floating obligations that have shorter-term maturities or that contain limitations on the extent to which the interest rate may vary. Certain investments in such obligations may be illiquid. A Fund may invest in indexed and inverse securities for hedging purposes or to seek to increase returns. When used for hedging purposes, indexed and inverse securities involve correlation risk. Furthermore, where such a security includes a contingent liability, in the event of an adverse movement in the underlying index or interest rate, a Fund may be required to pay substantial additional margin to maintain the position.

Credit Linked Securities. Among the income producing securities in which a Fund may invest are credit linked securities. The issuers of these securities frequently are limited purpose trusts or other special purpose vehicles that, in turn, invest in a derivative instrument or basket of derivative instruments, such as credit default swaps, interest rate swaps and other securities, in order to provide exposure to certain fixed income markets. For instance, a Fund may invest in credit linked securities as a cash management tool in order to gain exposure to a certain market and/or to remain fully invested when more traditional income producing securities are not available.

Like an investment in a bond, investments in these credit linked securities represent the right to receive periodic income payments (in the form of distributions) and payment of principal at the end of the term of the security. However, these payments are conditioned on or linked to the issuer’s receipt of payments from, and the issuer’s potential obligations to, the counterparties to the derivative instruments and other securities in which the issuer invests. For instance, the issuer may sell one or more credit default swaps, under which the issuer would receive a stream of payments over the term of the swap agreements provided that no event of default has occurred with respect to the referenced debt obligation upon which the swap is based. If a default occurs, the stream of payments may stop and the issuer would be obligated to pay the counterparty the par (or other agreed upon value) of the referenced debt obligation. This, in turn, would reduce the amount of income and/or principal that a Fund would receive. A Fund’s investments in these instruments are indirectly subject to the risks associated with derivative instruments, including, among others, credit risk, default or similar event risk, counterparty risk, interest rate risk, leverage risk and management risk. These securities generally are exempt from registration under the 1933 Act. Accordingly, there may be no established trading market for the securities and they may constitute illiquid investments.

Index-, Commodity-, Currency- and Equity-Linked Securities. “Index-linked” or “commodity-linked” notes are debt securities of companies that call for interest payments and/or payment at maturity in different terms than the typical note where the borrower agrees to make fixed interest payments and to pay a fixed sum at maturity. Principal and/or interest payments on an index-linked or commodity-linked note depend on the performance of

25

one or more market indices, such as the S&P 500^® Index, a weighted index of commodity futures such as crude oil, gasoline and natural gas or the market prices of a particular commodity or basket of commodities. Equity-linked securities are short-term or intermediate term instruments having a value at maturity and/or interest rate determined by reference to the market prices of one or more equity securities. At maturity, the principal amount of an equity-linked debt security is often exchanged for common stock of the issuer or is payable in an amount based on the issuer’s common stock price at the time of maturity. Currency-linked debt securities are short-term or intermediate-term instruments having a value at maturity, and/or an interest rate, determined by reference to one or more foreign currencies. Payment of principal or periodic interest may be calculated as a multiple of the movement of one currency against another currency, or against an index.

Index, commodity, currency and equity-linked securities may entail substantial risks. Such instruments may be subject to significant price volatility. The company issuing the instrument may fail to pay the amount due on maturity. The underlying investment or security may not perform as expected by the Adviser. Markets, underlying securities and indexes may move in a direction that was not anticipated by the Adviser. Performance of the derivatives may be influenced by interest rate and other market changes in the United States and abroad, and certain derivative instruments may be illiquid.

Linked securities are often issued by unit investment trusts. Examples of this include such index-linked securities as S&P Depositary Receipts (SPDRs), which is an interest in a unit investment trust holding a portfolio of securities linked to the S&P 500^® Index, and a type of exchange-traded fund (ETF). Because a unit investment trust is an investment company under the 1940 Act, a Fund’s investments in SPDRs are subject to the limitations set forth in Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act. SPDRs closely track the underlying portfolio of securities, trade like a share of common stock and pay periodic dividends proportionate to those paid by the portfolio of stocks that comprise the S&P 500^® Index. As a holder of interests in a unit investment trust, a Fund would indirectly bear its ratable share of that unit investment trust’s expenses. At the same time, a Fund would continue to pay its own management and advisory fees and other expenses, as a result of which a Fund and its shareholders in effect would be absorbing levels of fees with respect to investments in such unit investment trusts.

Equity-linked securities include issues such as Structured Yield Product Exchangeable for Stock (STRYPES), Trust Automatic Common Exchange Securities (TRACES), Trust Issued Mandatory Exchange Securities (TIMES), and Trust Enhanced Dividend Securities (TRENDS). The issuers of these equity-linked securities generally purchase and hold a portfolio of stripped U.S. Treasury securities maturing on a quarterly basis through the conversion date, and a forward purchase contract with an existing shareholder of the company relating to the common stock. Quarterly distributions on such equity-linked securities generally consist of the cash received from the U.S. Treasury securities and such equity-linked securities generally are not entitled to any dividends that may be declared on the common stock.

Investing in structured products and linked securities is subject to certain risks. Because structured products typically involve no credit enhancement, their credit risk generally will be equivalent to that of the underlying instruments. Investments in structured products may be structured as a class that is either subordinated or unsubordinated to the right of payment of another class. Subordinated structured products typically have higher rates of return and present greater risks than unsubordinated structured products. Structured products sometimes are sold in private placement transactions and often have a limited trading market.

Investments in “linked” securities have the potential to lead to significant losses because of unexpected movements in the underlying financial asset, index, currency or other investment. The ability of a Fund to utilize linked-securities successfully will depend on its ability correctly to predict pertinent market movements, which cannot be assured. Because currency-linked securities usually relate to foreign currencies, some of which may be currencies from emerging market countries, there are certain additional risks associated with such investments.

SPDRs are subject to the risks of an investment in a broadly based portfolio of common stocks, including the risk that the general level of stock prices may decline, thereby adversely affecting the value of such

26

investment. In addition, because individual investments in SPDRs are not redeemable, except upon termination of the unit investment trust, the liquidity of small holdings of SPDRs will depend upon the existence of a secondary market. Large holdings of SPDRs are called “creation unit size” and are redeemable in-kind only and are not redeemable for cash from the unit investment trust. The price of a SPDR is derived from and based upon the securities held by the unit investment trust. Accordingly, the level of risk involved in the purchase or sale of a SPDR is similar to the risk involved in the purchase or sale of traditional common stock, with the exception that the pricing mechanism for SPDRs is based on a basket of stocks. Disruptions in the markets for the securities underlying SPDRs purchased or sold by a Fund could result in losses on SPDRs.

Futures Contracts and Options on Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts. A futures contract sale creates an obligation by the seller to deliver the type of security or other asset called for in the contract at a specified delivery time for a stated price. A futures contract purchase creates an obligation by the purchaser to take delivery of the type of security or other asset called for in the contract at a specified delivery time for a stated price. The specific security or other asset delivered or taken at the settlement date is not determined until on or near that date. The determination is made in accordance with the rules of the exchange on which the futures contract was made. A Fund may enter into futures contracts which are traded on national or foreign futures exchanges and are standardized as to maturity date and underlying security or other asset. Futures exchanges and trading in the United States are regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a U.S. Government agency.

Traders in futures contracts may be broadly classified as either “hedgers” or “speculators.” Hedgers use the futures markets primarily to offset unfavorable changes (anticipated or potential) in the value of securities or other assets currently owned or expected to be acquired by them. Speculators less often own the securities or other assets underlying the futures contracts which they trade, and generally use futures contracts with the expectation of realizing profits from fluctuations in the value of the underlying securities or other assets. Pursuant to a notice of eligibility claiming exclusion from the definition of commodity pool operator filed with the CFTC and the National Futures Association on behalf of the Funds, neither the Trust nor any of the individual Funds is deemed to be a “commodity pool operator” under the CEA, and, accordingly, they are not subject to registration or regulation as such under the CEA.

Upon entering into futures contracts, in compliance with the SEC’s requirements, cash or liquid securities, equal in value to the amount of a Fund’s obligation under the contract (less any applicable margin deposits and any assets that constitute “cover” for such obligation), will be segregated with a Fund’s custodian.

Unlike when a Fund purchases or sells a security, no price is paid or received by a Fund upon the purchase or sale of a futures contract, although a Fund is required to deposit with its custodian in a segregated account in the name of the futures broker an amount of cash and/or U.S. Government securities in order to initiate and maintain open positions in futures contracts. This amount is known as “initial margin.” The nature of initial margin in futures transactions is different from that of margin in security transactions, in that futures contract margin does not involve the borrowing of funds by a Fund to finance the transactions. Rather, initial margin is in the nature of a performance bond or good faith deposit intended to assure completion of the contract (delivery or acceptance of the underlying security or other asset) that is returned to a Fund upon termination of the futures contract, assuming all contractual obligations have been satisfied. Minimum initial margin requirements are established by the relevant futures exchange and may be changed. Brokers may establish deposit requirements which are higher than the exchange minimums. Futures contracts are customarily purchased and sold on margin which may range upward from less than 5% of the value of the contract being traded. Subsequent payments, called “variation margin,” to and from the broker (or the custodian) are made on a daily basis as the price of the underlying security or other asset fluctuates, a process known as “marking to market.” If the futures contract price changes to the extent that the margin on deposit does not satisfy margin requirements, payment of additional variation margin will be required. Conversely, a change in the contract value may reduce the required margin, resulting in a repayment of excess margin to the contract holder. Variation margin payments are made for as long as the contract remains open. A Fund expects to earn interest income on its margin deposits.

27

Although futures contracts by their terms call for actual delivery or acceptance of securities or other assets (stock index futures contracts or futures contracts that reference other intangible assets do not permit delivery of the referenced assets), the contracts usually are closed out before the settlement date without the making or taking of delivery. A Fund may elect to close some or all of its futures positions at any time prior to their expiration. The purpose of taking such action would be to reduce or eliminate the position then currently held by a Fund. Closing out an open futures position is done by taking an opposite position (“buying” a contract which has previously been “sold,” “selling” a contract previously “purchased”) in an identical contract (i.e., the same aggregate amount of the specific type of security or other asset with the same delivery date) to terminate the position. Final determinations are made as to whether the price of the initial sale of the futures contract exceeds or is below the price of the offsetting purchase, or whether the purchase price exceeds or is below the offsetting sale price. Final determinations of variation margin are then made, additional cash is required to be paid by or released to a Fund, and a Fund realizes a loss or a gain. Brokerage commissions are incurred when a futures contract is bought or sold.

Successful use of futures contracts by a Fund is subject to the Adviser’s ability to predict correctly movements in the direction of interest rates and other factors affecting securities and commodities markets. This requires different skills and techniques than those required to predict changes in the prices of individual securities. A Fund, therefore, bears the risk that future market trends will be incorrectly predicted.

The risk of loss in trading futures contracts in some strategies can be substantial, due both to the relatively low margin deposits required and the potential for an extremely high degree of leverage involved in futures contracts. As a result, a relatively small price movement in a futures contract may result in an immediate and substantial loss to the investor. For example, if at the time of purchase, 10% of the value of the futures contract is deposited as margin, a subsequent 10% decrease in the value of the futures contract would result in a total loss of the margin deposit, before any deduction for the transaction costs, if the account were then closed out. A 15% decrease would result in a loss equal to 150% of the original margin deposit if the contract were closed out. Thus, a purchase or sale of a futures contract may result in losses in excess of the amount posted as initial margin for the contract.

In the event of adverse price movements, a Fund would continue to be required to make daily cash payments in order to maintain its required margin. In such a situation, if a Fund has insufficient cash, it may have to sell portfolio securities in order to meet daily margin requirements at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so. The inability to close the futures position also could have an adverse impact on the ability to hedge effectively.

To reduce or eliminate a hedge position held by a Fund, a Fund may seek to close out a position. The ability to establish and close out positions will be subject to the development and maintenance of a liquid secondary market. It is not certain that this market will develop or continue to exist for a particular futures contract, which may limit a Fund’s ability to realize its profits or limit its losses. Reasons for the absence of a liquid secondary market on an exchange include the following: (i) there may be insufficient trading interest in certain contracts; (ii) restrictions may be imposed by an exchange on opening transactions, closing transactions or both; (iii) trading halts, suspensions or other restrictions may be imposed with respect to particular classes or series of contracts, or underlying securities; (iv) unusual or unforeseen circumstances, such as volume in excess of trading or clearing capability, may interrupt normal operations on an exchange; (v) the facilities of an exchange or a clearing corporation may not at all times be adequate to handle current trading volume; or (vi) one or more exchanges could, for economic or other reasons, decide or be compelled at some future date to discontinue the trading of contracts (or a particular class or series of contracts), in which event the secondary market on that exchange (or in the class or series of contracts) would cease to exist, although outstanding contracts on the exchange that had been issued by a clearing corporation as a result of trades on that exchange would continue to be exercisable in accordance with their terms.

Interest Rate Futures Contracts. Bond prices are established in both the cash market and the futures market. In the cash market, bonds are purchased and sold with payment for the full purchase price of the bond being

28

made in cash, generally within five business days after the trade. In the futures market, a contract is made to purchase or sell a bond in the future for a set price on a certain date. Historically, the prices for bonds established in the futures markets have tended to move generally in the aggregate in concert with the cash market prices and have maintained fairly predictable relationships. Accordingly, a Fund may use interest rate futures contracts as a defense, or hedge, against anticipated interest rate changes. A Fund presently could accomplish a similar result to that which it hopes to achieve through the use of interest rate futures contracts by selling bonds with long maturities and investing in bonds with short maturities when interest rates are expected to increase, or conversely, selling bonds with short maturities and investing in bonds with long maturities when interest rates are expected to decline. However, because of the liquidity that is often available in the futures market, the protection is more likely to be achieved, perhaps at a lower cost and without changing the rate of interest being earned by a Fund, through using futures contracts.

Interest rate futures contracts are traded in an auction environment on the floors of several exchanges — principally, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the New York Futures Exchange. Each exchange guarantees performance under contract provisions through a clearing corporation, a nonprofit organization managed by the exchange membership. A public market exists in futures contracts covering various financial instruments including long-term U.S. Treasury Bonds and Notes; GNMA modified pass-through mortgage backed securities; three-month U.S. Treasury Bills; and ninety-day commercial paper. A Fund may also invest in exchange-traded Eurodollar contracts, which are interest rate futures on the forward level of LIBOR. These contracts are generally considered liquid securities and trade on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Such Eurodollar contracts are generally used to “lock-in” or hedge the future level of short-term rates. A Fund may trade in any interest rate futures contracts for which there exists a public market, including, without limitation, the foregoing instruments.

Index Futures Contracts. An index futures contract is a contract to buy or sell units of an index at a specified future date at a price agreed upon when the contract is made. Entering into a contract to buy units of an index is commonly referred to as buying or purchasing a contract or holding a long position in the index. Entering into a contract to sell units of an index is commonly referred to as selling a contract or holding a short position in the index. A unit is the current value of the index. A Fund may enter into stock index futures contracts, debt index futures contracts, or other index futures contracts appropriate to its objective(s).

There are several risks in connection with the use by a Fund of index futures as a hedging device. One risk arises because of the imperfect correlation between movements in the prices of the index futures and movements in the prices of securities which are the subject of the hedges. The Adviser will attempt to reduce this risk by selling, to the extent possible, futures on indices the movements of which will, in its judgment, have a significant correlation with movements in the prices of a Fund’s portfolio securities sought to be hedged.

Municipal Bond Index Futures Contracts. Municipal bond index futures contracts may act as a hedge against changes in market conditions. A municipal bond index assigns values daily to the municipal bonds included in the index based on the independent assessment of dealer-to-dealer municipal bond brokers. A municipal bond index futures contract represents a firm commitment by which two parties agree to take or make delivery of an amount equal to a specified dollar amount multiplied by the difference between the municipal bond index value on the last trading date of the contract and the price at which the futures contract is originally struck. No physical delivery of the underlying securities in the index is made.

Options on Futures Contracts. A Fund may purchase and write call and put options on those futures contracts that it is permitted to buy or sell. A Fund may use such options on futures contracts in lieu of writing options directly on the underlying securities or other assets or purchasing and selling the underlying futures contracts. Such options generally operate in the same manner as options purchased or written directly on the underlying investments. A futures option gives the holder, in return for the premium paid, the right to buy from (call) or sell to (put) the writer of the option a futures contract at a specified price at any time during the period of the option. Upon exercise, the writer of the option is obligated to pay the difference between the cash value of the

29

futures contract and the exercise price. Like the buyer or seller of a futures contract, the holder or writer of an option has the right to terminate its position prior to the scheduled expiration of the option by selling or purchasing an option of the same series, at which time the person entering into the closing purchase transaction will realize a gain or loss. There is no guarantee that such closing purchase transactions can be effected.

A Fund will enter into written options on futures contracts only when, in compliance with the SEC’s requirements, cash or liquid securities equal in value to the underlying security’s or other asset’s value (less any applicable margin deposits) have been deposited in a segregated account. A Fund will be required to deposit initial margin and maintenance margin with respect to put and call options on futures contracts written by it pursuant to brokers’ requirements similar to those described above.

Investments in futures options involve some of the same risks that are involved in connection with investments in futures contracts (for example, the existence of a liquid secondary market). In addition, the purchase of an option also entails the risk that changes in the value of the underlying futures contract will not be fully reflected in the value of the option purchased. There may be circumstances when the purchase of a call or put option on a futures contract would result in a loss to a Fund when the purchase or sale of a futures contract would not, such as when there is no movement in the prices of the hedged investments. In general, the market prices of options can be expected to be more volatile than the market prices on the underlying futures contracts. Compared to the purchase or sale of futures contracts, however, the purchase of call or put options on futures contracts may frequently involve less potential risk to a Fund because the maximum amount at risk is the premium paid for the options (plus transaction costs).

Successful use of index futures by a Fund is also subject to the Adviser’s ability to predict correctly movements in the direction of the market. It is possible that, for example, where a Fund has sold futures to hedge its portfolio against a decline in the market, the index on which the futures are written may advance and the value of securities held in a Fund’s portfolio may decline. If this occurred, a Fund would lose money on the futures and also experience a decline in the value of its portfolio securities, as a Fund’s ability to effectively hedge all or a portion of the securities in its portfolio, in anticipation of or during a market decline, through transactions in futures or put options on stock indices, depends on the degree to which price movements in the underlying index correlate with the price movements of the securities held by a Fund. Inasmuch as a Fund’s securities will not duplicate the components of an index, the correlation will not be perfect. Consequently, a Fund bears the risk that the prices of its securities being hedged will not move to the same extent as do the prices of its put options on the stock indices. It is also possible that, if a Fund has hedged against the possibility of a decline in the market adversely affecting securities held in its portfolio and securities prices increase instead, a Fund will lose part or all of the benefit of the increased values of those securities that it has hedged, because it will have offsetting losses in its futures positions. In addition, in such situations, if a Fund has insufficient cash, it may have to sell securities to meet daily variation margin requirements.

In addition to the possibility that there may be an imperfect correlation, or no correlation at all, between movements in the index futures and the securities of the portfolio being hedged, the prices of index futures may not correlate perfectly with movements in the underlying index due to certain market distortions. First, all participants in the futures markets are subject to margin deposit and maintenance requirements. Rather than meeting additional margin deposit requirements, investors may close futures contracts through offsetting transactions, which would distort the normal relationship between the index and futures markets. Second, margin requirements in the futures market are less onerous than margin requirements in the securities market, and as a result, the futures market may attract more speculators than the securities market. Increased participation by speculators in the futures market may also cause temporary price distortions. Due to the possibility of price distortions in the futures market, and also because of the imperfect correlation between movements in an index and movements in the prices of index futures, even a correct forecast of general market trends by the Adviser may still not result in a successful hedging transaction.

There is also the risk of loss by a Fund of margin deposits in the event of bankruptcy of a broker with whom a Fund has an open position in a futures contract or related option. Most futures exchanges limit the amount of

30

fluctuation permitted in some 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 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 Index Futures Contracts. A Fund may also purchase and sell options on index futures contracts. Options on index futures give the purchaser the right, in return for the premium paid, to assume a position in an index futures contract (a long position if the option is a call and a short position if the option is a put), at a specified exercise price at any time during the period of the option. Upon exercise of the option, the delivery of the futures position by the writer of the option to the holder of the option will be accompanied by delivery of the accumulated balance in the writer’s futures margin account, which represents the amount by which the market price of the index futures contract, at exercise, exceeds (in the case of a call) or is less than (in the case of a put) the exercise price of the option on the index future. If an option is exercised on the last trading day prior to the expiration date of the option, the settlement will be made entirely in cash equal to the difference between the exercise price of the option and the closing level of the index on which the future is based on the expiration date. Purchasers of options who fail to exercise their options prior to the exercise date suffer a loss of the premium paid.

There are various risks in connection with the use by a Fund of index futures as a hedging device. For example, a risk arises because of the imperfect correlation between movements in the prices of the index futures and movements in the prices of securities which are the subject of the hedges. The Adviser will attempt to reduce this risk by selling, to the extent possible, futures on indices the movements of which will, in its judgment, have a significant correlation with movements in the prices of a Fund’s portfolio securities sought to be hedged; there can be no assurance that the Adviser will be successful in doing so.

Use by Tax-Exempt Funds of Interest Rate and U.S. Treasury Security Futures Contracts and Options. If a Fund invests in tax-exempt securities, it may purchase and sell futures contracts and related options on interest rate and U.S. Treasury securities when, in the opinion of the Adviser, price movements in these security futures and related options will correlate closely with price movements in the tax-exempt securities which are the subject of the hedge. Interest rate and U.S. Treasury securities futures contracts require the seller to deliver, or the purchaser to take delivery of, the type of security called for in the contract at a specified date and price. Options on interest rate and U.S. Treasury security futures contracts give the purchaser the right in return for the premium paid to assume a position in a futures contract at the specified option exercise price at any time during the period of the option.

In addition to the risks generally involved in using futures contracts, there is also a risk that price movements in interest rate and U.S. Treasury security futures contracts and related options will not correlate closely with price movements in markets for tax-exempt securities.

Stock Options and Stock Index Options

A Fund may purchase and write (i.e., sell) put and call options. Such options may relate to particular stocks or stock indices, and may or may not be listed on a domestic or foreign securities exchange and may or may not be issued by the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC). Stock index options are put options and call options on various stock indices. In most respects, they are identical to listed options on common stocks.

There is a key difference between stock options and stock index options in connection with their exercise. In the case of stock options, the underlying security, common stock, is delivered. However, upon the exercise of an

31

index option, settlement does not occur by delivery of the securities comprising the index. The option holder who exercises the index option receives an amount of cash if the closing level of the stock index upon which the option is based 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 stock index and the exercise price of the option expressed in dollars times a specified multiple. A stock index fluctuates with changes in the market value of the securities included in the index. For example, some stock index options are based on a broad market index, such as the S&P 500^® Index or a narrower market index, such as the S&P 100^® Index. Indices may also be based on an industry or market segment.

The successful use of a Fund’s options strategies depends on the ability of the Adviser to forecast interest rate and market movements correctly. When it purchases an option, a Fund runs the risk that it will lose its entire investment in the option in a relatively short period of time, unless a Fund exercises the option or enters into a closing sale transaction for such option during the life of the option. If the price of the underlying security does not rise (in the case of a call) or fall (in the case of a put) to an extent sufficient to cover the option premium and transaction costs, a Fund will lose part or all of its investment in the option. This contrasts with an investment by a Fund in the underlying securities, since a Fund may continue to hold its investment in those securities notwithstanding the lack of a change in price of those securities.

The effective use of options also depends on a Fund’s ability to terminate option positions at times when the Adviser deems it desirable to do so. Although a Fund will take an option position only if the Adviser believes there is a liquid secondary market for the option, there is no assurance that a Fund will be able to effect closing transactions at any particular time or at an acceptable price.

If a secondary trading market in options were to become unavailable, a Fund could no longer engage in closing transactions. The writer in such circumstances would be subject to the risk of market decline or appreciation in the instrument during such period. If an option purchased by a Fund expires unexercised, a Fund will realize a loss equal to the premium paid. Reasons for the absence of a liquid secondary market on an exchange include the following: (i) there may be insufficient trading interest in certain options; (ii) restrictions may be imposed by an exchange on opening transactions or closing transactions or both; (iii) trading halts, suspensions or other restrictions may be imposed with respect to particular classes or series of options, or underlying securities; (iv) unusual or unforeseen circumstances, such as volume in excess of trading or clearing capability, may interrupt normal operations on an exchange; (v) the facilities of an exchange or a clearing corporation may not at all times be adequate to handle current trading volume; or (vi) one or more exchanges could, for economic or other reasons, decide or be compelled at some future date to discontinue the trading of options (or a particular class or series of options), in which event the secondary market on that exchange (or in the class or series of options) would cease to exist, although outstanding options on the exchange that had been issued by a clearing corporation as a result of trades on that exchange would continue to be exercisable in accordance with their terms.

Disruptions in the markets for the securities underlying options purchased or sold by a Fund could result in losses on the options. If trading is interrupted in an underlying security, the trading of options on that security is normally halted as well. As a result, a Fund as purchaser or writer of an option will be unable to close out its positions until options trading resumes, and it may be faced with losses if trading in the security reopens at a substantially different price. In addition, the OCC or other options markets may impose exercise restrictions. If a prohibition on exercise is imposed at a time when trading in the option has also been halted, a Fund as purchaser or writer of an option will be locked into its position until one of the two restrictions has been lifted. If a prohibition on exercise remains in effect until an option owned by a Fund has expired, a Fund could lose the entire value of its option.

Special risks are presented by internationally traded options. Because of time differences between the United States and various foreign countries, and because different holidays are observed in different countries, foreign options markets may be open for trading during hours or on days when U.S. markets are closed. As a result, option premiums may not reflect the current prices of the underlying interest in the United States.

32

Dealer (Over-the-Counter) Options. Dealer options are options negotiated individually through dealers rather than traded on an exchange. Certain risks are specific to dealer options. While a Fund might look to a clearing corporation to exercise exchange-traded options, if a Fund purchases a dealer option it must rely on the selling dealer to perform if a Fund exercises the option. Failure by the dealer to do so would result in the loss of the premium paid by a Fund as well as loss of the expected benefit of the transaction. Exchange-traded options generally have a continuous liquid market while dealer options more often may not. Consequently, a Fund can realize the value of a dealer option it has purchased only by exercising or reselling the option to the issuing dealer. Similarly, when a Fund writes a dealer option, a Fund can close out the option prior to its expiration only by entering into a closing purchase transaction with the dealer. While each Fund seeks to enter into dealer options only with dealers who will agree to and can enter into closing transactions with a Fund, no assurance exists that a Fund will at any time be able to liquidate a dealer option at a favorable price at any time prior to expiration. Unless a Fund, as a covered dealer call option writer, can effect a closing purchase transaction, it will not be able to liquidate securities (or other assets) used as cover until the option expires or is exercised. In the event of insolvency of the other party, a Fund may be unable to liquidate a dealer option. With respect to options written by a Fund, the inability to enter into a closing transaction may result in material losses to a Fund. For example, because a Fund must maintain a secured position with respect to any call option on a security it writes, a Fund may not sell the assets, that it has segregated to secure the position while it is obligated under the option. This requirement may impair a Fund’s ability to sell portfolio securities at a time when such sale might be advantageous.

A Fund generally will treat purchased dealer options as illiquid securities. A Fund may treat the cover used for written dealer options as liquid if the dealer agrees that a Fund may repurchase the dealer option it has written for a maximum price to be calculated by a predetermined formula. In such cases, the dealer option would be considered illiquid only to the extent the maximum purchase price under the formula exceeds the intrinsic value of the option.

Writing Covered Options. A Fund may write covered call options and covered put options on securities held in its portfolio when, in the opinion of the Adviser, such transactions are consistent with a Fund’s investment goal and policies. Call options written by a Fund give the purchaser the right to buy the underlying securities from a Fund at the stated exercise price at any time prior to the expiration date of the option, regardless of the security’s market price; put options give the purchaser the right to sell the underlying securities to a Fund at the stated exercise price at any time prior to the expiration date of the option, regardless of the security’s market price.

A Fund may write only covered options, which means that, so long as a Fund is obligated as the writer of a call option, it will own the underlying securities subject to the option (or comparable securities satisfying the cover requirements of securities exchanges). In the case of put options, a Fund will hold cash and/or high-grade short-term debt obligations equal to the price to be paid if the option is exercised. In addition, a Fund will be considered to have covered a put or call option if and to the extent that it holds an option that offsets some or all of the risk of the option it has written. A Fund may write combinations of covered puts and calls (straddles) on the same underlying security.

A Fund will receive a premium from writing a put or call option, which increases a Fund’s return on the underlying security if the option expires unexercised or is closed out at a profit. The amount of the premium reflects, among other things, the relationship between the exercise price and the current market value of the underlying security, the volatility of the underlying security, the amount of time remaining until expiration, current interest rates, and the effect of supply and demand in the options market and in the market for the underlying security. By writing a call option, a Fund limits its opportunity to profit from any increase in the market value of the underlying security above the exercise price of the option but continues to bear the risk of a decline in the value of the underlying security. By writing a put option, a Fund assumes the risk that it may be required to purchase the underlying security for an exercise price higher than the security’s then-current market value, resulting in a potential capital loss unless the security subsequently appreciates in value.

33

A Fund’s obligation to sell an instrument subject to a call option written by it, or to purchase an instrument subject to a put option written by it, may be terminated prior to the expiration date of the option by a Fund’s execution of a closing purchase transaction, which is effected by purchasing on an exchange an offsetting option of the same series (i.e., same underlying instrument, exercise price and expiration date) as the option previously written. A closing purchase transaction will ordinarily be effected in order to realize a profit on an outstanding option, to prevent an underlying instrument from being called, to permit the sale of the underlying instrument or to permit the writing of a new option containing different terms on such underlying instrument. A Fund realizes a profit or loss from a closing purchase transaction if the cost of the transaction (option premium plus transaction costs) is less or more than the premium received from writing the option. Because increases in the market price of a call option generally reflect increases in the market price of the security underlying the option, any loss resulting from a closing purchase transaction may be offset in whole or in part by unrealized appreciation of the underlying security.

If a Fund writes a call option but does not own the underlying security, and when it writes a put option, a Fund may be required to deposit cash or securities with its broker as “margin” or collateral for its obligation to buy or sell the underlying security. As the value of the underlying security varies, a Fund may also have to deposit additional margin with the broker. Margin requirements are complex and are fixed by individual brokers, subject to minimum requirements currently imposed by the Federal Reserve Board and by stock exchanges and other self-regulatory organizations.

Purchasing Put Options. A Fund may purchase put options to protect its portfolio holdings in an underlying security against a decline in market value. Such hedge protection is provided during the life of the put option since a Fund, as holder of the put option, is able to sell the underlying security at the put exercise price regardless of any decline in the underlying security’s market price. For a put option to be profitable, the market price of the underlying security must decline sufficiently below the exercise price to cover the premium and transaction costs. By using put options in this manner, a Fund will reduce any profit it might otherwise have realized from appreciation of the underlying security by the premium paid for the put option and by transaction costs.

Purchasing Call Options. A Fund may purchase call options to hedge against an increase in the price of securities that a Fund wants ultimately to buy. Such hedge protection is provided during the life of the call option since a Fund, as holder of the call option, is able to buy the underlying security at the exercise price regardless of any increase in the underlying security’s market price. In order for a call option to be profitable, the market price of the underlying security must rise sufficiently above the exercise price to cover the premium and transaction costs. These costs will reduce any profit a Fund might have realized had it bought the underlying security at the time it purchased the call option.

Over-the-Counter (OTC) Options. A Fund will enter into OTC options transactions only with primary dealers in U.S. Government securities and, in the case of OTC options written by a Fund, only pursuant to agreements that will assure that a Fund will at all times have the right to repurchase the option written by it from the dealer at a specified formula price. A Fund will treat the amount by which such formula price exceeds the amount, if any, by which the option may be “in-the-money” as an illiquid investment. It is the present policy of a Fund not to enter into any OTC option transaction if, as a result, more than 15% (10% in some cases, refer to your Fund’s prospectuses) of a Fund’s net assets would be invested in (i) illiquid investments (determined under the foregoing formula) relating to OTC options written by a Fund, (ii) OTC options purchased by a Fund, (iii) securities which are not readily marketable, and (iv) repurchase agreements maturing in more than seven days.

Index Options. As an alternative to purchasing call and put options on index futures, a Fund may purchase call and put options on the underlying indices themselves. Such options could be used in a manner identical to the use of options on index futures. Options involving securities indices provide the holder with the right to make or receive a cash settlement upon exercise of the option based on movements in the relevant index. Such options must be listed on a national securities exchange and issued by the OCC. Such options may relate to particular securities or to various stock indices, except that a Fund may not write covered options on an index.

34

Foreign Stock Index Options. A Fund may, for the purpose of hedging its portfolio, subject to applicable securities regulations, purchase and write put and call options on foreign stock indices listed on foreign and domestic stock exchanges.

Swap Agreements

Swap agreements are derivative instruments that can be individually negotiated and structured to include exposure to a variety of different types of investments or market factors. Depending on their structure, swap agreements may increase or decrease a Fund’s exposure to long- or short-term interest rates, foreign currency values, mortgage securities, corporate borrowing rates, or other factors such as security prices or inflation rates. A Fund may enter into a variety of swap agreements, including interest rate, index, commodity, equity, credit default and currency exchange rate swap agreements, and other types of swap agreements such as caps, collars and floors. A Fund also may enter into swaptions, which are options to enter into a swap agreement.

In a typical interest rate swap, one party agrees to make regular payments equal to a floating interest rate times a “notional principal amount,” in return for payments equal to a fixed rate times the same amount, for a specified period of time. If a swap agreement provides for payments in different currencies, the parties might agree to exchange notional principal amount as well. In a total return swap agreement, the non-floating rate side of the swap is based on the total return of an individual security, a basket of securities, an index or another reference asset. Swaps may also depend on other prices or rates, such as the value of an index or mortgage prepayment rates.

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, while 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. Caps and floors have an effect similar to buying or writing options. A collar combines elements of buying a cap and selling a floor.

Swap agreements will tend to shift a Fund’s investment exposure from one type of investment to another. For example, if a Fund agreed to pay fixed rates in exchange for floating rates while holding fixed-rate bonds, the swap would tend to decrease a Fund’s exposure to long-term interest rates. Another example is if a Fund agreed to exchange payments in dollars for payments in foreign currency, the swap agreement would tend to decrease a Fund’s exposure to U.S. interest rates and increase its exposure to foreign currency and interest rates.

Swap agreements are sophisticated hedging instruments that typically involve a small investment of cash relative to the magnitude of risks assumed. As a result, swaps can be highly volatile and may have a considerable impact on a Fund’s performance. Depending on how they are used, swap agreements may increase or decrease the overall volatility of a Fund’s investments and its share price and yield. Additionally, whether a Fund’s use of swap agreements will be successful in furthering its investment objective will depend on the Adviser’s ability correctly to predict whether certain types of investments likely are to produce greater returns than other investments. Because they are two party contracts and because they may have terms of greater than seven days, swap agreements may be considered to be illiquid. Moreover, a Fund bears the risk of loss of the amount expected to be received under a swap agreement in the event of the default or bankruptcy of a swap agreement counterparty. The most significant factor in the performance of swap agreements is the change in the specific interest rate, currency, or other factor that determines the amounts of payments due to and from a Fund. If a swap agreement calls for payments by a Fund, a Fund must be prepared to make such payments when due. In addition, if the counterparty’s creditworthiness declines, the value of a swap agreement likely would decline, potentially resulting in losses for a Fund. A Fund will closely monitor the credit of a swap agreement counterparty in order to attempt to minimize this risk. A Fund may also suffer losses if it is unable to terminate outstanding swap agreements (either by assignment or other disposition) or reduce its exposure through offsetting transactions (i.e., by entering into an offsetting swap agreement with the same party or a similarly creditworthy party).

35

Credit Default Swap Agreements. A Fund may enter into credit default swap agreements, which may have as reference obligations one or more securities or a basket of securities that are or are not currently held by a Fund. The protection “buyer” in a credit default contract is generally obligated to pay the protection “seller” an upfront or a periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no credit event, such as a default, on a reference obligation has occurred. If a credit event occurs, the seller generally must pay the buyer the “par value” (full notional value) of the swap in exchange for an equal face amount of deliverable obligations of the reference entity described in the swap, or the seller may be required to deliver the related net cash amount, if the swap is cash settled. A Fund may be either the buyer or seller in the transaction. If a Fund is a buyer and no credit event occurs, a Fund may recover nothing if the swap is held through its termination date. However, if a credit event occurs, the buyer generally 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 whose value may have significantly decreased. As a seller, a Fund generally receives an upfront payment or a fixed rate of income throughout the term of the swap provided that there is no credit event. As the seller, a Fund would effectively add leverage to its portfolio because, in addition to its total net assets, a Fund would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap.

Credit default swap agreements may involve greater risks than if a Fund had invested in the reference obligation directly since, in addition to risks relating to the reference obligation, credit default swaps are subject to illiquidity risk, counterparty risk and credit risk. A Fund will enter into credit default swap agreements generally with counterparties that meet certain standards of creditworthiness. A buyer generally will lose its investment and recover nothing if no credit event occurs and the swap is held to its termination date. If a credit event were to occur, the value of any deliverable obligation received by the seller, coupled with the upfront or periodic payments previously received, may be less than the full notional value it pays to the buyer, resulting in a loss of value to the seller.

Equity Swaps. A Fund may engage in equity swaps. Equity swaps allow the parties to the swap agreement to exchange components of return on one equity investment (e.g., a basket of equity securities or an index) for a component of return on another non-equity or equity investment, including an exchange of differential rates of return. Equity swaps may be used to invest in a market without owning or taking physical custody of securities in circumstances where direct investment may be restricted for legal reasons or is otherwise impractical. Equity swaps also may be used for other purposes, such as hedging or seeking to increase total return.

The values of equity swaps can be very volatile. To the extent that the Adviser does not accurately analyze and predict the potential relative fluctuation on the components swapped with the other party, a Fund may suffer a loss. The value of some components of an equity swap (such as the dividend on a common stock) may also be sensitive to changes in interest rates. Furthermore, during the period a swap is outstanding, a Fund may suffer a loss if the counterparty defaults.

Total Return Swap Agreements. Total return swap agreements are contracts in which one party agrees to make periodic payments to another party based on the change in market value of the assets underlying the contract, which may include a specified security, basket of securities or securities indices during the specified period, in return for periodic payments based on a fixed or variable interest rate or the total return from other underlying assets. Total return swap agreements may be used to obtain exposure to a security or market without owning or taking physical custody of such security or investing directly in such market. Total return swap agreements may effectively add leverage to a Fund’s portfolio because, in addition to its total net assets, a Fund would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap.

Total return swap agreements are subject to the risk that a counterparty will default on its payment obligations to a Fund thereunder, and conversely, that a Fund will not be able to meet its obligation to the counterparty. Generally, a Fund will enter into total return swaps on a net basis (i.e., the two payment streams are netted against one another with a Fund receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments). The net amount of the excess, if any, of a Fund’s obligations over its entitlements with respect to each

36

total return swap will be accrued on a daily basis, and an amount of liquid assets having an aggregate net asset value at least equal to the accrued excess will be segregated by a Fund. If the total return swap transaction is entered into on other than a net basis, the full amount of a Fund’s obligations will be accrued on a daily basis, and the full amount of a Fund’s obligations will be segregated by a Fund in an amount equal to or greater than the market value of the liabilities under the total return swap agreement or the amount it would have cost a Fund initially to make an equivalent direct investment, plus or minus any amount a Fund is obligated to pay or is to receive under the total return swap agreement.

Variance, Volatility and Correlation Swap Agreements. Variance and volatility swaps are contracts that provide exposure to increases or decreases in the volatility of certain referenced assets. Correlation swaps are contracts that provide exposure to increases or decreases in the correlation between the prices of different assets or different market rates.

Dollar Rolls

Dollar rolls involve selling securities (e.g., mortgage-backed securities or U.S. Treasury securities) and simultaneously entering into a commitment to purchase those or similar (same collateral type, coupon and maturity) securities on a specified future date and price. Mortgage dollar rolls and U.S. Treasury rolls are types of dollar rolls. A Fund foregoes principal and interest paid on the securities during the “roll” period. A Fund is compensated by the difference between the current sales price and the lower forward price for the future purchase of the securities as well as the interest earned on the cash proceeds of the initial sale.

Dollar rolls involve the risk that the market value of the securities a Fund is obligated to repurchase may decline below the repurchase price or that the transaction costs may exceed the return earned by a Fund from the transaction. Dollar rolls also involve risk to a Fund if the other party should default on its obligation and a Fund is delayed or prevented from completing the transaction. In the event that the buyer of securities under a dollar roll files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, a Fund’s use of proceeds of the dollar roll may be restricted pending a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce a Fund’s obligation to repurchase the securities. In addition, the security to be delivered in the future may turn out to be inferior to the security sold upon entering into the transaction.

Foreign Currency Transactions

Foreign currency transactions may be used to protect, to some extent, against uncertainty in the level of future currency exchange rates by establishing a fixed exchange rate. Foreign currency transactions may involve the purchase or sale of foreign currencies on a “spot” (cash) basis at the prevailing exchange rate or may involve “forward contracts” that allow a Fund to purchase or sell foreign currencies at a future date. Forward contracts may be used for “transaction hedging,” “position hedging” and “cross-hedging.” A Fund may use forward sale contracts to sell an amount of a foreign currency approximating the value of a Fund’s securities denominated in the foreign security when that foreign currency suffers a substantial decline against the U.S. dollar. A Fund may use forward purchase contracts to purchase a foreign currency when it is believed that the U.S. dollar may suffer a substantial decline against the foreign currency. Although these transactions tend to minimize the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the hedged currency, they also tend to limit any potential gain that might be realized if the value of the hedged currency increases.

Transaction hedging may allow a Fund to “lock in” the U.S. dollar price of a security it has agreed to purchase or sell, or the U.S. dollar equivalent of a dividend or interest rate payment in a foreign currency. A Fund may use transaction hedging to protect itself against a possible loss resulting from an adverse change in the relationship between the U.S. dollar and the applicable foreign currency during the period between the date on which the security is purchased or sold, or on which the dividend or interest payment is declared, and the date on which such payments are made or received.

37

Position hedging may allow a Fund to protect against an adverse change in the relationship between the U.S. dollar and the applicable foreign currencies in which its portfolio securities are denominated. A Fund may use position hedging when it is believed that the U.S. dollar may suffer a decline against the foreign currency by entering into a forward purchase contract to purchase that foreign currency for a fixed dollar amount.

Cross-hedging may allow a Fund to enter into a forward contract to sell a different foreign currency for a fixed U.S. dollar amount when it is believed that the U.S. dollar value of the currency to be sold pursuant to the forward contract will fall if there is a decline in the U.S. dollar value of the currency in which a Fund’s securities are denominated.

A Fund also may purchase exchange-listed and over-the-counter call and put options on foreign currencies and foreign currency contracts. Options on foreign currencies and foreign currency contracts give the holder a right to buy or sell the underlying foreign currencies or foreign currency contracts for a specified period of time and for a specified amount. The value of an option on foreign currencies or foreign currency contracts reflects the value of an exchange rate, which depends on the relative values of the U.S. dollar and the relevant foreign currency.

Engaging in foreign currency transactions is subject to certain risks. For example, if the value of a foreign currency were to decline against the U.S. dollar, such decline would reduce the dollar value of any securities held by a Fund denominated in that currency. It is impossible to forecast with precision the market value of portfolio securities at the expiration or maturity of a forward or futures contract, which may make it necessary for a Fund to purchase additional foreign currency on the spot market if the market value of the security being hedged is less than the amount of foreign currency a Fund is obligated to deliver at the time a Fund sells the security being hedged. The value of any currency, including the U.S. dollar, may be affected by political and economic factors applicable to the issuer’s country. The exchange rates of currencies also may be affected adversely by governmental actions. Transaction, position and cross-hedging do not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of securities that a Fund owns or intends to purchase or sell and may limit the amount of potential gain that might result from the increase in value of the currency being hedged. Settlement procedures relating to a Fund’s foreign currency transactions may be more complex than those relating to investments in securities of U.S. issuers.

Foreign Securities

Foreign securities include debt, equity and derivative securities that the Adviser determines are “foreign” based on the consideration of an issuer’s domicile, its principal place of business, its primary stock exchange listing, the source of its revenue or other factors. Foreign securities may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Foreign securities may include depositary receipts, such as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), European Depositary Receipts (EDRs) and Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs). ADRs are U.S. dollar denominated receipts issued in registered form by a domestic bank or trust company that evidence ownership of underlying securities issued by a foreign issuer. EDRs are foreign currency-denominated receipts issued in Europe, typically by foreign banks or trust companies and foreign branches of domestic banks, that evidence ownership of foreign or domestic securities. GDRs are receipts structured similarly to ADRs and EDRs and are marketed globally. Depositary receipts will not necessarily be denominated in the same currency as their underlying securities. In general, ADRs, in registered form, are designed for use in the U.S. securities markets, and EDRs, in bearer form, are designed for use in European securities markets. GDRs are tradable both in the United States and in Europe and are designed for use throughout the world. A Fund may invest in depositary receipts through “sponsored” or “unsponsored” facilities. A sponsored facility is established jointly by the issuer

38

of the underlying security and a depositary, whereas a depositary may establish an unsponsored facility without participation by the issuer of the deposited security. Holders of unsponsored depositary receipts generally bear all the costs of such facilities and the depositary of an unsponsored facility frequently is under no obligation to distribute interest holder communications received from the issuer of the deposited security or to pass through voting rights to the holders of such receipts in respect of the deposited securities. The issuers of unsponsored depositary receipts are not obligated to disclose material information in the United States, and, therefore, there may be limited information available regarding such issuers and/or limited correlation between available information and the market value of the depositary receipts.

Due to the potential for foreign withholding taxes, Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) publishes two versions of its indices reflecting the reinvestment of dividends using two different methodologies: gross dividends and net dividends. While both versions reflect reinvested dividends, they differ with respect to the manner in which taxes associated with dividend payments are treated. In calculating the net dividends version, MSCI incorporates reinvested dividends applying the withholding tax rate applicable to foreign non-resident institutional investors that do not benefit from double taxation treaties. The Adviser believes that the net dividends version of MSCI indices better reflects the returns U.S. investors might expect were they to invest directly in the component securities of an MSCI index.

Investing in foreign securities is subject to certain risks. For example, foreign markets can be extremely volatile. Fluctuations in currency exchange rates also may impact the value of foreign securities denominated in foreign currencies or U.S. dollars, without a change in the intrinsic value of those securities. Additionally, the U.S. dollar value of a foreign security tends to decrease when the value of the U.S. dollar rises against the foreign currency in which the security is denominated and tends to increase when the value of the U.S. dollar falls against such currency. A Fund may attempt to minimize the risk from adverse changes in the relationship between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies by purchasing and selling forward foreign currency exchange contracts and foreign currency futures contracts and related options. Foreign securities may be less liquid than domestic securities so that a Fund may, at times, be unable to sell foreign securities at desirable prices. Brokerage commissions, custodial fees and other fees also are generally higher for foreign securities. A Fund may have limited legal recourse in the event of default with respect to certain debt securities issued by foreign governments. In addition, foreign governments may impose potentially confiscatory withholding or other taxes, which would reduce a Fund’s return on these securities.

Other risks of investing in foreign securities include: possible delays in the settlement of transactions or in the notification of income; generally less publicly available information about companies; adverse impact of political, social or diplomatic events; possible seizure, expropriation or nationalization of a company or its assets; possible imposition of currency exchange controls; and that foreign companies generally are not subject to accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards comparable to those mandated for domestic companies.

Risks associated with investments in foreign securities are increased with respect to investments in emerging market countries. Political and economic structures in many emerging market countries, especially those in Eastern Europe, the Pacific Basin and the Far East, are undergoing significant evolutionary changes and rapid development, and may lack the social, political and economic stability of more developed countries. Investing in emerging market securities also involves risks beyond the risks applicable to foreign investments. For example, some emerging market countries may have fixed or managed currencies that are not free-floating against the U.S. dollar. Further, certain currencies may not be traded internationally, and some countries with emerging securities markets have sustained long periods of very high inflation or rapid fluctuation in inflation rates which can have negative effects on a country’s economy and securities markets.

Guaranteed Investment Contracts (Funding Agreements)

Guaranteed investment contracts, or funding agreements, are debt instruments issued by insurance companies. Pursuant to such contracts, a Fund may make cash contributions to a deposit fund of the insurance

39

company’s general account. The insurance company then credits to a Fund payments at negotiated, floating or fixed interest rates. A Fund will purchase guaranteed investment contracts only from issuers that, at the time of purchase, meet certain credit and quality standards.

Investing in guaranteed investment contracts is subject to certain risks. In general, guaranteed investment contracts are not assignable or transferable without the permission of the issuing insurance companies, and an active secondary market does not exist for these investments. In addition, the issuer may not be able to pay the principal amount to a Fund on seven days notice or less, at which time the investment may be considered illiquid under applicable SEC regulatory guidance and subject to certain restrictions.

Illiquid Securities

Illiquid securities are defined by a Fund consistent with SEC staff’s current guidance and interpretations which provide that an illiquid security is an asset which may not be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value at which a Fund has valued the investment on its books. Some securities, such as those not registered under U.S. securities laws, cannot be sold in public transactions. Subject to its investment policies, a Fund may invest in illiquid investments and may invest in certain restricted securities that are deemed to be illiquid securities.

Initial Public Offerings

A Fund may invest in initial public offerings (IPOs) of common stock or other primary or secondary syndicated offerings of equity or debt securities issued by a corporate issuer. Fixed income funds frequently invest in these types of offerings of debt securities. A purchase of IPO securities often involves higher transaction costs than those associated with the purchase of securities already traded on exchanges or markets. IPO securities are subject to market risk and liquidity risk. The market value of recently issued IPO securities may fluctuate considerably due to factors such as the absence of a prior public market, unseasoned trading and speculation, a potentially small number of securities available for trading, limited information about the issuer, and other factors. A Fund may hold IPO securities for a period of time, or may sell them soon after the purchase. Investments in IPOs could have a magnified impact — either positive or negative — on a Fund’s performance while the Fund’s assets are relatively small. The impact of an IPO on a Fund’s performance may tend to diminish as the Fund’s assets grow. In circumstances when investments in IPOs make a significant contribution to a Fund’s performance, there can be no assurance that similar contributions from IPOs will continue in the future.

Investing in a Master Portfolio

Investing in a Master Portfolio is the way in which the Fund may seek to achieve its investment objective. The 1940 Act permits the Fund, under certain conditions, to invest all of its assets in another mutual fund. Under this structure, called a master/feeder structure, the Fund (the Feeder Fund) invests all of its assets in a corresponding Master Portfolio with the same investment objective, principal investment strategies and risks as the Feeder Fund. The Master Portfolio is a separate series of Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC, which is organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is itself a registered investment company in the Columbia Funds Family. Other entities (e.g., other investment companies, commingled trust funds, institutional and certain individual investors), along with other Master Portfolios, may invest in the Master Portfolio from time to time. Accordingly, there also may be other investment companies, as well as other investment vehicles, through which you can invest in the Master Portfolio that may have higher or lower fees and expenses than those of the Feeder Fund and that, therefore, may have different performance results than the Feeder Fund.

The primary advantages of the master/feeder structure are potential economies of scale. For example, the larger asset size of the Master Portfolio may allow it to purchase securities and engage in brokerage transactions on more favorable terms than might otherwise be available to the Feeder Fund alone, as well as, over time, to enjoy other benefits associated with achieving economies of scale.

40

Investing in a Master Portfolio is subject to certain risks. As with any mutual fund, other investors in the Master Portfolio could control the results of voting at the Master Portfolio level in certain instances (e.g., a change in fundamental policies by the Master Portfolio which was not approved by the Fund’s shareholders). This could cause the Feeder Fund to withdraw its investment in the Master Portfolio. The Feeder Fund also may withdraw its investment in the Master Portfolio at any time if the Board determines that it is in the best interest of the Feeder Fund to do so. Upon such withdrawal, the Board would consider what action should be taken, including the investment of all of the assets of the Feeder Fund in another pooled investment entity having, for example, the same (or similar) investment objective, principal investment strategies and risks as the Feeder Fund or the hiring of an investment adviser to manage the Feeder Fund’s assets in accordance with its investment objective and principal investment strategies. Further, the withdrawal of other entities that may from time to time invest in the Master Portfolio could have an adverse effect on the performance of the Master Portfolio and the Feeder Fund, such as decreased economies of scale and increased per share operating expenses.

Investments in Other Investment Companies

Investing in other investment companies may be a means by which a Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective. A Fund may invest in securities issued by other investment companies within the limits prescribed by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any exemptive orders currently or in the future obtained by a Fund from the SEC.

Except with respect to funds structured as funds-of-funds or so-called master/feeder funds, the 1940 Act generally requires that a fund limit its investments in another investment company or series thereof so that, as determined at the time a securities purchase is made: (i) no more than 5% of the value of its total assets will be invested in the securities of any one investment company; (ii) no more than 10% of the value of its total assets will be invested in the aggregate in securities of other investment companies; and (iii) no more than 3% of the outstanding voting stock of any one investment company or series thereof will be owned by a fund or by companies controlled by a fund. Such other investment companies may include ETFs, which are shares of publicly traded unit investment trusts, open-end funds or depositary receipts that seek to track the performance of specific indexes or companies in related industries.

Investing in other investment companies is subject to certain risks. Although a Fund may derive certain advantages from being able to invest in shares of other investment companies, such as to be fully invested, there may be potential disadvantages. Investing in other investment companies may result in higher fees and expenses for a Fund and its shareholders. A shareholder may be charged fees not only on Fund shares held directly but also on the investment company shares that a Fund purchases.

In addition, investing in ETFs is subject to certain other risks. ETFs generally are subject to the same risks as the underlying securities the ETFs are designed to track as well as to the risks of the specific sector or industry to which the ETF relates. ETFs also are subject to the risk that their prices may not totally correlate to the prices of the underlying securities the ETFs are designed to track and the risk of possible trading halts due to market conditions or for other reasons.

Under the 1940 Act and rules and regulations thereunder, a Fund may purchase shares of affiliated funds, subject to certain conditions. Investing in affiliated funds may present certain actual or potential conflicts of interest. For more information about such actual and potential conflicts of interest, see Investment Advisory and Other Services — Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates — Certain Conflicts of Interest.

Low and Below Investment Grade Securities

Low and below investment grade securities (below investment grade securities are also known as “junk bonds”) are debt securities with the lowest investment grade rating (e.g., BBB by S&P and Fitch or Baa by

41

Moody’s), that are below investment grade (e.g., lower than BBB by S&P and Fitch or Baa by Moody’s) or that are unrated but determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality. These types of securities may be issued to fund corporate transactions or restructurings, such as leveraged buyouts, mergers, acquisitions, debt reclassifications or similar events, are more speculative in nature than securities with higher ratings and tend to be more sensitive to credit risk, particularly during a downturn in the economy. These types of securities generally are issued by unseasoned companies without long track records of sales and earnings, or by companies or municipalities that have questionable credit strength. Low and below investment grade securities and comparable unrated securities: (i) likely will have some quality and protective characteristics that, in the judgment of one or more NRSROs, are outweighed by large uncertainties or major risk exposures to adverse conditions; (ii) are speculative with respect to the issuer’s capacity to pay interest and repay principal in accordance with the terms of the obligation; and (iii) may have a less liquid secondary market, potentially making it difficult to value or sell such securities. Low and below investment grade securities may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Investing in low and below investment grade securities and comparable unrated securities is subject to certain risks. The rates of return on these types of securities generally are higher than the rates of return available on more highly rated securities, but generally involve greater volatility of price and risk of loss of principal and income, including the possibility of default by or insolvency of the issuers of such securities. Accordingly, a Fund may be more dependent on the Adviser’s credit analysis with respect to these types of securities than is the case for more highly rated securities.

The market values of certain low and below investment grade securities and comparable unrated securities tend to be more sensitive to individual corporate developments and changes in economic conditions than are the market value of more highly rated securities. In addition, issuers of low and below investment grade and comparable unrated securities often are highly leveraged and may not have more traditional methods of financing available to them, so that their ability to service their debt obligations during an economic downturn or during sustained periods of rising interest rates may be impaired.

The risk of loss due to default is greater for low and below investment grade and comparable unrated securities than it is for higher rated securities because low and below investment grade securities and comparable unrated securities generally are unsecured and frequently are subordinated to more senior indebtedness. A Fund may incur additional expenses to the extent that it is required to seek recovery upon a default in the payment of principal or interest on its holdings of such securities. The existence of limited markets for lower-rated debt securities may diminish a Fund’s ability to: (i) obtain accurate market quotations for purposes of valuing such securities and calculating portfolio net asset value; and (ii) sell the securities at fair market value either to meet redemption requests or to respond to changes in the economy or in financial markets.

Many lower-rated securities are not registered for offer and sale to the public under the 1933Act. Investments in these restricted securities may be determined to be liquid (able to be sold within seven days at approximately the price at which they are valued by a Fund) pursuant to policies approved by the Fund’s Trustees. Investments in illiquid securities, including restricted securities that have not been determined to be liquid, may not exceed 15% of a Fund’s net assets. A Fund is not otherwise subject to any limitation on its ability to invest in restricted securities. Restricted securities may be less liquid than other lower-rated securities, potentially making it difficult to value or sell such securities.

Money Market Instruments

Money market instruments are high-quality, short-term debt obligations, which include: (i) bank obligations, including certificates of deposit, time deposits and bankers’ acceptances; (ii) funding agreements; (iii) repurchase

42

agreements; (iv) obligations of the United States, foreign countries and supranational entities, and each of their subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities; (v) certain corporate debt securities, such as commercial paper, short-term corporate obligations and extendible commercial notes; (vi) participation interests; and (vii) municipal securities. Money market instruments may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Investing in money market instruments is subject to certain risks. Money market instruments (other than certain U.S. Government obligations) are not backed or insured by the U.S. Government, its agencies or its instrumentalities. Accordingly, only the creditworthiness of an issuer, or guarantees of that issuer, support such instruments.

Mortgage-Backed Securities

Mortgage-backed securities are a type of asset-backed security and represent interests in, or debt instruments backed by, pools of underlying mortgages. In some cases, these underlying mortgages may be insured or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies. Mortgage-backed securities entitle the security holders to receive distributions that are tied to the payments made on the underlying mortgage collateral (less fees paid to the originator, servicer, or other parties, and fees paid for credit enhancement), so that the payments made on the underlying mortgage collateral effectively pass through to such security holders. Mortgage-backed securities are created when mortgage originators (or mortgage loan sellers who have purchased mortgage loans from mortgage loan originators) sell the underlying mortgages to a special purpose entity in a process called a securitization. The special purpose entity issues securities that are backed by the payments on the underlying mortgage loans, and have a minimum denomination and specific term. Mortgage-backed securities may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Mortgage-backed securities may be issued or guaranteed by GNMA (also known as Ginnie Mae), FNMA (also known as Fannie Mae), or FHLMC (also known as Freddie Mac), but also may be issued or guaranteed by other issuers, including private companies. GNMA is a government-owned corporation that is an agency of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It guarantees, with the full faith and credit of the United States, full and timely payment of all monthly principal and interest on its mortgage-backed securities. Until recently, FNMA and FHLMC were government-sponsored corporations owned entirely by private stockholders. Both issue mortgage-related securities that contain guarantees as to timely payment of interest and principal but that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. The value of the companies’ securities fell sharply in 2008 due to concerns that the firms did not have sufficient capital to offset losses. In mid-2008, the U.S. Treasury was authorized to increase the size of home loans that FNMA and FHLMC could purchase in certain residential areas and, until 2009, to lend FNMA and FHLMC emergency funds and to purchase the companies’ stock. In September 2008, the U.S. Treasury announced that FNMA and FHLMC had been placed in conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), a newly created independent regulator. In addition to placing the companies in conservatorship, the U.S. Treasury announced three additional steps that it intended to take with respect to FNMA and FHLMC. First, the U.S. Treasury has entered into “Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements” (PSPAs) under which, if the FHFA determines that FNMA’s or FHLMC’s liabilities have exceeded its assets under generally accepted accounting principles, the U.S. Treasury will contribute cash capital to the company in an amount equal to the difference between liabilities and assets. The PSPAs are designed to provide protection to the senior and subordinated debt and the mortgage-backed securities issued by FNMA and FHLMC. Second, the U.S. Treasury established a new secured lending credit facility that was available to FNMA and FHLMC until December 2009. Third, the U.S. Treasury initiated a temporary program to purchase FNMA

43

and FHLMC mortgage-backed securities that concluded in December 2009. Although the U.S. Government has provided support to FNMA and FHLMC, there can be no assurances that it will support these and other government sponsored enterprises in the future.

CMOs are debt obligations issued by special-purpose trusts, collateralized by underlying mortgage assets. Principal prepayments on underlying mortgage assets may cause the CMOs to be retired substantially earlier than their stated maturities or final distribution dates, resulting in a loss of all or part of the premium if any has been paid. Interest is paid or accrues on all classes of the CMOs on a periodic basis. The principal and interest payments on the underlying mortgage assets may be allocated among the various classes of CMOs in several ways. Typically, payments of principal, including any prepayments, on the underlying mortgage assets are applied to the classes in the order of their respective stated maturities or final distribution dates, so that no payment of principal is made on CMOs of a class until all CMOs of other classes having earlier stated maturities or final distribution dates have been paid in full.

REMICs are entities that own mortgages and elect REMIC status under the Code and, like CMOs, issue debt obligations collateralized by underlying mortgage assets that have characteristics similar to those issued by CMOs.

Investing in mortgage-backed securities is subject to certain risks, including, among others, prepayment, market and credit risks. Prepayment risk reflects the risk that borrowers may prepay their mortgages more quickly than expected, which may affect the security’s average maturity and rate of return. Whether or not a mortgage loan is prepaid is almost entirely controlled by the borrower. Borrowers are most likely to exercise prepayment options at the time when it is least advantageous to investors, generally prepaying mortgages as interest rates fall, and slowing payments as interest rates rise. Besides the effect of prevailing interest rates, the rate of prepayment and refinancing of mortgages also may be affected by home value appreciation, ease of the refinancing process and local economic conditions, among other factors. Market risk reflects the risk that the price of a security may fluctuate over time. The price of mortgage-backed securities can be particularly sensitive to prevailing interest rates, the length of time the security is expected to be outstanding and the liquidity of the issue. In a period of unstable interest rates, there may be decreased demand for certain types of mortgage-backed securities, which in turn may decrease their value. Credit risk reflects the risk that a holder of mortgage-backed securities may not receive all or part of its principal because the issuer, any credit enhancer and/or the underlying mortgage borrower has defaulted on its obligations. Credit risk is increased for mortgage-backed securities that are backed by mortgages to so-called subprime borrowers (who may pose a greater risk of defaulting on their loans) or that are subordinated to another security (i.e., if the holder of a mortgage-backed security is entitled to receive payments only after payment obligations to holders of the other security are satisfied). The more deeply subordinated the security, the greater the credit risk associated with the security will be. Mortgage-backed securities issued by private issuers, whether or not such obligations are subject to guarantees by the private issuer, may entail greater risk than mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by the U.S. Government. The performance of mortgage-backed securities issued by private issuers generally depends on the financial health of those institutions.

Municipal Securities

Municipal securities include debt obligations issued by governmental entities to obtain funds for various public purposes, including the construction of a wide range of public facilities, the refunding of outstanding obligations, the payment of general operating expenses, and the extension of loans to public institutions and facilities. Municipal securities can be classified into two principal categories, including “general obligation” bonds and other securities and “revenue” bonds and other securities. General obligation bonds are secured by the issuer’s full faith, credit and taxing power for the payment of principal and interest. Revenue securities are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise tax or other specific revenue source, such as the user of the facility being financed. Municipal securities also may include “moral obligation” securities, which normally are issued by special

44

purpose public authorities. If the issuer of moral obligation securities is unable to meet its debt service obligations from current revenues, it may draw on a reserve fund, the restoration of which is a moral commitment but not a legal obligation of the governmental entity that created the special purpose public authority. Municipal securities may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Municipal securities may include municipal bonds, municipal notes and municipal leases. Municipal bonds are debt obligations of a governmental entity that obligate the municipality to pay the holder a specified sum of money at specified intervals and to repay the principal amount of the loan at maturity.

Municipal notes may be issued by governmental entities and other tax-exempt issuers in order to finance short-term cash needs or, occasionally, to finance construction. Most municipal notes are general obligations of the issuing entity payable from taxes or designated revenues expected to be received within the relevant fiscal period. Municipal notes generally have maturities of one year or less. Municipal notes can be subdivided into two sub-categories: (i) municipal commercial paper and (ii) municipal demand obligations.

Municipal commercial paper typically consists of very short-term unsecured negotiable promissory notes that are sold, for example, to meet seasonal working capital or interim construction financing needs of a governmental entity or agency. While these obligations are intended to be paid from general revenues or refinanced with long-term debt, they frequently are backed by letters of credit, lending agreements, note repurchase agreements or other credit facility agreements offered by banks or institutions.

Municipal demand obligations can be subdivided into two general types: variable rate demand notes and master demand obligations. Variable rate demand notes are tax-exempt municipal obligations or participation interests that provide for a periodic adjustment in the interest rate paid on the notes. They permit the holder to demand payment of the notes, or to demand purchase of the notes at a purchase price equal to the unpaid principal balance, plus accrued interest either directly by the issuer or by drawing on a bank letter of credit or guaranty issued with respect to such note. The issuer of the municipal obligation may have a corresponding right to prepay at its discretion the outstanding principal of the note plus accrued interest upon notice comparable to that required for the holder to demand payment. The variable rate demand notes in which a Fund may invest are payable, or are subject to purchase, on demand usually on notice of seven calendar days or less. The terms of the notes generally provide that interest rates are adjustable at intervals ranging from daily to six months.

Master demand obligations are tax-exempt municipal obligations that provide for a periodic adjustment in the interest rate paid and permit daily changes in the amount borrowed. The interest on such obligations is, in the opinion of counsel for the borrower, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (but not necessarily for alternative minimum tax purposes). Although there is no secondary market for master demand obligations, such obligations are considered by a Fund to be liquid because they are payable upon demand.

Municipal lease obligations are participations in privately arranged loans to state or local government borrowers. In general, such loans are unrated, in which case they will be determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality at the time of purchase to rated instruments that may be acquired by a Fund. Frequently, privately arranged loans have variable interest rates and may be backed by a bank letter of credit. In other cases, they may be unsecured or may be secured by assets not easily liquidated. Moreover, such loans in most cases are not backed by the taxing authority of the issuers and may have limited marketability or may be marketable only by virtue of a provision requiring repayment following demand by the lender.

Although lease obligations do not constitute general obligations of the municipal issuer to which the government’s taxing power is pledged, a lease obligation ordinarily is backed by the government’s covenant to

45

budget for, appropriate, and make the payments due under the lease obligation. However, certain lease obligations contain “non-appropriation” clauses that provide that the government has no obligation to make lease or installment purchase payments in future years unless money is appropriated for such purpose on a periodic basis. In the case of a “non-appropriation” lease, a Fund’s ability to recover under the lease in the event of non-appropriation or default likely will be limited to the repossession of the leased property in the event that foreclosure proves difficult.

Tender option bonds are municipal securities having relatively long maturities and bearing interest at a fixed interest rate substantially higher than prevailing short-term tax-exempt rates that is coupled with the agreement of a third party, such as a bank, broker/dealer or other financial institution, to grant the security holders the option, at periodic intervals, to tender their securities to the institution and receive the face value thereof. The financial institution receives periodic fees equal to the difference between the municipal security’s coupon rate and the rate that would cause the security to trade at face value on the date of determination.

Investing in municipal securities is subject to certain risks. There are variations in the quality of municipal securities, both within a particular classification and between classifications, and the rates of return on municipal securities can depend on a variety of factors, including general money market conditions, the financial condition of the issuer, general conditions of the municipal bond market, the size of a particular offering, the maturity of the obligation, and the rating of the issue. The ratings of NRSROs represent their opinions as to the quality of municipal securities. It should be emphasized, however, that these ratings are general and are not absolute standards of quality, and municipal securities with the same maturity, interest rate, and rating may have different rates of return while municipal securities of the same maturity and interest rate with different ratings may have the same rate of return.

The payment of principal and interest on most municipal securities purchased by a Fund will depend upon the ability of the issuers to meet their obligations. An issuer’s obligations under its municipal securities are subject to the provisions of bankruptcy, insolvency, and other laws affecting the rights and remedies of creditors, such as the United States Bankruptcy Code. The power or ability of an issuer to meet its obligations for the payment of interest on and principal of its municipal securities may be materially adversely affected by litigation or other conditions.

There are particular considerations and risks relevant to investing in a portfolio of a single state’s municipal securities, such as the greater risk of the concentration of portfolio holdings.

The Funds ordinarily purchase municipal securities whose interest, in the opinion of bond counsel, is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The opinion of bond counsel may assert that such interest is not an item of tax preference for the purposes of the alternative minimum tax or is exempt from certain state or local taxes. There is no assurance that the applicable taxing authority will agree with this opinion. In the event, for example, the IRS determines that an issuer does not comply with relevant tax requirements, interest payments from a security could become federally taxable, possibly retroactively to the date the security was issued. As a shareholder of the Fund, you may be required to file an amended tax return as a result, reporting such income as taxable.

For more information about the economic conditions, legal matters and key risks associated with investments in certain states, see Appendix D.

Participation Interests

Participation interests (also called pass-through certificates or securities) represent an interest in a pool of debt obligations, such as municipal bonds or notes, that have been “packaged” by an intermediary, such as a bank or broker/dealer. Participation interests typically are issued by partnerships or trusts through which a Fund receives principal and interest payments that are passed through to the holder of the participation interest from

46

the payments made on the underlying debt obligations. The purchaser of a participation interest receives an undivided interest in the underlying debt obligations. The issuers of the underlying debt obligations make interest and principal payments to the intermediary, as an initial purchaser, which are passed through to purchasers in the secondary market, such as a Fund. Mortgage-backed securities are a common type of participation interest. Participation interests may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations or as zero-coupon, pay-in- kind and step-coupon securities and may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations, Permissible Fund Investments — Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities and Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Loan participations also are a type of participation interest. Loan participations are interests in loans that are administered by a lending bank or agent for a syndicate of lending banks and sold by the bank or syndicate members.

Investing in participation interests is subject to certain risks. Participation interests generally are subject to the credit risk associated with the underlying borrowers. If the underlying borrower defaults, a Fund may be subject to delays, expenses and risks that are greater than those that would have been involved if a Fund had purchased a direct obligation of the borrower. A Fund also may be deemed a creditor of the lending bank or syndicate members and be subject to the risk that the lending bank or syndicate members may become insolvent.

Preferred Stock

Preferred stock represents units of ownership of a corporation that frequently have dividends that are set at a specified rate. Preferred stock has preference over common stock in the payment of dividends and the liquidation of assets. Preferred stock shares some of the characteristics of both debt and equity. Preferred stock ordinarily does not carry voting rights. Most preferred stock is cumulative; if dividends are passed (i.e., not paid for any reason), they accumulate and must be paid before common stock dividends. Participating preferred stock entitles its holders to share in profits above and beyond the declared dividend, along with common shareholders, as distinguished from nonparticipating preferred stock, which is limited to the stipulated dividend. Convertible preferred stock is exchangeable for a given number of shares of common stock and thus tends to be more volatile than nonconvertible preferred stock, which generally behaves more like a fixed income bond. Preferred stock may be privately placed or publicly offered. See Permissible Fund Investments — Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities for more information.

Auction preferred stock (APS) is a type of adjustable-rate preferred stock with a dividend determined periodically in a Dutch auction process by corporate bidders. Shares typically are bought and sold at face values generally ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 per share.

In addition to reinvestment risk if interest rates fall, some specific risks with regard to APS include:

• Failed auction: A breakdown of the auction process can occur. In the event that the process fails, the rate is reset at the maximum applicable rate, which is usually described in the prospectuses and typically is influenced by the issuer’s credit rating. In a failed auction, current shareholders generally are unable to sell some, or all, of the shares when the auction is completed. Typically, the liquidity for APS that have experienced a failed auction becomes very limited. If a failed auction were to occur, the shareholder generally would hold his or her shares until the next auction. Should there not be subsequent auctions that “cure” the failed process, the shareholder may: (1) hold the APS in anticipation of a refinancing by the issuer that would cause the APS to be called, or (2) hold securities either indefinitely or in anticipation of the development of a secondary market.

• Early call risk: APS generally is redeemable at any time, usually upon notice, at the issuer’s option, at par plus accrued dividends.

47

Investing in preferred stock is subject to certain risks. For example, stock market risk is the risk that the value of such stocks, like the broader stock markets, may decline over short or even extended periods. Domestic and foreign stock markets tend to be cyclical, with periods when prices generally rise and periods when prices generally decline. The value of individual stocks will rise and decline based on factors specific to each corporation, such as changes in earnings or management.

Investing in preferred stock also may involve the risks applicable to investing in a particular company. For example, stocks of smaller companies tend to have greater price fluctuations than stocks of larger companies because, among other things, they trade less frequently and in lower volumes, are more susceptible to changes in economic conditions, are more reliant on singular products or services and are more vulnerable to larger competitors. Stocks of these companies may have a higher potential for gains but also are subject to greater risk of loss.

Investing in preferred stock also may involve the risks applicable to investing in a particular industry, such as technology, financial services, consumer goods or natural resources (e.g., oil and gas). To some extent, the prices of stocks tend to move by industry sector. When market conditions favorably affect, or are expected to favorably affect, an industry, the prices of the stocks of companies in that industry tend to rise. Conversely, negative news or a poor outlook for a particular industry can cause the value of those companies’ stock to decline.

Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities

Private placement securities are securities that have been privately placed and are not registered under the 1933 Act. They are eligible for sale only to certain eligible investors. Private placements often may offer attractive opportunities for investment not otherwise available on the open market. Private placement and other “restricted” securities often cannot be sold to the public without registration under the 1933 Act or the availability of an exemption from registration (such as Rules 144 or 144A), or they are “not readily marketable” because they are subject to other legal or contractual delays in or restrictions on resale. Asset-backed securities, common stock, convertible securities, corporate debt securities, foreign securities, low and below investment grade securities, money market instruments, mortgage-backed securities, municipal securities, participation interests, preferred stock and other types of equity and debt instruments may be privately placed or restricted securities.

Private placements typically may be sold only to qualified institutional buyers (or, in the case of the initial sale of certain securities, such as those issued in collateralized debt obligations or collateralized loan obligations, to accredited investors (as defined in Rule 501(a) under the 1933 Act), or in a privately negotiated transaction or to a limited number of purchasers, or in limited quantities after they have been held for a specified period of time and other conditions are met pursuant to an exemption from registration.

Investing in private placement and other restricted securities is subject to certain risks. Private placements may be considered illiquid securities. Private placements typically are subject to restrictions on resale as a matter of contract or under federal securities laws. Because there may be relatively few potential purchasers for such securities, especially under adverse market or economic conditions or in the event of adverse changes in the financial condition of the issuer, a Fund could find it more difficult to sell such securities when it may be advisable to do so or it may be able to sell such securities only at prices lower than if such securities were more widely held. At times, it also may be more difficult to determine the fair value of such securities for purposes of computing a Fund’s net asset value due to the absence of a trading market.

Real Estate Investment Trusts and Master Limited Partnerships

REITs are entities that either own properties or make construction or mortgage loans and also may include operating or finance companies. An equity REIT generally holds equity positions in real estate and seeks to

48

provide its shareholders with income from the leasing of its properties and with capital gains from any sales of properties. A mortgage REIT generally specializes in lending money to owners of properties and passes through any interest income it may earn to its shareholders.

Partnership units of real estate and other types of companies sometimes are organized as master limited partnerships in which ownership interests are publicly traded. Master limited partnerships often own several properties or businesses (or directly own interests) that are related to real estate development and the oil and gas industries, but they also may finance motion pictures, research and development and other projects.

REITs are subject to certain risks associated with direct ownership of real estate, including, for example, declines in the value of real estate, risks related to general and local economic conditions, overbuilding and increased competition, increases in property taxes and operating expenses, and variations in rental income. REITs also may be subject to interest rate risk. In general, increases in interest rates will decrease the value of high-yield securities and increase the costs of obtaining financing, which could decrease the value of a REIT’s investments. In addition, equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property owned by the REITs, while mortgage REITs may be affected by the quality of credit extended. Both equity and mortgage REITs are dependent upon management skills. REITs also may be subject to heavy cash flow dependency, defaults by borrowers, and the possibility of failing to qualify for preferential tax treatment under the Code, which could adversely affect dividend payments. REITs also may not be diversified.

Investing in master limited partnerships generally is subject to the risks applicable to investing in a partnership as opposed to a corporation, which may include fewer protections afforded to investors. Additional risks include those associated with the specific industries in which a master limited partnership invests, such as the risks associated with investing in the real estate or oil and gas industries.

Repurchase Agreements

Repurchase agreements are agreements under which a Fund acquires a security for a relatively short period of time subject to the obligation of a seller to repurchase and a Fund to resell such security at a fixed time and price (representing a Fund’s cost plus interest). Repurchase agreements also may be viewed as loans made by a Fund that are collateralized by the securities subject to repurchase. A Fund typically will enter into repurchase agreements only with commercial banks, registered broker/dealers and the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. Such transactions are monitored to ensure that the value of the underlying securities will be at least equal at all times to the total amount of the repurchase obligation, including any accrued interest. Repurchase agreements generally are subject to counterparty risk.

If a counterparty defaults, a Fund could realize a loss on the sale of the underlying security to the extent that the proceeds of the sale are less than the resale price provided in the repurchase agreement including interest. In the event that a counterparty fails to perform because it is insolvent or otherwise subject to insolvency proceedings against it, a Fund’s right to take possession of the underlying securities would be subject to applicable insolvency law and procedure, including an automatic stay (which would preclude immediate enforcement of a Fund’s rights) and exemptions thereto (which would permit a Fund to take possession of the underlying securities or to void a repurchase agreement altogether). Since it is possible that an exemption from the automatic stay would not be available, a Fund might be prevented from immediately enforcing its rights against the counterparty. Accordingly, if a counterparty becomes insolvent or otherwise subject to insolvency proceedings against it, a Fund may incur delays in or be prevented from liquidating the underlying securities and could experience losses, including the possible decline in value of the underlying securities during the period in which a Fund seeks to enforce its rights thereto, possible subnormal levels of income or lack of access to income during such time, as well as the costs incurred in enforcing a Fund’s rights. For example, if a Fund enters into a repurchase agreement with a broker that becomes insolvent, it is possible for the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to institute a liquidation proceeding in federal court against the broker counterparty which could lead to a foreclosure by SIPC of the underlying securities or SIPC may stay, or preclude, a Fund’s ability under contract to terminate the repurchase agreement.

49

Reverse Repurchase Agreements

Reverse repurchase agreements are agreements under which a Fund sells a security subject to the obligation of a buyer to resell and a Fund to repurchase such security at a fixed time and price. Reverse repurchase agreements also may be viewed as borrowings made by a Fund.

Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the market value of the securities a Fund is obligated to repurchase under the agreement may decline below the repurchase price. In the event the buyer of securities under a reverse repurchase agreement files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, a Fund’s use of proceeds of the agreement may be restricted pending a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce a Fund’s obligation to repurchase the securities. In addition, reverse repurchase agreements are techniques involving leverage, and are subject to asset coverage requirements. Under the requirements of the 1940 Act, a Fund is required to maintain an asset coverage (including the proceeds of the borrowings) of at least 300% of all borrowings.

Standby Commitments

Standby commitments are securities under which a purchaser, usually a bank or broker/dealer, agrees to purchase, for a fee, an amount of a Fund’s municipal obligations. The amount payable by a bank or broker/dealer to purchase securities subject to a standby commitment typically will be substantially the same as the value of the underlying municipal securities. A Fund may pay for standby commitments either separately in cash or by paying a higher price for portfolio securities that are acquired subject to such a commitment.

Using standby commitments is subject to certain risks. Standby commitments are subject to the risk that a counterparty will not fulfill its obligation to purchase securities subject to a standby commitment.

Stripped Securities

Stripped securities are securities that evidence ownership in either the future interest or principal payments on an instrument. There are many different types and variations of stripped securities. For example, Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal Securities (STRIPS), can be component parts of a U.S. Treasury security where the principal and interest components are traded independently through DTC, a clearing agency registered pursuant to Section 17A of the 1934 Act and created to hold securities for its participants, and to facilitate the clearance and settlement of securities transactions between participants through electronic computerized book-entries, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of certificates. Treasury Investor Growth Receipts (TIGERs) are U.S. Treasury securities stripped by brokers. Stripped mortgage-backed securities, or SMBS, also can be issued by the U.S. Government or its agencies. Stripped securities may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations for more information.

SMBS usually are structured with two or more classes that receive different proportions of the interest and principal distributions from a pool of mortgage-backed assets. Common types of SMBS will be structured so that one class receives some of the interest and most of the principal from the mortgage-backed assets, while another class receives most of the interest and the remainder of the principal.

Investing in stripped securities is subject to certain risks. If the underlying obligations experience greater than anticipated prepayments of principal, a Fund may fail fully to recoup its initial investment in such securities. The market value of the class consisting primarily or entirely of principal payments can be especially volatile in response to changes in interest rates. The rates of return on a class of SMBS that receives all or most of the interest are generally higher than prevailing market rates of return on other mortgage-backed obligations because their cash flow patterns also are volatile and there is a greater risk that the initial investment will not be recouped fully.

50

U.S. Government and Related Obligations

U.S. Government obligations include U.S. Treasury obligations and securities issued or guaranteed by various agencies of the U.S. Government or by various instrumentalities which have been established or sponsored by the U.S. Government. U.S. Treasury obligations and securities issued or guaranteed by various agencies of the U.S. Government differ in their interest rates, maturities and time of issuance, as well as with respect to whether they are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. U.S. Government and related obligations may be structured as fixed-, variable- or floating-rate obligations. See Permissible Fund Investments — Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations for more information.

U.S. Government obligations also include senior unsecured debt securities issued between October 14, 2008 and June 30, 2009 by eligible issuers (including U.S. depository institutions insured by the FDIC (and certain affiliates), U.S. bank holding companies and certain U.S. savings and loan holding companies) that are guaranteed by the FDIC under its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (the “TLGP”). The FDIC’s guarantee under the TLGP will expire upon the earlier of (i) maturity of such security or (ii) June 30, 2012. It is the view of the FDIC and the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that any debt security that is guaranteed by the FDIC under the TLGP and that has a maturity that ends on or before June 30, 2012 would be a security exempt from registration under Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 because such security would be fully and unconditionally guaranteed by the FDIC.

Investing in securities guaranteed under the TLGP is subject to certain risks. Given that there is a limited track record for securities guaranteed under the TLGP, it is uncertain whether such securities will continue to trade in line with recent experience in relation to treasury and government agency securities in terms of yield spread and the volatility of such spread and it is uncertain how such securities will trade in the secondary market and whether that market will be liquid or illiquid. The TLGP is a new program that is subject to change. In order to collect from the FDIC under the TLGP, a claims process must be followed. Failure to follow the claims process could result in a loss to the right to payment under the guarantee. In addition, guarantee payments by the FDIC under the TLGP may be delayed.

Investing in U.S. Government and related obligations is subject to certain risks. While U.S. Treasury obligations are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Government, securities issued or guaranteed by federal agencies and U.S. Government-sponsored instrumentalities may or may not be backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. These securities may be supported by the ability to borrow from the U.S. Treasury or only by the credit of the issuing agency or instrumentality and, as a result, may be subject to greater credit risk than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury. Obligations of U.S. Government agencies, authorities, instrumentalities and sponsored enterprises historically have involved limited risk of loss of principal if held to maturity. However, no assurance can be given that the U.S. Government would provide financial support to any of these entities if it is not obligated to do so by law.

Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations

Variable- and floating-rate obligations provide for periodic adjustments in the interest rate and, under certain circumstances, varying principal amounts. Unlike a fixed interest rate, a variable, or floating, rate is one that rises and declines based on the movement of an underlying index of interest rates and may pay interest at rates that are adjusted periodically according to a specified formula. Asset-backed securities, bank obligations, convertible securities, corporate debt securities, foreign securities, low and below investment grade securities, money market instruments, mortgage-backed securities, municipal securities, participation interests, stripped securities, U.S. Government and related obligations and other types of debt instruments may be structured as variable- and floating-rate obligations.

Investing in variable- and floating-rate obligations is subject to certain risks. Variable- and floating-rate obligations may involve direct lending arrangements between the purchaser and the issuer and there may be no active secondary market, making it difficult to resell such obligations to a third party. Variable- and floating-rate

51

obligations also may be subject to interest rate and credit risks. Changes in interest rates can affect the rate of return on such obligations. If an issuer of a variable- or floating-rate obligation defaults, a Fund could sustain a loss to the extent of such default.

Warrants and Rights

Warrants and rights are types of securities that give a holder a right to purchase shares of common stock. Warrants usually are issued together with a bond or preferred stock and entitle a holder to purchase a specified amount of common stock at a specified price typically for a period of years. Rights usually have a specified purchase price that is lower than the current market price and entitle a holder to purchase a specified amount of common stock typically for a period of only weeks. Warrants may be used to enhance the marketability of a bond or preferred stock.

Warrants and rights may be subject to the risk that the securities could lose value. There also is the risk that the potential exercise price may exceed the market price of the warrants or rights, such as when there is no movement in the market price or the market price of such securities declines.

When-Issued, Delayed Delivery and Forward Commitment Transactions

When-issued, delayed delivery and forward commitment transactions involve the purchase or sale of securities by a Fund, with payment and delivery taking place in the future. When engaging in when-issued, delayed delivery and forward commitment transactions, a Fund typically will hold cash or liquid securities in a segregated account in an amount equal to or greater than the purchase price. The payment obligation and, if applicable, the interest rate that will be received on the securities, are fixed at the time that a Fund agrees to purchase the securities. A Fund generally will enter into when-issued, delayed delivery and forward commitment transactions only with the intention of completing such transactions. However, the Adviser may determine not to complete a transaction if it deems it appropriate. In such cases, a Fund may realize short-term gains or losses.

When-issued, delayed delivery and forward commitment transactions involve the risks that the securities purchased may fall in value by the time they actually are issued or that the other party may fail to honor the contract terms. A Fund that invests in delayed delivery securities may rely on a third party to complete the transaction. Failure by a third party to deliver a security purchased on a delayed delivery basis may result in a financial loss to a Fund or the loss of an opportunity to make an alternative investment.

Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Step-Coupon Securities

Zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities are types of debt instruments that do not necessarily make payments of interest in fixed amounts or at fixed intervals. Asset-backed securities, convertible securities, corporate debt securities, foreign securities, low and below investment grade securities, mortgage-backed securities, municipal securities, participation interests, stripped securities, U.S. Government and related obligations and other types of debt instruments may be structured as zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities.

Zero-coupon securities do not pay interest on a current basis but instead accrue interest over the life of the security. These securities include, among others, zero-coupon bonds, which either may be issued at a discount by a corporation or government entity or may be created by a brokerage firm when it strips the coupons from a bond or note and then sells the bond or note and the coupon separately. This technique is used frequently with U.S. Treasury bonds, and zero-coupon securities are marketed under such names as CATS (Certificate of Accrual on Treasury Securities), TIGERs or STRIPS. Zero-coupon bonds also are issued by municipalities. Buying a municipal zero-coupon bond frees its purchaser of the obligation to pay regular federal income tax on imputed interest, since the interest is exempt for regular federal income tax purposes. Zero-coupon certificates of deposit and zero-coupon mortgages are generally structured in the same fashion as zero-coupon bonds; the certificate of deposit holder or mortgage holder receives face value at maturity and no payments until then.

52

Pay-in-kind securities normally give the issuer an option to pay cash at a coupon payment date or to give the holder of the security a similar security with the same coupon rate and a face value equal to the amount of the coupon payment that would have been made.

Step-coupon securities trade at a discount from their face value and pay coupon interest. The coupon rate is paid according to a schedule for a series of periods, typically lower for an initial period and then increasing to a higher coupon rate thereafter. The discount from the face amount or par value depends on the time remaining until cash payments begin, prevailing interest rates, liquidity of the security and the perceived credit quality of the issue.

Zero-coupon, step-coupon and pay-in-kind securities holders generally have substantially all the rights and privileges of holders of the underlying coupon obligations or principal obligations. Holders of these securities have the right upon default on the underlying coupon obligations or principal obligations to proceed directly and individually against the issuer and are not required to act in concert with other holders of such securities.

Investing in zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities is subject to certain risks, including that market prices of zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and step-coupon securities generally are more volatile than the prices of securities that pay interest periodically and in cash, and are likely to respond to changes in interest rates to a greater degree than other types of debt securities.

Because zero-coupon securities bear no interest, they are volatile. Since zero-coupon bondholders do not receive interest payments, zero-coupon securities fall more dramatically than bonds paying interest on a current basis when interest rates rise. However, when interest rates fall, zero-coupon securities rise more rapidly in value than interest paying bonds.

Borrowings

Each Fund has a fundamental policy with respect to borrowing that can be found under the heading About the Funds’ Investments — Fundamental and Non-Fundamental Investment Policies. Specifically, each Fund may not borrow money or issue senior securities except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and any exemptive relief obtained by the Funds. In general, pursuant to the 1940 Act, a Fund may borrow money only from banks in an amount not exceeding 33 ¹/3% of its total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings). Any borrowings that come to exceed this amount must be reduced within three days (not including Sundays and holidays) to the extent necessary to comply with the 33 ¹/3% limitation.

The Funds participate in a committed line of credit (Line of Credit). Any advance under the Line of Credit is contemplated primarily for temporary or emergency purposes, including the meeting of redemption requests that otherwise might require the untimely sale of portfolio securities.

Pursuant to an exemptive order from the SEC, a Fund may, subject to certain conditions, borrow money from or lend money to other funds in the Columbia Funds Family or any other registered investment company advised by the Adviser or its affiliates for temporary emergency purposes in order to facilitate redemption requests, or for other purposes consistent with Fund investment policies and restrictions. All loans are set at an interest rate between the rates charged on overnight repurchase agreements and short-term bank loans.

Short Sales

A Fund may sometimes sell securities short when it owns an equal amount of such securities as those securities sold short. This is a technique known as selling short “against the box.” If a Fund makes a short sale “against the box,” it would not immediately deliver the securities sold and would not receive the proceeds from the sale. The seller is said to have a short position in the securities sold until it delivers the securities sold, at

53

which time it receives the proceeds of the sale. To secure its obligation to deliver securities sold short, a Fund will deposit in escrow in a separate account with the custodian an equal amount of the securities sold short or securities convertible into or exchangeable for such securities. A Fund can close out its short position by purchasing and delivering an equal amount of the securities sold short, rather than by delivering securities already held by a Fund, because a Fund might want to continue to receive interest and dividend payments on securities in its portfolio that are convertible into the securities sold short.

Short sales “against the box” entail many of the same risks and considerations described above regarding short sales not “against the box.” However, when a Fund sells short “against the box” it typically limits the amount of securities that it has leveraged. A Fund’s decision to make a short sale “against the box” may be a technique to hedge against market risks when the Adviser believes that the price of a security may decline, causing a decline in the value of a security owned by a Fund or a security convertible into or exchangeable for such security. In such case, any future losses in a Fund’s long position would be reduced by a gain in the short position. The extent to which such gains or losses in the long position are reduced will depend upon the amount of securities sold short relative to the amount of the securities a Fund owns, either directly or indirectly, and, in the case where a Fund owns convertible securities, changes in the investment values or conversion premiums of such securities. Short sales may have adverse tax consequences to a Fund and its shareholders.

Subject to its fundamental and non-fundamental investment policies, a Fund may engage in short sales that are not “against the box,” which are sales by a Fund of securities or commodity futures contracts that it does not own in hopes of purchasing the same security at a later date at a lower price. The technique is also used to protect a profit in a long-term position in a security or commodity futures contract. To make delivery to the buyer, a Fund must borrow or purchase the security. If borrowed, a Fund is then obligated to replace the security borrowed from the third party, so a Fund must purchase the security at the market price at a later time. If the price of the security has increased during this time, then a Fund will incur a loss equal to the increase in price of the security from the time of the short sale plus any premiums and interest paid to the third party. (Until the security is replaced, a Fund is required to pay to the lender amounts equal to any dividends or interest which accrue during the period of the loan. To borrow the security, a Fund also may be required to pay a premium, which would increase the cost of the security sold. The proceeds of the short sale will be retained by the broker, to the extent necessary to meet the margin requirements, until the short position is closed out.)

Short sales by a Fund that are not made “against the box” create opportunities to increase a Fund’s return but, at the same time, involve specific risk considerations and may be considered a speculative technique. Because a Fund in effect profits from a decline in the price of the securities sold short without the need to invest the full purchase price of the securities on the date of the short sale, a Fund’s NAV per share tends to increase more when the securities it has sold short decrease in value, and to decrease more when the securities it has sold short increase in value, than if it had not engaged in such short sales. The amount of any gain will be decreased, and the amount of any loss increased, by the amount of any premium, dividends or interest a Fund may be required to pay in connection with the short sale. Short sales could potentially involve unlimited loss, as the market price of securities sold short may continually increase, although a Fund can mitigate any such losses by replacing the securities sold short. Under adverse market conditions, a Fund might have difficulty purchasing securities to meet its short sale delivery obligations, and might have to sell portfolio securities to raise the capital necessary to meet its short sale obligations at a time when fundamental investment considerations would not favor such sales. There is also the risk that the third party to the short sale may fail to honor its contract terms, causing a loss to a Fund.

A Fund’s successful use of short sales also will be subject to the ability of the Adviser to predict movements in the directions of the relevant market. A Fund therefore bears the risk that the Adviser will incorrectly predict future price directions. In addition, if a Fund sells a security short, and that security’s price goes up, a Fund will have to make up the margin on its open position (i.e., purchase more securities on the market to cover the position). It may be unable to do so and thus its position may not be closed out. There can be no assurance that a Fund will not incur significant losses in such a case.

54

In the view of the SEC, a short sale involves the creation of a “senior security” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, unless the sale is “against the box” and the securities sold short are placed in a segregated account (not with the broker), or unless a Fund’s obligation to deliver the securities sold short is “covered” by placing in a segregated account (not with the broker) cash, U.S. Government securities or other liquid debt or equity securities in an amount equal to the difference between the market value of the securities sold short at the time of the short sale and any such collateral required to be deposited with a broker in connection with the sale (not including the proceeds from the short sale), which difference is adjusted daily for changes in the value of the securities sold short. The total value of the cash, U.S. Government securities or other liquid debt or equity securities deposited with the broker and otherwise segregated may not at any time be less than the market value of the securities sold short at the time of the short sale.

Lending Securities

Securities lending refers to the lending of the Fund’s portfolio securities. Subject to its investment policies described above and in the prospectuses, the Fund may make secured loans of its portfolio securities to broker/dealers and other institutional investors. Securities loans by the Fund are made pursuant to agreements that require that loans be secured continuously by collateral in cash. The Fund retains all or a portion of the income received on investment of cash collateral. A borrower will pay to the Fund an amount equal to any dividends or interest received on securities loaned, but the borrower typically will receive a portion of the income earned on investments of cash collateral. Although voting rights, or rights to consent, with respect to loaned securities pass to a borrower, the Fund retains the right to call the loans at any time on reasonable notice, and may do so in order to vote upon matters affecting, or to sell, the loaned securities.

The Fund typically invests the cash collateral it receives in connection with its securities lending program directly or indirectly in high quality, short-term investments. The Fund may invest some or all of such cash collateral in one or more pooled investment vehicles, including, among other vehicles, money market funds managed by the Fund’s securities lending agent or its affiliates. The securities lending agent shares in any income resulting from the investment of such cash collateral, and an affiliate of the securities lending agent receives asset-based fees for the management of such pooled investment vehicles, which may create a conflict of interest between the securities lending agent (or its affiliate) and the Fund with respect to the management of such cash collateral.

Engaging in securities lending is subject to certain risks, including counterparty risk, which is the risk that the counterparty to a transaction could default. There also is a risk of possible delay in the recovery of loaned securities or possible loss of rights in the collateral if a borrower fails financially.

Portfolio Turnover

A change in the securities held by a Fund is known as “portfolio turnover.” High portfolio turnover (e.g., over 100%) involves correspondingly greater expenses to the Fund, including brokerage commissions or dealer mark-ups and other transaction costs on the sale of securities and reinvestments in other securities. Such sales may also result in adverse tax consequences to a Fund’s shareholders. The trading costs and tax effects associated with portfolio turnover may adversely affect a Fund’s performance.

For each Fund’s portfolio turnover rate, see the Fees and Expenses of the Fund — Portfolio Turnover section in the prospectuses for that Fund.

In any particular year, market conditions may result in greater rates than are presently anticipated. The rate of a Fund’s turnover may vary significantly from time to time depending on the volatility of economic and market conditions.

55

Disclosure of Portfolio Information

The Board has adopted policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of each Fund’s portfolio holdings. These policies and procedures are designed to ensure that disclosure of information regarding a Fund’s portfolio securities is in the best interests of Fund shareholders and to address conflicts between the interests of Fund shareholders, on the one hand, and those of the Adviser, the Distributor or any affiliated person of a Fund, on the other. These policies and procedures provide that a Fund’s portfolio holdings information generally may not be disclosed to any party prior to the earlier of: (i) the business day next following the posting of such information on the Columbia Funds’ website, if applicable, or (ii) the time a Fund discloses the information in a publicly available SEC filing required to include such information. Certain limited exceptions that have been approved consistent with the policies and procedures are described below. The Board is updated as needed regarding compliance with these policies and procedures. The policies and procedures prohibit the Adviser and a Fund’s other service providers from entering into any agreement to disclose Fund portfolio holdings information in exchange for any form of consideration. The same policies and procedures apply to all categories of Columbia Funds and include some variations tailored to the different categories of Columbia Funds. Accordingly, some of the provisions described below do not apply to the Columbia Funds covered by this SAI. The Adviser also has adopted policies and procedures to monitor for compliance with these portfolio holdings disclosure policies and procedures.

Public Disclosures

The Columbia Funds’ portfolio holdings are currently disclosed to the public through required filings with the SEC and on the Columbia Funds’ website. This information is available on the Columbia Funds’ website as described below.

• For equity, convertible, balanced and asset allocation Columbia Funds, other than small cap and specialty Columbia Funds, a complete list of portfolio holdings as of a month-end is posted approximately but no earlier than 15 calendar days after such month-end.

• For small cap and specialty Columbia Funds and those Columbia Funds that are sub-advised by Marsico and Brandes, subadvisers for certain Columbia Funds, a complete list of portfolio holdings as of a month end is posted approximately but no earlier than 30 calendar days after such month-end.

• For fixed-income funds, a complete list of portfolio holdings as of a calendar quarter-end is posted approximately but no earlier than 30 calendar days after such quarter-end.

• For money market funds, a complete list of fund portfolio holdings as of month-end are posted on the Columbia Funds’ website on a monthly basis, approximately five business days after such month-end. Commencing with the month-end holdings as of September 2010 and thereafter, such month-end holdings will be continuously available on the website for at least six months, together with a link to an SEC webpage where a user of the website may obtain access to the fund’s most recent 12 months of publicly available filings on Form N-MFP. Additionally, as of September 2010 and thereafter, money market fund portfolio holdings information posted on the website will, at minimum, include with respect to each holding, the name of the issuer, the category of investment (e.g., Treasury debt, government agency debt, asset backed commercial paper, structured investment vehicle note), the CUSIP number (if any), the principal amount, the maturity date (as determined under Rule 2a-7 for purposes of calculating weighted average maturity), the final maturity date (if different from the maturity date previously described), coupon or yield and the amortized cost value. The money market funds will also disclose on the website the overall weighted average maturity and weighted average life maturity of a holding.

The Adviser makes publicly available information regarding certain Columbia Fund’s largest five to fifteen holdings, as a percent of the market value of the Columbia Funds’ portfolios as of a month-end. This holdings information is made publicly available through the website generally no earlier than fifteen (15) days following the month-end.

56

The Adviser may also disclose more current portfolio holdings information as of specified dates on the Columbia Funds’ website.

The scope of the information that is made available on the Columbia Funds’ website pursuant to the Columbia Funds’ policies relating to a Columbia Fund’s portfolio may change from time to time without prior notice. The Columbia Funds file their portfolio holdings with the SEC for each fiscal quarter on Form N-CSR (with respect to each annual period and semi-annual period) and Form N-Q (with respect to the first and third quarters of each Columbia Fund’s fiscal year). Shareholders may obtain each Columbia Fund’s Form N-CSR and N-Q filings on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov, a link to which is provided on the Columbia Funds’ website. In addition, each Columbia Fund’s Form N-CSR and N-Q filings may be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s public reference room in Washington, D.C. You may call the SEC at 202.551.8090 for information about the SEC’s website or the operation of the public reference room.

The Columbia Funds, the Adviser and their affiliates may include portfolio holdings information that already has been made public through a website posting or SEC filing in marketing literature and other communications to shareholders, advisors or other parties, provided that the information is disclosed no earlier than the business day after the date the information is disclosed publicly on the Columbia Funds’ website or no earlier than the time a Columbia Fund files such information in a publicly available SEC filing required to include such information.

Other Disclosures

The Columbia Funds’ policies and procedures provide that no disclosures of the Columbia Funds’ portfolio holdings may be made prior to the portfolio holdings information being made public unless (i) the Columbia Funds have a legitimate business purpose for making such disclosure, (ii) the Columbia Funds’ President authorizes such non-public disclosure of information, and (iii) the party receiving the non-public information enters into an appropriate confidentiality agreement or is otherwise subject to a confidentiality obligation.

In determining the existence of a legitimate business purpose for making portfolio disclosures, the following factors, among others, are considered: (i) any prior disclosure must be consistent with the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and the fiduciary duties of the Adviser; (ii) any conflicts of interest between the interests of Columbia Fund shareholders, on the one hand, and those of the Adviser, the Distributor or any affiliated person of a Columbia Fund, on the other; and (iii) any prior disclosure to a third party, although subject to a confidentiality agreement, would not make conduct lawful that otherwise is unlawful.

In addition, the Columbia Funds periodically disclose their portfolio information on a confidential basis to various service providers that require such information to assist the Columbia Funds with their day-to-day business affairs. In addition to the Adviser and its affiliates, these service providers include each Columbia Fund’s subadviser(s) (if any), the Columbia Funds’ custodian, sub-custodians, independent registered public accounting firm, legal counsel, financial printers, proxy solicitor and proxy voting service provider, as well as ratings agencies that maintain ratings on certain Columbia Funds. These service providers are required to keep such information confidential, and are prohibited from trading based on the information or otherwise using the information except as necessary in providing services to the Columbia Funds. The Columbia Funds also may disclose portfolio holdings information to broker/dealers and certain other entities in connection with potential transactions and management of the Columbia Funds, provided that reasonable precautions, including limitations on the scope of the portfolio holdings information disclosed, are taken to avoid any potential misuse of the disclosed information.

Each Columbia Fund’s Board has adopted policies to ensure that the Columbia Fund’s holdings information is only disclosed in accordance with these policies. Before any selective disclosure of holdings information is permitted, the person seeking to disclose such holdings information must submit a written request to the Portfolio Holdings Committee (“PHC”). The PHC is comprised of members from the Adviser’s legal department, the

57

Adviser’s compliance department, and the Columbia Funds’ President. The PHC has been authorized by each Columbia Fund’s Board to perform an initial review of requests for disclosure of holdings information to evaluate whether there is a legitimate business purpose for selective disclosure, whether selective disclosure is in the best interests of a fund and its shareholders, to consider any potential conflicts of interest between the fund, the investment adviser, and its affiliates, and to safeguard against improper use of holdings information. Factors considered in this analysis are whether the recipient has agreed to or has a duty to keep the holdings information confidential and whether risks have been mitigated such that the recipient has agreed or has a duty to use the holdings information only as necessary to effectuate the purpose for which selective disclosure was authorized, including a duty not to trade on such information. Before portfolio holdings may be selectively disclosed, requests approved by the PHC must also be authorized by either the Columbia Fund’s President, Chief Compliance Officer or General Counsel or their respective designees. On at least an annual basis, the PHC reviews the approved recipients of selective disclosure and may require a resubmission of the request, in order to re-authorize certain ongoing arrangements. These procedures are intended to be reasonably designed to protect the confidentiality of fund holdings information and to prohibit their release to individual investors, institutional investors, intermediaries that distribute the Columbia Funds’ shares, and other parties, until such holdings information is made public or unless such persons have been authorized to receive such holdings information on a selective basis, as set forth above.

The Columbia Funds currently have ongoing arrangements with certain approved recipients with respect to the disclosure of portfolio holdings information prior to such information being made public. Portfolio holdings information disclosed to such recipients is current as of the time of its disclosure, is disclosed to each recipient solely for purposes consistent with the services described below and has been authorized by the Columbia Funds’ President. These special arrangements are described in the table below.

Ongoing Portfolio Holdings Disclosure Arrangements

IDENTITY OF RECIPIENT	COMPENSATION/ CONSIDERATION RECEIVED	CONDITIONS/RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF INFORMATION	FREQUENCY OF DISCLOSURE
Standard & Poor’s	None	Use to maintain ratings for certain money market funds.	Weekly
InvestorTools, Inc.	None	Access granted solely for the purpose of testing back office conversion of trading systems.	Real time
ING Insurance Company	None	Access granted for specific Columbia Funds for ING’s creation of client/shareholder materials. ING may not distribute materials until the holdings information is made public.	Quarterly
Glass-Lewis & Co.	None	Access in connection with testing the firm’s proxy services.	Daily
CMS Bondedge	None	Access when assisting in resolving technical difficulties with application used by the Adviser’s Fixed Income Portfolio Management team as an analytical and trading tool.	Ad hoc

58

IDENTITY OF RECIPIENT	COMPENSATION/ CONSIDERATION RECEIVED	CONDITIONS/RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF INFORMATION	FREQUENCY OF DISCLOSURE
Linedata Services, Inc.	None	Access when assisting in resolving technical difficulties with the software for the LongView Trade Order Management System.	Ad hoc
JP Morgan	None	Access to provide the Adviser’s High Yield portfolio management team with peer group analysis reports for purposes of analyzing the portfolio.	Monthly
Malaspina Communications	None	Use to facilitate writing, publishing and mailing Columbia Fund shareholder reports and communications including shareholder letters and management’s discussion of Columbia Fund performance.	Quarterly
Evare LLP	None	Use for standardizing and reformatting data according to the Adviser’s specifications for use in the reconciliation process.	Daily
FactSet Research Systems, Inc.	None	Use for provision of quantitative analytics, charting and fundamental data to the Adviser and Marsico, subadviser to certain Columbia Funds.	Daily
RR Donnelley/WE Andrews	None	Access as printers for the Columbia Funds’ prospectuses, supplements, SAIs, fact sheets and brochures.	Monthly
Merrill Corporation	None	Use to provide fulfillment of the Columbia Funds’ prospectuses, supplements, SAIs and sales materials.	Monthly
Citigroup	None	Access when assisting in resolving technical difficulties with Yield Book, an analytic software program that the Adviser uses to perform ongoing risk analysis and management of certain fixed income Columbia Funds and fixed income separately managed accounts.	Daily

59

IDENTITY OF RECIPIENT	COMPENSATION/ CONSIDERATION RECEIVED	CONDITIONS/RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF INFORMATION	FREQUENCY OF DISCLOSURE
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)	None	Proxy voting administration and research on proxy matters utilized by MacKay Shields LLC, subadviser for certain Columbia Funds.	Daily
Cogent Consulting LLC	None	Utilized by Marsico, subadviser for certain Columbia Funds, to facilitate the evaluation of commission rates and to provide flexible commission reporting.	Daily
Moody’s	None	Ongoing portfolio surveillance for ratings it maintains on certain money market funds.	Monthly
Kynex	None	Use to provide portfolio attribution reports.	Daily
Bowne & Co.	None	Use for printing of the following materials: prospectuses, supplements and SAIs.	Monthly/ quarterly
Bloomberg	None	Use for portfolio analytics.	Daily
Barclays Point	None	Use for analytics including risk and attribution assessment.	Daily
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.	None	Proxy voting and research utilized by Marsico, subadviser to certain Columbia Funds.	Daily
Investment Technology Group, Inc. (ITG, formerly known as Macgregor)	None	Order management system utilized by Marsico, subadviser for certain Columbia Funds that stores trading data and is used for trading and compliance purposes.	Ad hoc
Advent/AXP	None	Portfolio accounting system utilized by Marsico, subadviser to certain Columbia Funds, for both portfolio accounting and internal recordkeeping purposes.	Ad hoc
Investment Technology Group, Inc. (ITG, formerly known as Plexus Group)	None	Evaluation and assessment of trading activity, execution and practices by the Adviser.	Five days after quarter-end
BANA and State Street	None	Credit analysis performed by lenders.	Ad hoc
State Street	None	Use to provide custodian services.	Real time
Lipper	None	Use to create metrics for board and executive management reporting, product and marketing analysis, and fund performance.	Daily
Morningstar, Inc.	None	Use for independent research and ranking of Columbia Funds.	Daily

60

INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES

The Adviser and Investment Advisory Services

Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (formerly, RiverSource Investments, LLC) (the Adviser) is the investment adviser and administrator of the Funds. The Adviser is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial. Ameriprise Financial is located at 1099 Ameriprise Financial Center, Minneapolis, MN 55474. The Adviser is located at 100 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110. Prior to May 1, 2010, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC (the Previous Adviser), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America, was the Funds’ investment adviser and administrator.

The International Value Fund is a Feeder Fund and does not pay investment advisory fees because it invests all of its assets in Columbia International Value Master Portfolio. The Adviser earns its fee as the investment adviser to the Columbia International Value Master Portfolio. See the Management of the Fund – Primary Services Providers section in the International Value Fund’s prospectus.

Services Provided

Under the Investment Management Services Agreement, the Adviser has contracted to furnish each Fund with investment research and advice. For these services, each Fund pays a monthly fee to the Adviser based on the average of the daily closing value of the total net assets of a Fund for such month. Under the Investment Management Services Agreement, any liability of the Adviser to the Trust, a Fund and/or its shareholders is limited to situations involving the Adviser’s own willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence in the performance of its duties or reckless disregard of its obligations and duties.

The Investment Management Services Agreement may be terminated with respect to a Fund at any time on 60 days’ written notice by the Adviser or by the Trustees of the Trust or by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund. The Investment Management Services Agreement will automatically terminate upon any assignment thereof, will continue in effect for two years from May 1, 2010 and thereafter will continue from year to year with respect to a Fund only so long as such continuance is approved at least annually (i) by the Trustees of the Trust or by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund and (ii) by vote of a majority of the Trustees who are not interested persons (as such term is defined in the 1940 Act) of the Adviser or the Trust, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval.

The Adviser pays all compensation of the Trustees and officers of the Trust who are employees of the Adviser, except for the Chief Compliance Officer, a portion of whose salary is paid by the Columbia Funds. Except to the extent expressly assumed by the Adviser and except to the extent required by law to be paid or reimbursed by the Adviser, the Adviser does not have a duty to pay any Fund operating expense incurred in the organization and operation of a Fund, including, but not limited to, auditing, legal, custodial, investor servicing and shareholder reporting expenses. The Trust pays the cost of printing and mailing Fund prospectuses to shareholders.

The Adviser, at its own expense, provides office space, facilities and supplies, equipment and personnel for the performance of its functions under each Fund’s Investment Management Services Agreement.

Advisory Fee Rates Paid by the Funds

Each Fund pays the Adviser an annual fee for its investment advisory services, as set forth in the Investment Management Services Agreement, and as shown in the section entitled Fees and Expenses of the Fund/Portfolio – Annual Fund/Portfolio Operating Expenses in each Fund’s prospectuses. The fee is calculated as a percentage of the average daily net assets of each Fund and is paid monthly. The Adviser also may pay amounts from its own assets to the Distributor and/or to selling and/or servicing agents for services they provide.

61

The Adviser receives a monthly investment advisory fee based on each Fund’s average daily net assets at the following annual rates:

Fund	First $500 million		In excess of $500 million and up to $1 billion		In excess of $1 billion and up to $1.5 billion		In excess of $1.5 billion and up to $3 billion		In excess of $3 billion and up to $6 billion		In excess of $6 billion
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	0.40	%	0.35	%	0.32	%	0.29	%	0.28	%	0.27	%
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	0.40	%	0.35	%	0.32	%	0.29	%	0.28	%	0.27	%
Global Value Fund	0.90	%	0.85	%	0.80	%	0.75	%	0.73	%	0.71	%
International Value Fund*	0.85	%	0.80	%	0.75	%	0.70	%	0.68	%	0.66	%
Large Cap Core Fund	0.60	%	0.55	%	0.50	%	0.45	%	0.43	%	0.41	%
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	0.35	%	0.30	%	0.25	%	0.20	%	0.18	%	0.16	%
Large Cap Value Fund	0.60	%	0.55	%	0.43	%	0.43	%	0.43	%	0.41	%
Marsico 21st Century Fund	0.75	%	0.70	%	0.65	%	0.60	%	0.58	%	0.56	%
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	0.75	%	0.70	%	0.65	%	0.60	%	0.58	%	0.56	%
Marsico Growth Fund	0.75	%	0.70	%	0.65	%	0.60	%	0.58	%	0.56	%
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	0.40	%	0.35	%	0.32	%	0.29	%	0.28	%	0.27	%
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	0.70	%	0.65	%	0.60	%	0.55	%	0.53	%	0.51	%
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	0.40	%	0.35	%	0.32	%	0.29	%	0.28	%	0.27	%
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	0.40	%	0.35	%	0.32	%	0.29	%	0.28	%	0.27	%
Total Return Bond Fund	0.40	%	0.35	%	0.32	%	0.29	%	0.28	%	0.27	%
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	0.40	%	0.35	%	0.32	%	0.29	%	0.28	%	0.27	%

* Investment advisory fees are paid by Columbia International Value Master Portfolio, the Master Portfolio of the Feeder Fund.

Fund	All assets
Asset Allocation Fund II	0.60	%
Corporate Bond Portfolio	0.00	%
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	0.25	%
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	0.25	%
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	0.25	%
Large Cap Index Fund	0.10	%
Marsico Global Fund	0.80	%
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	0.80	%
Masters International Equity Portfolio	0.00	%
Mid Cap Index Fund	0.10	%
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio	0.00	%
Overseas Value Fund	0.82	%
Short Term Bond Fund	0.30	%
Small Cap Index Fund	0.10	%

Fund	First $500 million		In excess of $500 million and up to $1 billion		In excess of $1 billion and up to $1.5 billion		In excess of $1.5 billion
Convertible Securities Fund	0.65	%	0.60	%	0.55	%	0.50	%
High Income Fund	0.55	%	0.52	%	0.49	%	0.46	%
Mid Cap Value Fund	0.65	%	0.60	%	0.55	%	0.50	%

62

Fund	First $500 million		In excess of $500 million
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	0.30	%	0.25	%

Fund	First $500 million		In excess of $500 million and up to $1 billion		In excess of $1 billion
Small Cap Growth Fund II	0.70	%	0.65	%	0.60	%
Small Cap Value Fund II	0.70	%	0.65	%	0.60	%

For LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio, the Adviser is entitled to receive an investment advisory fee of 0.50% on LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio’s average daily net assets based on assets that are invested in individual securities, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio and Corporate Bond Portfolio. LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio is not charged an advisory fee on its assets that are invested in other Columbia Funds (excluding Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio and Corporate Bond Portfolio. Actual management fees will be charged to the LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio based on a weighted average of applicable underlying assets of the Portfolio).

Advisory Fees Paid by the Funds

The Previous Adviser received fees from the Funds for its services as reflected in the following charts, which show the advisory fees paid to and, as applicable, waived/reimbursed by the Previous Adviser, for the three most recently completed fiscal years, except as otherwise indicated.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Convertible Securities Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	2,864,932	$	3,723,034	$	6,072,972
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Global Value Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	600,279	$	1,445,555	$	3,094,056
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived	$	187,426		—		—
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	1,787,603	$	2,181,829	$	2,717,957
Amount Reimbursed		—		—	$	366,741
Amount Waived	$	151,553	$	431,216		—
Large Cap Index Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	2,231,458	$	2,246,733	$	2,721,298
Amount Reimbursed		—		—	$	1,647,710
Amount Waived	$	1,389,496	$	1,330,267		—
Large Cap Value Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	11,014,155	$	13,798,451	$	19,857,743
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived	$	66,850		—	$	216,667

63

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Marsico 21st Century Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	25,152,257	$	11,168,797	$	42,309,565
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—	$	415,508	$	114,774
Marsico Global Fund**
Advisory Fee Paid	$	37,247	$	30,317		N/A
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		N/A
Amount Waived	$	178,993		—		N/A
Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	10,350,691	$	19,536,182	$	26,230,465
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Mid Cap Index Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	1,614,963	$	1,674,088	$	2,134,906
Amount Reimbursed		—		—	$	1,787,724
Amount Waived	$	907,678	$	1,688,944		—
Mid Cap Value Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	20,846,297	$	22,018,205	$	22,654,210
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	9,501,068	$	12,759,354	$	16,139,511
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Overseas Value Fund***
Advisory Fee Paid	$	58,138	$	59,187		N/A
Amount Reimbursed	$	133,414	$	208,317		N/A
Amount Waived		—		—
Small Cap Index Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	1,163,978	$	1,162,242	$	1,544,845
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived	$	43,874		—		—
Small Cap Value Fund II
Advisory Fee Paid	$	8,000,936	$	7,949,823	$	5,519,875
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Recovery of Fees Waived or Expenses Reimbursed by the Previous Adviser		—		—		—

* All amounts were paid to or waived/reimbursed by the Previous Adviser.

** Marsico Global Fund commenced operations in April 2008 and therefore paid no advisory fees prior to that date.

*** Overseas Value Fund commenced operations on March 31, 2008 and therefore paid no advisory fees prior to that date.

64

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*			Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008*			Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007*
International Value Fund**
Advisory Fee Paid	$	13,867,175	$	18,922,007		$	28,581,565		$	32,446,266
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—			—
Amount Waived		—		—			—			—
Large Cap Core Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	5,991,679	$	6,940,605		$	22,723	***	$	8,858,839
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—			—
Amount Waived		—		—			—			—
Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	18,946,739	$	7,416,891		$	78,891	***	$	27,024,538
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—			—
Amount Waived		—	$	224,668		$	29,325			—
Marsico Growth Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	23,646,080	$	7,022,977	1	$	36,479,028	2	$	30,737,961
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—			—
Amount Waived		—		—		$	88,981			—
Small Cap Growth Fund II
Advisory Fee Paid	$	2,294,866	$	2,821,583		$	9,170	***	$	3,660,996
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—			—
Amount Waived		—		—			—			—
Recovery of Fees Waived by the Previous Adviser		—		—		$	103,156			—

* All amounts were paid to or waived/reimbursed by the Previous Adviser.

** Because this Feeder Fund’s advisory fees are paid at the Master Portfolio level, amounts shown are for its Master Portfolio, which may include one or more additional feeder funds.

*** Until February 28, 2008, the Fund operated as a “Feeder Fund” and invested all or substantially all of its assets in a corresponding Master Portfolio that was a series of Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC. For the period April 1, 2007 to February 28, 2008, Columbia Large Cap Core Master Portfolio paid $8,302,783 in advisory fees, Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Master Portfolio paid $27,944,659 in advisory fees and Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II paid $3,791,375 in advisory fees.

¹ Until November 10, 2008, Marsico Growth Fund operated as a “Feeder Fund” and invested all or substantially all of its assets in a corresponding Master Portfolio that was a series of Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC. For the period March 1, 2008 to November 10, 2008, Columbia Marsico Growth Master Portfolio paid $25,572,128 in advisory fees, $309,527 of which was waived by the Adviser.

² Amounts shown are for the Fund’s corresponding Master Portfolio, which may include one or more additional feeder funds.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
Asset Allocation Fund II
Advisory Fee Paid	$	555,327	$	624,721	$	884,316
Amount Reimbursed	$	177,252		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

65

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	877,537	$	895,804	$	628,029
Amount Reimbursed	$	249,629	$	299,298	$	245,824
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Corporate Bond Portfolio
Advisory Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	531,704	$	508,291	$	483,879
Amount Reimbursed	$	221,167	$	212,433	$	246,888
Amount Waived		—		—		—
High Income Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	1,368,680	$	1,251,540	$	351,545	**
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
Advisory Fee Paid	$	1,343,431	$	1,479,159	$	2,458,096
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
Advisory Fee Paid	$	879,067	$	1,008,735	$	1,849,265
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
Advisory Fee Paid	$	346,254	$	362,391	$	528,855
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Advisory Fee Paid	$	15,573	$	16,419	$	18,539
Amount Reimbursed	$	147,165	$	88,426	$	127,894
Amount Waived	$	3,114	$	3,284	$	3,708
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	649,165	$	637,768	$	665,252
Amount Reimbursed	$	249,129	$	239,429	$	267,402
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Masters International Equity Portfolio
Advisory Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed	$	409,217	$	483,770	$	454,382
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio
Advisory Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

66

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	807,714	$	743,468	$	716,191
Amount Reimbursed	$	259,947	$	259,156	$	293,196
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Short Term Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	5,778,812	$	3,615,919	$	2,820,376
Amount Reimbursed	$	531,044	$	221,792	$	188,025
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	5,376,376	$	2,263,618	$	1,244,272
Amount Reimbursed	$	223,599	$	602,386	$	470,889
Amount Waived		—		—		—
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	810,122	$	831,600	$	735,156
Amount Reimbursed	$	247,880	$	267,234	$	273,304
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Total Return Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	4,695,452	$	5,302,451	$	6,392,539
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Virginia Municipal Bond Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	1,332,156	$	1,321,628	$	1,314,492
Amount Reimbursed	$	298,704	$	367,033	$	386,045
Amount Waived		—		—		—

* All amounts were paid to or waived/reimbursed by the Previous Adviser.

** Until February 28, 2008, the Fund operated as a “Feeder Fund” and invested all or substantially all of its assets in a corresponding Master Portfolio that was a series of Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC. For the period April 1, 2007 to February 27, 2008, Columbia High Income Master Portfolio paid $6,040,994 in advisory fees, none of which was waived or reimbursed by the Previous Adviser.

Portfolio Manager(s)

The following provides additional information about the portfolio manager(s) of the Adviser who are responsible for making the day-to-day investment decisions for the Funds. As described in the Management of the Fund – Primary Service Providers section of each Fund’s prospectuses, the portfolio manager(s) of the Adviser who are responsible for the Funds are:

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)
Alfred F. Alley III, CFA	Large Cap Index Fund Mid Cap Index Fund Small Cap Index Fund
Leonard A. Aplet, CFA	Short Term Bond Fund

67

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)
Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	Asset Allocation Fund II LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income Masters International Equity Portfolio
Kent M. Bergene	Asset Allocation Fund II LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income
Wayne M. Collette, CFA	Small Cap Growth Fund II
Brian M. Condon, CFA	Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Fred Copper, CFA	Masters International Equity Portfolio Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund* Overseas Value Fund
James D’Arcy, CFA	California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Short Term Municipal Bond Fund South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Lori J. Ensinger, CFA	Large Cap Value Fund Mid Cap Value Fund
Jarl Ginsberg, CFA	Small Cap Value Fund II
David I. Hoffman	Large Cap Value Fund Mid Cap Value Fund
Yan Jin	Convertible Securities Fund
David Joy	Asset Allocation Fund II LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income
David L. King, CFA	Convertible Securities Fund
Brian Lavin, CFA	Total Return Bond Fund
Craig Leopold, CFA	Large Cap Core Fund
Gregory Scott Liechty	Short Term Bond Fund

68

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)
Lawrence W. Lin, CFA	Small Cap Growth Fund II
Colin Moore	Asset Allocation Fund II LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income Masters International Equity Portfolio Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund*
George J. Myers, CFA	Small Cap Growth Fund II
Brian D. Neigut	Small Cap Growth Fund II
Carl W. Pappo, CFA	Corporate Bond Portfolio Total Return Bond Fund
Kent M. Peterson, PhD	Asset Allocation Fund II LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income Masters International Equity Portfolio
Noah J. Petrucci, CFA	Large Cap Value Fund Mid Cap Value Fund
Alexander D. Powers	Total Return Bond Fund
Lee Reddin	Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio
Peter Santoro, CFA	Large Cap Core Fund
Marie M. Schofield, CFA	Asset Allocation Fund II LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio LifeGoal® Income Masters International Equity Portfolio
Diane L. Sobin, CFA	Large Cap Value Fund Mid Cap Value Fund
Christian K. Stadlinger, PhD, CFA	Small Cap Value Fund II
Ronald B. Stahl, CFA	Short Term Bond Fund
Michael W. Zazzarino	Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio Total Return Bond Fund

* Responsible for the portion of the Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund that is advised by the Adviser.

69

Portfolio Manager(s) Information

The following table provides information about each Fund’s portfolio manager(s) as of the end of the Fund’s most recent fiscal year, or as indicated, the most recent practicable date including the number and amount of assets of other investment accounts (or portions of investment accounts) that the portfolio manager(s) managed.

		Other Accounts Managed (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially Owned	Structure of Compensation (described in next sub-section)
For Funds with fiscal year ending February 28
Convertible Securities Fund	Yan Jin	3 other accounts	$500,000	None	None	(1)
	David L. King, CFA1	18 other accounts	$38.5 million	None	None	(1)
Large Cap Core Fund	Craig Leopold, CFA	1 RICs 2 PIVs 500 other accounts	$75 million $275 million $1 billion	None	$10,001- $50,000a $10,001- $50,000b	(1)
	Peter Santoro, CFA	2 RICs 2 PIVs 500 other accounts	$150 million $275 million $1 billion	None	$50,001- $100,000a $10,001- $50,000b	(1)
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	Brian M. Condon, CFA	2 RICs 8 PIVs 38 other accounts	$324 million $837 million $2.569 billion	1 other account ($23 million)	None	(1)
Large Cap Index Fund	Alfred F. Alley III, CFA	3 RICs 4 PIV 19 other accounts	$3.382 billion $224.9 million $3.723 billion	None	$1- $10,000a	(1)
Large Cap Value Fund	Lori J. Ensinger, CFA	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,637 other accounts	$4.83 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$100,001- $500,000a	(1)
	David I. Hoffman	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,643 other accounts	$4.83 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$100,001- $500,000b	(1)
	Noah J. Petrucci, CFA	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,643 other accounts	$4.83 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$50,001 - $100,000a $1- $10,000b	(1)
	Diane L. Sobin, CFA	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,648 other accounts	$4.83 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$100,001- $500,000a $10,001- $50,000b	(1)
Mid Cap Index Fund	Alfred F. Alley III, CFA	3 RICs 4 PIV 19 other accounts	$4.104 billion $224.9 million $3.723 billion	None	$10,001- $50,000a	(1)
Mid Cap Value Fund	Lori J. Ensinger, CFA	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,637 other accounts	$2.73 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$50,001- $100,000a	(1)

70

		Other Accounts Managed (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially Owned	Structure of Compensation (described in next sub-section)
	David I. Hoffman	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,643 other accounts	$2.73 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$100,001- $500,000a	(1)
	Noah J. Petrucci, CFA	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,643 other accounts	$2.73 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$10,001- $50,000a	(1)
	Diane L. Sobin, CFA	11 RICs 2 PIV 4,648 other accounts	$2.73 billion $375 million $2.5 billion	None	$100,001- $500,000a $10,001- $50,000b	(1)
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund**	Fred Copper, CFA	9 RICs 4 PIV 24 other accounts	$1.41 billion $634.7 million $86.9 million	None	None	(1)
	Colin Moore	18 RICs 26 PIVs 21 other accounts	$2.12 billion $2.4 billion $299 million	None	None	(1)
Overseas Value Fund	Fred Copper, CFA	9 RICs 4 PIV 24 other accounts	$2.0 billion $634.7 million $86.9 million	None	None	(1)
Small Cap Growth Fund II	Wayne M. Collette, CFA1	10 RICs 1 PIVs 114 other accounts	$2.546 billion $125.4 million $216.4 million	None	None	(1)
	Lawrence W. Lin, CFA	7 RICs 1 PIVs 108 other accounts	$2.129 billion $125.4 million $138.8 million	None	None	(1)
	George J. Myers, CFA1	7 RICs 1 PIVs 103 other accounts	$2.129 billion $125.4 million $138.8 million	None	None	(1)
	Brian D.  Neigut1	7 RICs 1 PIV 105 other accounts	$2.129 billion $125.4 million $138.6 million	None	None	(1)
Small Cap Index Fund	Alfred F. Alley III, CFA	3 RICs 4 PIV 19 other accounts	$4.656 billion $224.9 million $3.723 billion	None	$1- $10,000a	(1)
Small Cap Value Fund II	Jarl Ginsberg, CFA	2 RICs 37 other accounts	$0.2 billion $0.4 billion	None	$100,001- $500,000a	(1)
	Christian K. Stadlinger, PhD, CFA	2 RICs 33 other accounts	$0.2 billion $0.4 billion	None	$500,001- $1,000,000a $50,001- $100,000b	(1)

71

		Other Accounts Managed (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially Owned	Structure of Compensation (described in next sub-section)
For Funds with fiscal year ending March 31
Asset Allocation Fund II	Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIVs 22 other accounts	$2 billion $2.4 billion $296 million	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Bergene	6 RICs 8 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.47 million	None	None	(2)
	David Joy	6 RICs 6 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.12 million	None	None	(2)
	Colin Moore	18 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$3.521 billion $2.4 billion $299 billion	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Peterson, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$2 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
	Marie M. Schofield, CFA	16 RICs 26 PIV 16 other accounts	$2 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	James D’Arcy, CFA	1 RICs 2 PIVs 12 other accounts	$2.556 billion $266.8 million $189.3 million	None	None	(1)
Corporate Bond Portfolio	Carl W. Pappo, CFA	4 RICs 3 other accounts	$5.626 billion $850,000	None	None	(1)
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	James D’Arcy, CFA	1 RICs 2 PIVs 12 other accounts	$2.556 billion $266.8 million $189.3 million	None	None	(1)
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIVs 22 other accounts	$1.519 billion $2.4 billion $296 million	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Bergene	6 RICs 8 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.47 million	None	None	(2)
	David Joy	6 RICs 6 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.12 million	None	None	(2)
	Colin Moore	18 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$3.039 billion $2.4 billion $299 billion	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Peterson, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$1.519 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
	Marie M. Schofield, CFA	16 RICs 26 PIV 16 other accounts	$1.519 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIVs 22 other accounts	$1.708 billion $2.4 billion $296 million	None	None	(1)

72

		Other Accounts Managed (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially Owned	Structure of Compensation (described in next sub-section)
	Kent M. Bergene	6 RICs 8 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.47 million	None	None	(2)
	David Joy	6 RICs 6 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.12 million	None	None	(2)
	Colin Moore	18 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$3.228 billion $2.4 billion $299 billion	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Peterson, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$1.708 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
	Marie M. Schofield, CFA	16 RICs 26 PIV 16 other accounts	$1.708 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIVs 22 other accounts	$1.955 billion $2.4 billion $296 million	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Bergene	6 RICs 8 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.47 million	None	None	(2)
	David Joy	6 RICs 6 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.12 million	None	None	(2)
	Colin Moore	18 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$3.475 billion $2.4 billion $299 billion	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Peterson, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$1.955 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
	Marie M. Schofield, CFA	16 RICs 26 PIV 16 other accounts	$1.955 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIVs 22 other accounts	$2.07 billion $2.4 billion $296 million	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Bergene	6 RICs 8 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.47 million	None	None	(2)
	David Joy	6 RICs 6 other accounts	$4.067 billion $1.12 million	None	None	(2)
	Colin Moore	18 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$3.59 billion $2.4 billion $299 billion	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Peterson, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$2.07 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)

73

		Other Accounts Managed (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially Owned	Structure of Compensation (described in next sub-section)
	Marie M. Schofield, CFA	16 RICs 26 PIV 16 other accounts	$2.07 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	James D’Arcy, CFA	1 RICs 2 PIVs 12 other accounts	$2.556 billion $266.8 million $189.3 million	None	None	(1)
Masters International Equity Portfolio	Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIVs 22 other accounts	$1.963 billion $2.4 billion $296 million	None	None	(1)
	Fred Copper, CFA	10 RICs 4 PIVs 24 other accounts	$1.8 billion $634.7 million $92.4 million	None	None	(1)
	Colin Moore	18 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$3.483 billion $2.4 billion $299 billion	None	None	(1)
	Kent M. Peterson, PhD	16 RICs 26 PIV 21 other accounts	$1.963 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
	Marie M. Schofield, CFA	16 RICs 26 PIVs 16 other accounts	$1.963 billion $2.4 billion $296 billion	None	None	(1)
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	Lee Reddin	2 other accounts	$120,000	None	None	(1)
	Michael W. Zazzarino	5 RICs 9 PIVs 9 other accounts	$4.766 billion $2.64 billion $1.92 billion	None	None	(1)
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	James D’Arcy, CFA	1 RICs 2 PIVs 12 other accounts	$2.556 billion $266.8 million $189.3 million	None	None	(1)
Short Term Bond Fund	Leonard A. Aplet, CFA	5 RICs 9 PIVs 80 other accounts	$410 million $3.34 billion $3.65 billion	None	Over $1,000,000a $1- $10,000b	(1)
	Gregory Scott Liechty	19 other accounts	$59 million	None	None	(1)
	Ronald B. Stahl	7 RICs 9 PIVs 62 other accounts	$420 million $3.34 billion $3.64 billion	None	None	(1)
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	James D’Arcy, CFA	2 PIVs 12 other accounts	$266.8 million $189.3 million	None	$10,001- $50,000a $1- $10,000b	(1)

74

		Other Accounts Managed (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially Owned	Structure of Compensation (described in next sub-section)
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	James D’Arcy, CFA	1 RICs 2 PIVs 12 other accounts	$2.556 billion $266.8 million $189.3 million	None	None	(1)
Total Return Bond Fund	Brian Lavin, CFA2	2 RICs 1 PIVs 4 other accounts	$2.92 billion $9.56 million $766.77 million	None	None	(2)
	Carl W. Pappo, CFA	4 RICs 3 other accounts	$4.355 billion $850,000	None	None	(1)
	Alexander D. Powers	2 RICs 7 PIVs 17 other accounts	$2.105 billion $2.1 billion $1.1 billion	None	None	(1)
	Michael W. Zazzarino	5 RICs 9 PIVs 9 other accounts	$3.516 billion $2.64 billion $1.92 billion	None	None	(1)
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	James D’Arcy, CFA	1 RICs 2 PIVs 12 other accounts	$2.556 billion $266.8 million $189.3 million	None	None	(1)

* RIC refers to a Registered Investment Company; PIV refers to a Pooled Investment Vehicle.

** Reflects information for the portion of the Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund that is advised by the Adviser.

^a Excludes any notional investments.

^b Notional investments through a deferred compensation account.

¹ Account information provided as of March 31, 2010.

² Information provided as of April 30, 2010.

Structure of Compensation

(1) Compensation of Legacy Columbia Management Advisors, LLC Portfolio Managers

Compensation for portfolio managers who were associates of the Previous Adviser prior to May 1, 2010, is typically paid in the form of salary, bonus, stock options, restricted stock and notional investments through an incentive plan, the value of which is measured by reference to the performance of the Columbia Funds in which the account is invested. The bonus for these portfolio managers is variable and generally is based on (1) an evaluation of the portfolio manager’s investment performance and (2) the results of a peer and/or management review of the portfolio manager, which takes into account skills and attributes such as team participation, investment process, communication and professionalism. In evaluating investment performance, the Adviser generally considers the one, three and five year performance of mutual funds and other accounts managed by the portfolio manager relative to the benchmarks and peer groups noted below, emphasizing the portfolio manager’s three and five year performance. The Adviser also may consider a portfolio manager’s performance in managing client assets in sectors and industries assigned to the portfolio manager as part of his/her investment team responsibilities, when applicable. For portfolio managers who also have group management responsibilities, another factor in their evaluation is an assessment of the group’s overall investment performance. The size of the overall bonus pool each year depends on, among other factors, the levels of compensation generally in the investment management industry (based on market compensation data) and the Adviser’s profitability for the year, which is largely determined by assets under management.

75

(2) Compensation of Legacy RiverSource Investments, LLC Portfolio Managers

Compensation for portfolio managers who were associates of RiverSource Investments, LLC (now known as Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC), is typically comprised of (i) a base salary, and (ii) an annual cash bonus, a portion of which may be subject to a mandatory deferral program, and may include (iii) an equity incentive award in the form of stock options and/or restricted stock. The Adviser’s portfolio managers are provided with a benefits package, including life insurance, health insurance, and participation in a company 401(k) plan, comparable to that received by other Adviser employees. Depending upon their job level, Adviser portfolio managers may also be eligible for other benefits or perquisites that are available to all Adviser employees at the same job level.

For Mr. Bergene and Mr. Joy, the annual cash bonus is based on management’s assessment of the employee’s performance relative to individual and business unit goals and objectives. The assessment may be based, in part, on achieving certain investment performance goals and retaining and attracting assets under management. For Mr. Joy, the assessment may be based, in part, on achieving certain investment performance goals and retaining and attracting assets under management, and for Mr. Bergene, on developing competitive products, managing existing products, and selecting and monitoring subadvisers for funds. In addition, subject to certain vesting requirements, the compensation of Mr. Joy includes an annual award based on the performance of Ameriprise Financial over rolling three-year periods. This program has been discontinued and the final award under this plan covered the three-year period that started in January 2007 and ended in December 2009.

For all other portfolio managers, the annual cash bonus is paid from a team bonus pool that is based on the performance of the accounts managed by the portfolio management team, which might include mutual funds, wrap accounts, institutional portfolios and hedge funds. The bonus pool is determined by the aggregate market competitive bonus targets for the teams of which the portfolio manager is a member and by the short-term (typically one-year) and long-term (typically three-year) performance of those accounts in relation to applicable benchmarks or the relevant peer group universe. Senior management of the Adviser has the discretion to increase or decrease the size of the part of the bonus pool and to determine the exact amount of each portfolio manager’s bonus paid from this portion of the bonus pool based on his/her performance as an employee. Certain investment personnel are also eligible to defer a portion of their compensation. An individual making this type of election can allocate the deferral to the returns associated with one or more products they manage or support or to certain other products managed by their investment team. The size of the overall bonus pool each year depends on, among other factors, the levels of compensation generally in the investment management industry (based on market compensation data) and the Adviser’s profitability for the year, which is largely determined by assets under management.

Performance Benchmarks

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)	Primary Benchmark(s)	Peer Group
Alfred F. Alley III	Large Cap Index Fund	S&P 500® Index	Lipper S&P 500 Index Objective Funds Classification
	Mid Cap Index Fund	S&P MidCap 400® Index	Lipper Mid-Cap Core Funds Classification
	Small Cap Index Fund	S&P Small Cap 600® Index	Lipper Small-Cap Core Funds Classification
Leonard A. Aplet	Short Term Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Government/Credit Index	Lipper Short Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification

76

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)	Primary Benchmark(s)	Peer Group
Anwiti Bahuguna, PhD	Asset Allocation Fund II	Russell 1000 Index/Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Growth Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Moderate Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Conservative Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index; Blended: 80% Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index/20% Barclays Capital Corporate High-Yield Bond Index	Lipper General Bond Funds Classification
	Masters International Equity Portfolio	MSCI EAFE Index (Net)	Lipper International Multi-Cap Core Funds Classification
Kent M. Bergene	Asset Allocation Fund II	Russell 1000 Index/Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Growth Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Moderate Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Conservative Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index; Blended: 80% Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index/20% Barclays Capital Corporate High-Yield Bond Index	Lipper General Bond Funds Classification

77

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)	Primary Benchmark(s)	Peer Group
Wayne M. Collette	Small Cap Growth Fund II	Russell 2000 Index Russell 2000 Growth Index	Lipper Small-Cap Growth Funds Classification
Brian M. Condon	Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large-Cap Core Funds Classification
Fred Copper, CFA	Masters International Equity Portfolio	MSCI EAFE Index	Lipper International Multi-Cap Core Funds Classification
	Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	MSCI EAFE Index	Lipper International Multi-Cap Core Funds Classification
	Overseas Value Fund	MSCI EAFE Value Index	Lipper International Large-Cap Value Funds Classification
James D’Arcy	California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Barclays Capital California 3-15 Year Blend Municipal Bond Index	Lipper California Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Classification
	Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 3-15 Year Blend Municipal Bond Index	Lipper Other States Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Classification
	Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 3-15 Year Blend Municipal Bond Index	Lipper Other States Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Classification
	North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 3-15 Year Blend Municipal Bond Index	Lipper Other States Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Classification
	Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	BofA Merrill Lynch 1-3 Year U.S. Municipal Index	Lipper Short Municipal Debt Funds Classification
	South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 3-15 Year Blend Municipal Bond Index	Lipper Other States Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Classification
	Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 3-15 Year Blend Municipal Bond Index	Lipper Other States Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Classification
Lori J. Ensinger	Large Cap Value Fund	Russell 1000 Value Index	Lipper Large-Cap Value Classification
	Mid Cap Value Fund	Russell MidCap Value Index	Lipper Mid-Cap Value Classification
Jarl Ginsberg	Small Cap Value Fund II	Russell 2000 Value Index	Lipper Small-Cap Value Classificationa

78

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)	Primary Benchmark(s)	Peer Group
David I. Hoffman	Large Cap Value Fund	Russell 1000 Value Index	Lipper Large-Cap Value Classification
	Mid Cap Value Fund	Russell MidCap Value Index	Lipper Mid-Cap Value Classification
Yan Jin	Convertible Securities Fund	BofA Merrill Lynch All Convertibles All Qualities	Lipper Convertible Securities Classification
David Joy	Asset Allocation Fund II	Russell 1000 Index/Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Growth Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Moderate Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Conservative Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index; Blended: 80% Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index/20% Barclays Capital Corporate High-Yield Bond Index	Lipper General Bond Funds Classification
David L. King	Convertible Securities Fund	BofA Merrill Lynch All Convertibles All Qualities	Lipper Convertible Securities Classification
Brian Lavin	Total Return Bond Fund	Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Intermediate Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification
Craig Leopold	Large Cap Core Fund	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large-Cap Core Classification
Gregory Scott Liechty	Short Term Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Government/Credit Index	Lipper Short Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification
Lawrence W. Lin	Small Cap Growth Fund II	Russell 2000 Growth Index	Lipper Small-Cap Growth Funds Classification

79

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)	Primary Benchmark(s)	Peer Group
Colin Moore	Asset Allocation Fund II	Russell 1000 Index/Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Growth Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Moderate Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Conservative Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index; Blended: 80% Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index/20% Barclays Capital Corporate High-Yield Bond Index	Lipper General Bond Funds Classification
	Masters International Equity Portfolio	MSCI EAFE Index (Net)	Lipper International Multi-Cap Core Funds Classification
	Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	MSCI EAFE Index (Net)	Lipper International Multi-Cap Core Funds Classification
George J. Myers	Small Cap Growth Fund II	Russell 2000 Growth Index	Lipper Small-Cap Growth Funds Classification
Brian D. Neigut	Small Cap Growth Fund II	Russell 2000 Growth Index	Lipper Small-Cap Growth Funds Classification
Carl W. Pappo	Corporate Bond Portfolio	Barclays Capital Credit Bond Index	N/A
	Total Return Bond Fund	Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Intermediate Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification
Kent M. Peterson, PhD	Asset Allocation Fund II	Russell 1000 Index/Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Growth Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Classification

80

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)	Primary Benchmark(s)	Peer Group
	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Moderate Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Conservative Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index; Blended: 80% Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index/20% Barclays Capital Corporate High-Yield Bond Index	Lipper General Bond Funds Classification
	Masters International Equity Portfolio	MSCI EAFE Index (Net)	Lipper International Multi-Cap Core Funds Classification
Noah J. Petrucci	Large Cap Value Fund	Russell 1000 Value Index	Lipper Large-Cap Value Classification
	Mid Cap Value Fund	Russell Mid Cap Value Index	Lipper Mid-Cap Value Classification
Alexander D. Powers	Total Return Bond Fund	Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Intermediate Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification
Lee Reddin	Mortgage and Asset-Backed Portfolio	Barclays Capital U.S. Securitized Index	N/A
Peter Santoro	Large Cap Core Fund	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large-Cap Core Classification
Marie M. Schofield, CFA	Asset Allocation Fund II	Russell 1000 Index/Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Growth Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index	Lipper Large Cap Core Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Moderate Funds Classification
	LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	S&P 500® Index; Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Conservative Funds Classification

81

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)	Primary Benchmark(s)	Peer Group
	LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index; Blended: 80% Barclays Capital Aggregate 1-3 Years Index/20% Barclays Capital Corporate High-Yield Bond Index	Lipper General Bond Funds Classification
	Masters International Equity Portfolio	MSCI EAFE Index (Net)	Lipper International Multi-Cap Core Funds Classification
Diane L. Sobin	Large Cap Value Fund	Russell 1000 Value Index	Lipper Large-Cap Value Classification
	Mid Cap Value Fund	Russell Mid Cap Value Index	Lipper Mid-Cap Value Classification
Christian K. Stadlinger	Small Cap Value Fund II	Russell 2000 Value Index	Lipper Small-Cap Value Classification
Ronald B. Stahl	Short Term Bond Fund	Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Government/Credit Index	Lipper Short Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification
Michael W. Zazzarino	Mortgage and Asset-Backed Portfolio	Barclays Capital U.S. Securitized Index	Lipper Intermediate Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification
	Total Return Bond Fund	Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index	Lipper Intermediate Investment Grade Debt Funds Classification

The Adviser’s Portfolio Managers and Potential Conflicts of Interest

Like other investment professionals with multiple clients, a Fund’s portfolio manager(s) may face certain potential conflicts of interest in connection with managing both the Fund and other accounts at the same time. The Adviser and the Funds have adopted compliance policies and procedures that attempt to address certain of the potential conflicts that portfolio managers face in this regard. Certain of these conflicts of interest are summarized below.

The management of accounts with different advisory fee rates and/or fee structures, including accounts that pay advisory fees based on account performance (performance fee accounts), may raise potential conflicts of interest for a portfolio manager by creating an incentive to favor higher fee accounts.

Potential conflicts of interest also may arise when a portfolio manager has personal investments in other accounts that may create an incentive to favor those accounts. As a general matter and subject to the Adviser’s Code of Ethics and certain limited exceptions, the Adviser’s investment professionals do not have the opportunity to invest in client accounts, other than the Funds. A portfolio manager who is responsible for managing multiple funds and/or accounts may devote unequal time and attention to the management of those funds and/or accounts. The effects of this potential conflict may be more pronounced where funds and/or accounts managed by a particular portfolio manager have different investment strategies.

82

A portfolio manager may be able to select or influence the selection of the broker/dealers that are used to execute securities transactions for the Funds. A portfolio manager’s decision as to the selection of broker/dealers could produce disproportionate costs and benefits among the Funds and the other accounts the portfolio manager manages.

A potential conflict of interest may arise when a portfolio manager buys or sells the same securities for a Fund and other accounts. On occasions when a portfolio manager considers the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of a Fund as well as other accounts, the Adviser’s trading desk may, to the extent consistent with applicable laws and regulations, aggregate the securities to be sold or bought in order to obtain the best execution and lower brokerage commissions, if any. Aggregation of trades may create the potential for unfairness to a Fund or another account if a portfolio manager favors one account over another in allocating the securities bought or sold.

“Cross trades,” in which a portfolio manager sells a particular security held by a Fund to another account (potentially saving transaction costs for both accounts), could involve a potential conflict of interest if, for example, a portfolio manager is permitted to sell a security from one account to another account at a higher price than an independent third party would pay. The Adviser and the Funds have adopted compliance procedures that provide that any transactions between the Fund and another account managed by the Adviser are to be made at a current market price, consistent with applicable laws and regulations.

Another potential conflict of interest may arise based on the different investment objectives and strategies of a Fund and other accounts managed by its portfolio manager(s). Depending on another account’s objectives and other factors, a portfolio manager may give advice to and make decisions for a Fund that may differ from advice given, or the timing or nature of decisions made, with respect to another account. A portfolio manager’s investment decisions are the product of many factors in addition to basic suitability for the particular account involved. Thus, a portfolio manager may buy or sell a particular security for certain accounts, and not for a Fund, even though it could have been bought or sold for the Fund at the same time. A portfolio manager also may buy a particular security for one or more accounts when one or more other accounts are selling the security (including short sales). There may be circumstances when a portfolio manager’s purchases or sales of portfolio securities for one or more accounts may have an adverse effect on other accounts, including the Funds.

A Fund’s portfolio manager(s) also may have other potential conflicts of interest in managing the Fund, and the description above is not a complete description of every conflict that could exist in managing the Fund and other accounts. Many of the potential conflicts of interest to which the Adviser’s portfolio managers are subject are essentially the same or similar to the potential conflicts of interest related to the investment management activities of the Adviser and its affiliates. See Investment Advisory and Other Services – Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates – Certain Conflicts of Interest for more information about conflicts of interest, including those that relate to the Adviser and its affiliates.

Manager of Managers Exemption

The SEC has issued an order that permits the Adviser, subject to the approval of the Board, to appoint an unaffiliated subadviser or to change the terms of a subadvisory agreement for a Fund without first obtaining shareholder approval. The order permits a Fund to add or to change unaffiliated subadvisers or to change the fees paid to subadvisers from time to time without the expense and delays associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the change. The Adviser and its affiliates may have other relationships, including significant financial relationships, with current or potential subadvisers or their affiliates, which may create certain conflicts of interest. When making recommendations to the Board to appoint or to change a subadviser, or to change the terms of a subadvisory agreement, the Adviser discloses to the Board the nature of any material relationships it has with a subadviser or its affiliates.

83

For Global Value Fund and Marsico Growth Fund, if the Funds were to seek to rely on the order, holders of a majority of the fund’s outstanding voting securities would need to approve operating the fund in this manner. There is no assurance shareholder approval, if sought, will be received, and no changes will be made without shareholder approval until that time.

The Subadvisers and Investment Subadvisory Services

Brandes

Brandes is the investment subadviser to Global Value Fund and Columbia International Value Master Portfolio. The International Value Fund is a Feeder Fund and does not have its own subadviser(s) because it invests all of its assets in Columbia International Value Master Portfolio. With respect to the International Value Fund, Brandes earns its fee as the investment subadviser to the Columbia International Value Master Portfolio. See the Management of the Fund – Primary Services Providers section in the International Value Fund’s prospectus.

Brandes is 100% beneficially owned by senior professionals of the firm. The principal offices of Brandes are located at 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 500, San Diego, California 92130. As of March 31, 2010, Brandes had approximately $51.6 billion in assets under management.

Services Provided

Pursuant to the terms of its Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, Brandes selects and manages the respective investments of each Fund for which it serves as investment subadviser. Brandes performs its duties subject at all times to the control of the Board and in conformity with the stated policies of each Fund.

Its Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement generally provides that in the absence of willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence or reckless disregard of Brandes’ obligations or duties thereunder, or any of its respective officers, directors, employees or agents, Brandes shall not be subject to liability to the Trust or to any shareholder of the Trust for any act or omission in the course of rendering services thereunder or for any losses that may be sustained in the purchase, holding or sale of any security.

The Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement became effective with respect to a Fund after approval by the Board, and after an initial two year period, continues from year to year, provided that such continuation of the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement is specifically approved at least annually by the Trust’s Board, including its Independent Trustees. The Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement terminates automatically in the event of its assignment, and is terminable with respect to a Fund at any time without penalty by the Trust (by vote of the Board or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund) or by the Adviser on 60 days’ written notice.

The Adviser, from the investment advisory fees it receives, pays Brandes for the services it provides to a Fund based on the percentage of the average daily net assets of that Fund, as set forth in the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement. The Adviser also may pay amounts from its own assets to the Distributor or to selling or servicing agents for services they provide.

84

Subadvisory Rates Paid to Brandes

The Adviser pays Brandes, as full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed, a subadvisory fee for Global Value Fund and Columbia International Value Master Portfolio, computed daily and payable monthly at the annual rates listed below as a percentage of the average daily net assets:

Fund/Master Portfolio	Rate of Compensation
Global Value Fund	•   0.50% on aggregate assets of Global Value Fund on the first $1 billion •   0.45% on aggregate assets of Global Value Fund above $1 billion
Columbia International Value Master Portfolio	•   0.50% of average daily net assets of International Value Master Portfolio

Subadvisory Fees Paid to Brandes

Brandes received subadvisory fees from the Previous Adviser for its services as reflected in the following chart, which shows the subadvisory fees paid to Brandes, the advisory fees waived and expense reimbursements where applicable, for the three most recently completed fiscal years, except as otherwise indicated.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008
Global Value Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	324,922	$	799,901	$	1,715,858
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007
International Value Fund*
Advisory Fee Paid	$	8,841,168	$	12,462,818	$	19,593,220	$	22,308,152
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—		—

* Because this Feeder Fund’s advisory fees are paid at the Master Portfolio level, amounts shown are for its Master Portfolio.

Brandes Portfolio Manager(s)

The following provides additional information about the Brandes portfolio manager(s) responsible for making the day-to-day investment decisions for the Funds identified below. As described in the Management of the Fund – Primary Service Providers section of each Fund’s prospectuses, the Brandes portfolio manager(s) responsible for the Fund(s) are:

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)
Jim Brown, CFA	Global Value Fund International Value Fund
Glenn R. Carlson, CFA	Global Value Fund International Value Fund
Brent Fredberg	Global Value Fund International Value Fund

85

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)
Jeffrey Germain, CFA	Global Value Fund International Value Fund
Amelia M. Morris, CFA	Global Value Fund International Value Fund
Brent V. Woods, CFA	Global Value Fund International Value Fund

Brandes Portfolio Manager(s) Information

The following table provides information about the number and assets of other investment accounts (or portions of investment accounts) that the Brandes portfolio manager(s) managed, as of the end of each Fund’s most recent fiscal year, or as indicated, the most recent practicable date.

		Other Accounts Managed by the Brandes Portfolio Managers (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially  Owned
For Funds with fiscal year ending February 28
Global Value Fund	Jim Brown,  CFA1	6 RICs 28 PIVs 4,135 other accounts	$3.968 billion $6.927 billion $37.564 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Glenn R. Carlson, CFA1	8 RICs 51 PIVs 4,813 other accounts	$4.014 billion $7.983 billion $39.577 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Brent  Fredberg1	6 RICs 28 PIVs 4,135 other accounts	$3.968 billion $6.927 billion $37.564 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Jeffrey Germain, CFA1	6 RICs 28 PIVs 4,135 other accounts	$3.968 billion $6.927 billion $37.564 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Amelia M. Morris, CFA1	8 RICs 51 PIVs 4,813 other accounts	$4.014 billion $7.983 billion $39.577 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Brent V. Woods, CFA1	8 RICs 51 PIVs 4,813 other accounts	$4.014 billion $7.983 billion $39.577 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
International Value Fund	Jim Brown,  CFA1	6 RICs 28 PIVs 4,135 other accounts	$3.968 billion $6.927 billion $37.564 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None

86

		Other Accounts Managed by the Brandes Portfolio Managers (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially  Owned
	Glenn R. Carlson, CFA1	8 RICs 51 PIVs 4,813 other accounts	$4.014 billion $7.983 billion $39.577 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Brent  Fredberg1	6 RICs 28 PIVs 4,135 other accounts	$3.968 billion $6.927 billion $37.564 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Jeffrey Germain, CFA1	6 RICs 28 PIVs 4,135 other accounts	$3.968 billion $6.927 billion $37.564 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Amelia M. Morris, CFA1	8 RICs 51 PIVs 4,813 other accounts	$4.014 billion $7.983 billion $39.577 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None
	Brent V. Woods, CFA1	8 RICs 51 PIVs 4,813 other accounts	$4.014 billion $7.983 billion $39.577 billion	13 other accounts ($4.177 billion)	None

* RIC refers to a Registered Investment Company; PIV refers to a Pooled Investment Vehicle.

¹ Account information provided as of March 31, 2010.

Brandes Portfolio Manager(s) Compensation

Brandes’ compensation structure for portfolio managers/analysts is four-fold: competitive base salaries, participation in an annual bonus plan, participation in profit sharing plan and eligibility for participation in the firm’s equity through partnership or phantom equity. Compensation is fixed. Participation in the annual bonus plan is linked to a number of qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria. The criteria include research productivity, performance of portfolio management professionals, and the attainment of client service goals. Compensation is not based on the performance of the Fund or other accounts.

Brandes Portfolio Managers and Potential Conflicts of Interest

For a small number of accounts, Brandes may be compensated based on the profitability of the account, such as by a performance-based management fee. These incentive compensation structures may create a conflict of interest for Brandes with regard to other accounts where the Adviser is paid based on a percentage of assets in that the portfolio manager may have an incentive to allocate securities preferentially to the accounts where Brandes might share in investment gains. In order to address these potential conflicts, Brandes’ investment decision-making and trade allocation policies and procedures are designed to ensure that none of Brandes’ clients are disadvantaged in Brandes’ management of accounts. Additionally, Brandes’ internal controls are tested on a routine schedule as part of the firm’s Compliance Monitoring Program.

It is possible that at times identical securities will be held by more than one fund and/or account. If the Large Cap Investment Committee identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than

87

one Fund or other account, a Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of filled purchase or sale orders across all eligible Funds and other accounts. To deal with these situations, Brandes has adopted procedures for allocating portfolio transactions across multiple accounts. For client accounts, including the Fund, that are able to participate in aggregated transactions, Brandes utilizes a rotational trading system to execute client transactions in order to provide, over the long-run, fair treatment for each client account.

Members of the Large Cap Investment Committee may invest in a fund or other account that they are involved in the management of and a conflict may arise where they may therefore have an incentive to treat the fund that they invest in preferentially as compared to other accounts. In order to address this potential conflict, Brandes’ investment decision-making and trade allocation policies and procedures are designed to ensure that none of Brandes’ clients are disadvantaged in Brandes’ management of accounts.

Causeway

Causeway served as co-investment subadviser to approximately half of the assets of Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund until July 8, 2009. At that time, the Previous Adviser assumed primary investment management responsibility for that portion of Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund previously sub-advised by Causeway.

Subadvisory Rates Paid to Causeway

Until July 8, 2009, at which time the Adviser assumed primary investment management responsibility for that portion of Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund previously sub-advised by Causeway, the Previous Adviser paid Causeway, as full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed, a subadvisory fee for Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund, computed daily and payable monthly at the annual rate listed below as a percentage of the average daily net assets of the Fund:

Fund	Rate of Compensation
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	•   0.43% of aggregate average daily net assets of Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund

Subadvisory Fees Paid to Causeway

Causeway received subadvisory fees from the Previous Adviser for its services as reflected in the following chart, which shows the subadvisory fees paid to Causeway, the advisory fees waived and expense reimbursements where applicable, for the three most recently completed fiscal years.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2008
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	1,379,059	$	4,183,414	$	5,502,776
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

MacKay Shields

MacKay Shields is the investment subadviser to High Income Fund. MacKay Shields’ principal office is located at 9 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019.

88

Services Provided

Pursuant to the terms of its Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, MacKay Shields selects and manages the respective investments of High Income Fund for which it serves as investment subadviser. MacKay Shields performs its duties subject at all times to the control of the Board and in conformity with the stated policies of the Fund. Its Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement generally provides that in the absence of willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence or reckless disregard of MacKay Shields’ obligations or duties thereunder, or any of its respective officers, directors, employees or agents, MacKay Shields shall not be subject to liability to the Trust or to any shareholder of the Trust for any act or omission in the course of rendering services thereunder or for any losses that may be sustained in the purchase, holding or sale of any security.

The Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement became effective with respect to a Fund after approval by the Board, and after an initial two year period, continues from year to year, provided that such continuation of the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement is specifically approved at least annually by the Trust’s Board, including its Independent Trustees. The Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement terminates automatically in the event of its assignment, and is terminable with respect to a Fund at any time without penalty by the Trust (by vote of the Board or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund) or by the Adviser on 60 days’ written notice.

The Adviser, from the investment advisory fees it receives, pays MacKay Shields for the services it provides to a Fund based on the percentage of the average daily net assets of that Fund, as set forth in the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement. The Adviser also may pay amounts from its own assets to the Distributor or to selling or servicing agents for services they provide.

Subadvisory Rates Paid to MacKay Shields

The Adviser pays MacKay Shields full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed, a subadvisory fee for Columbia High Income Fund, computed daily and payable monthly at the annual rates listed below as a percentage of the average daily net assets of the Fund:

Fund	Rate of Compensation
High Income Fund	•   0.40% of the average daily net assets of High Income Fund up to and including $100 million •   0.375% of average daily net assets of High Income Fund in excess of $100 million and up to and including $200 million •   0.35% of average daily net assets of High Income Fund in excess of $200 million

Subadvisory Fees Paid to MacKay Shields

MacKay Shields received subadvisory fees from the Previous Adviser for its services as reflected in the following chart, which shows the subadvisory fees paid to MacKay Shields, the advisory fees waived and expense reimbursements where applicable, for the three most recently completed fiscal periods.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
High Income Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	2,737,848	$	2,508,574	$	3,219,688
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

* Until February 28, 2008, the Fund operated as a “Feeder Fund” and invested all or substantially all of its assets in a corresponding Master Portfolio that was a series of Columbia Funds Master Investment Trust, LLC. For

89

the period April 1, 2007 to February 28, 2008, Columbia High Income Master Portfolio paid $2,985,314 in advisory fees, and from February 28, 2008 through March 31, 2008, the Fund paid $234,374 in subadvisory fees.

MacKay Shields Portfolio Manager(s)

The following provides additional information about the MacKay Shields portfolio manager responsible for making the day-to-day investment decisions for the Fund identified below. As described in the Management of the Fund – Primary Service Providers section of the Fund’s prospectus, the MacKay Shields portfolio manager responsible for the Fund is:

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)
J. Matthew Philo, CFA	High Income Fund

MacKay Shields Portfolio Manager(s) Information

The following table provides information about the number and assets of other investment accounts (or portions of investment accounts) that the MacKay Shields portfolio manager(s) managed, as of the end of the Fund’s most recent fiscal year, or as indicated, the most recent practicable date.

		Other Accounts Managed by the MacKay Shields Portfolio Managers (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially Owned
For the Fund with fiscal year ending March 31
High Income Fund	J. Matthew Philo, CFA	4 RICs 2 PIVs 46 other accounts	$7.907 billion $450 million $10.6 billion	2 PIVs ($12.7 million)	None

* RIC refers to a Registered Investment Company; PIV refers to a Pooled Investment Vehicle.

MacKay Shields Portfolio Manager(s) Compensation

MacKay Shields establishes salaries at competitive levels, verified through industry surveys, to attract and maintain the best professional talent. In addition, an incentive bonus equal to a significant percentage of the firm’s pre-tax profits is paid annually to the firm’s employees based upon an individual’s performance and the profitability of the firm. The bonus generally represents a sizable amount relative to the base salary, and when considered with the base salary, results in a highly attractive level of total cash compensation for the firm’s professional employees. Every MacKay Shields employee participates in the bonus pool. This approach instills a strong sense of commitment on the part of each employee towards the overall success of the firm. There is no difference between the method used in determining portfolio manager’s compensation with respect to the High Income Fund and other accounts.

MacKay Shields has performance-based fee arrangements with “eligible clients”, as that term is defined under Rule 205-3 of the 1940 Act, who have requested such arrangements. Performance-based fees may be calculated as a percentage of returns, or as a percentage of the increase in net asset value, and may be tied to a client-directed benchmark or loss carry forward. A portion of these performance-based fees forms a part of the bonus pool for all MacKay Shields employees. Of course, there are periods in which MacKay Shields does not earn any performance fee. Such arrangements may appear to create an incentive to make riskier, more speculative investments than would be the case under a solely asset-based fee arrangement.

90

MacKay Shields offers a Phantom Stock Plan, which enhances the firm’s ability to attract, retain, motivate, and reward key executives. Awards can be made annually and vesting takes place over a period of several subsequent years. Participation in the current plan by senior professionals is contingent upon the execution of an Executive Employment Agreement.

MacKay Shields Portfolio Managers and Potential Conflicts of Interest

MacKay Shields’ High Yield group provides portfolio services for other MacKay Shields accounts, which include: mutual funds; institutional managed accounts; collective trusts and private commingled funds. As previously reported, MacKay Shields’ High Yield group has a domestic hedge fund and an offshore hedge fund, both of which are closed to new investors and whose assets were substantially liquidated during 2009. Except for distinctions based on investment objectives, investment guidelines and cash flow, all accounts are treated the same, regardless of fee structure.

MacKay Shields has performance-based fee arrangements with “eligible clients” (as that term is defined under Rule 205-3 of the 1940 Act) who have requested such arrangements. Performance-based fees may be calculated as a percentage of returns, or as a percentage of the increase in net asset value, and may be tied to a client-directed benchmark or loss carry forward. A portion of these performance-based fees forms a part of the bonus pool for all MacKay Shields employees. Of course, there are periods in which MacKay Shields does not earn any performance fee. Such arrangements may appear to create an incentive to make riskier, more speculative investments than would be the case under a solely asset-based fee arrangement. As previously reported, the two hedge funds with performance fees managed by the same product area that manages the High Income Fund are in the process of being liquidated.

To address potential conflicts of interest, MacKay Shields 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, MacKay Shields has adopted a Code of Ethics and other policies and procedures that recognize a manager’s obligation to treat all of its clients, including the High Income Fund, fairly and equitably. These policies, procedures, and the Code of Ethics are designed to restrict a portfolio manager from favoring one client over another.

It is the policy of MacKay Shields not to favor any one client over another. Consistent with this policy,

MacKay Shields has the following procedures, among others: (1) trade allocation procedures that provide for the

pro rata allocation of investment opportunities among clients in a particular strategy, with certain exceptions; (2) a general prohibition against same day opposite direction transactions; and (3) short sale trade procedures requiring pre-approval of short sales and restricting certain short sales.

The Trade Allocation Policy provides that: (i) no client will be favored over any other client; (ii) trades should be pre-allocated, subject to certain exceptions, and allocations should be in writing; and (iii) MacKay Shields’ Legal/Compliance Department conducts periodic reviews of client account performance as a function of allocation to assure that no account or group of accounts is being preferred systematically in the allocation process. The Trade Allocation Policy contains a procedure for limited offerings, which provides that in a limited offering, the allocations may be pro-rata based on size of the order or account size and within a Strategy pro-rata based on account size. Under this policy, when determining which accounts will participate in a trade, the portfolio managers will consider various objective criteria which may include but are not limited to: client cash limitations, actual and anticipated account inflows and outflows, duration and/or average maturity, account size, deal size, trade lots, existing exposure to an issuer or industry type and specific investment objectives and other practical limitations. In general, if the aggregated order is filled in its entirety, it will be allocated among clients in accordance with the target allocation; if the order is partially filled, it will be allocated pro rata based on the allocation methodology recorded in the trade order management system.

91

The Cross Trading Policy provides that all cross trades must be pre-cleared by the MacKay Shields Legal/ Compliance Department and require, among other things, that the transaction (a) be a purchase or sale for no consideration other than cash payments against prompt delivery of the security, (b) is effected at the independent market price of the security determined in accordance with applicable methodology; and (c) be effected with no brokerage transaction.

The Valuation Procedures provide, among other requirements, that any fair valuation of a security recommended by a portfolio manager be approved by portfolio managers from two other distinct portfolio management areas. In addition, on a monthly basis a Fair Valuation Committee meeting convenes to review all securities that are being fair valued.

The Proxy-Voting Policies and Procedures are designed to ensure that where clients have delegated proxy voting authority to MacKay Shields, all proxies are voted in the best interest of such clients without regard to the interests of MacKay Shields or related parties. When a client retains MacKay Shields, the firm generally determines through its investment management agreement whether it is authorized to vote proxies on behalf of that client. Currently, MacKay Shields uses Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), a business unit of RiskMetrics Group, as its third-party proxy voting service provider. If the client appoints MacKay Shields as its proxy-voting agent, the client will also be asked to specify whether its proxies should be voted in accordance with Custom Guidelines provided by the client or in accordance with MacKay Shields’ Standard Guidelines for non-union clients or union clients, as the case may be. These Standard Guidelines follow ISS proxy voting recommendations. MacKay Shields informs the client’s custodian to send all proxies to ISS, and informs ISS that the client has appointed MacKay Shields as its agent and instructs ISS as to which guidelines to follow.

Marsico

Marsico is located at 1200 17th Street, Suite 1600, Denver, CO 80202. Marsico was organized in September 1997 as a registered investment adviser, became a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Bank of America in January 2001 and was an affiliate of the Previous Adviser until December 2007. Marsico is an independently owned investment management firm. Marsico provides investment management services to other mutual funds and private accounts and, as of March 31, 2010, Marsico had approximately $55 billion in assets under management.

Services Provided

Pursuant to the terms of its Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, Marsico selects and manages the respective investments of the Funds for which it serves as investment subadviser. Marsico performs its duties subject at all times to the control of the Board and in conformity with the stated policies of each Fund.

Its Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement generally provides that in the absence of willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence or reckless disregard of Marsico’s obligations or duties thereunder, or any of its respective officers, directors, employees or agents, Marsico shall not be subject to liability to the Trust or to any shareholder of the Trust for any act or omission in the course of rendering services thereunder or for any losses that may be sustained in the purchase, holding or sale of any security.

The Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement became effective with respect to a Fund after approval by the Board, and after an initial two year period, continues from year to year, provided that such continuation of the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement is specifically approved at least annually by the Trust’s Board, including its Independent Trustees. The Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement terminates automatically in the event of its assignment, and is terminable with respect to a Fund at any time without penalty by the Trust (by vote of the Board or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund) or by the Adviser on 60 days’ written notice.

92

The Adviser, from the investment advisory fees it receives, pays Marsico for the services it provides to a Fund based on the percentage of the average daily net assets of that Fund, as set forth in the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement. The Adviser also may pay amounts from its own assets to the Distributor or to selling or servicing agents for services they provide.

Subadvisory Rates Paid to Marsico

Effective May 1, 2010, the Adviser pays Marsico, and for the period May 1, 2010 through January 1, 2008, the Previous Adviser paid Marsico, as full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed pursuant to the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, a subadvisory fee for Marsico 21st Century Fund, Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund and Marsico Growth Fund, computed daily and payable monthly, at the annual rates listed below as a percentage of the aggregate average daily net assets of Columbia U.S. equity funds or portions thereof subadvised by Marsico (“U.S. Funds”)*:

Fund	Rate of Compensation
U.S. Funds	•   0.45% on aggregate assets of the U.S. Funds up to $18 billion •   0.40% on aggregate assets of the U.S. Funds between $18 billion and $21 billion •   0.35% on aggregate assets of the U.S. Funds above $21 billion

* For purposes of this fee calculation, the assets subadvised by Marsico in the following Columbia Funds will be aggregated: (i) Marsico 21^st Century Fund; (ii) Marsico Focused Equities Fund; (iii) Columbia Marsico 21^st Century Fund, Variable Series; (iv) Columbia Marsico Growth Fund, Variable Series; (v) Columbia Marsico Focused Equities, Variable Series; (vi) Marsico Growth Fund; and (vii) any future Columbia U.S. equity fund subadvised by Marsico, as the Adviser and Marsico mutually agree in writing.

Effective May 1, 2010, the Adviser pays Marsico, as full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed pursuant to the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, a subadvisory fee for Marsico Global Fund, Marsico International Opportunities Fund and Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund, computed daily and payable monthly, at the annual rates listed below as a percentage of the aggregate average daily net assets of Columbia international equity funds or portions thereof subadvised by Marsico (“International Funds”)*:

Fund	Rate of Compensation
International Funds	•   0.45% on aggregate assets of the International Funds up to $6 billion •   0.40% on aggregate assets of the International Funds between $6 billion and $10 billion •   0.35% on aggregate assets of the International Funds above $10 billion

* For purposes of this fee calculation, the assets subadvised by Marsico in the following Columbia Funds will be aggregated: (i) Marsico Global Fund; (ii) Marsico International Opportunities Fund; (iii) Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund; (iv) Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund, Variable Series; and (v) any future Columbia international equity fund subadvised by Marsico, as the Adviser and Marsico mutually agree in writing.

93

The Adviser pays Marsico, as full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed pursuant to the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, a subadvisory fee for Marsico Global Fund, computed daily and payable monthly, at the annual rates listed below as a percentage of the aggregate average daily net assets of the Marsico Global Fund:

Fund	Rate of Compensation
Marsico Global Fund	•   0.45% on aggregate assets of the Marsico Global Fund up to $1.5 billion •   0.40% on aggregate assets of the Marsico Global Fund between $1.5 billion and $3 billion •   0.35% on aggregate assets of the Marsico Global Fund above $3 billion

For the period May 1, 2010 through January 1, 2008, the Previous Adviser paid Marsico, as full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed pursuant to the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, a subadvisory fee for Marsico Global Fund and Marsico International Opportunities Fund, computed daily and payable monthly, at the annual rates of 0.80% of the aggregate average daily net assets of U.S. Funds.

Immediately prior to January 1, 2008, the Previous Adviser paid Marsico, as full compensation for services provided and expenses assumed, a subadvisory fee for Marsico 21^st Century Fund, Marsico Focused Equities Fund, Marsico Growth Fund, Marsico International Opportunities Fund and Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund, computed daily and payable monthly at the annual rate of 0.45% of the average net assets of the respective Fund.

Subadvisory Fees Paid to Marsico

Marsico received subadvisory fees from the Previous Adviser for Marsico’s services as reflected in the following chart, which shows the advisory fees paid to Marsico, the advisory fees waived and expense reimbursements where applicable, for the three most recently completed fiscal periods.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009			Fiscal Period Ended February  29, 2008*
Marsico 21st Century Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	17,890,538	$	30,553,834		$	8,068,502
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—			—
Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	13,085,046	$	17,405,934		$	4,579,577	**
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—			—
Marsico Global Fund***
Advisory Fee Paid	$	20,688	$	17,043			N/A
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			N/A
Amount Waived		—		—			N/A
Marsico Growth Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	16,721,820	$	23,371,676	**	$	6,299,921
Amount Reimbursed		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—			—

94

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Period Ended February  29, 2008*
Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	5,728,038	$	10,955,978	$	2,927,361
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Advisory Fee Paid	$	3,532,116	$	4,836,093	$	1,316,794
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

* Marsico was an affiliated investment subadviser of the Previous Adviser until December 14, 2007. Therefore, the subadvisory fees paid are for the period December 14, 2007 through February 29, 2008.

** Includes amount paid for services provided to former Master Portfolio.

*** Marsico Global Fund commenced operations in April 2008 and therefore paid no subadvisory fees prior to that date.

Marsico Portfolio Manager(s)

The following provides additional information about the Marsico portfolio manager(s) responsible for making the day-to-day investment decisions for the Funds identified below. As described in the Management of the Fund – Primary Service Providers section of each Fund’s prospectuses, the Marsico portfolio manager(s) responsible for the Fund(s) are:

Portfolio Manager	Fund(s)
James G. Gendelman	Marsico Global Fund
	Marsico International Opportunities Fund
	Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Corydon J. Gilchrist, CFA	Marsico 21st Century Fund
	Marsico Global Fund
Thomas F. Marsico	Marsico Focused Equities Fund
	Marsico Global Fund
	Marsico Growth Fund
A. Douglas Rao	Marsico Focused Equities Fund
	Marsico Growth Fund

Marsico Portfolio Manager(s) Information

The following table provides information about the number and assets of other investment accounts (or portions of investment accounts) that the Marsico portfolio manager(s) managed, as of the end of each Fund’s most recent fiscal year, or as indicated, the most recent practicable date.

		Other Accounts Managed by the Marsico Portfolio Managers  (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially  Owned
For Funds with fiscal year ending February 28
Marsico 21st Century Fund	Corydon J. Gilchrist, CFAa	5 RICs 9 PIVs 10 other accounts	$4.927 billion $1.577 billion $1.6 billion	None	None

95

		Other Accounts Managed by the Marsico Portfolio Managers  (excluding the Fund)
Fund	Portfolio Manager	Number and Type of Account*	Approximate Total Net Assets	Performance Based Accounts	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Fund Beneficially  Owned
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	Thomas F. Marsicob	30 RICs 15 PIVs 136 other accounts	$16.402 billion $2.286 billion $13.613 billion	None	None
	A. Douglas Raoc	10 RICs 2 other accounts	$10.335 billion $4.757 billion	None	None
Marsico Global Fund	James G. Gendelman	20 RICs 8 PIVs 22 other accounts	$8.801 billion $1.238 billion $2.201 billion	None	None
	Corydon J. Gilchrist, CFAa	5 RICs 9 PIVs 10 other accounts	$4.927 billion $1.577 billion $1.6 billion	None	None
	Thomas F. Marsicob	30 RICs 15 PIVs 136 other accounts	$19.352 billion $2.286 billion $13.613 billion	None	None
Marsico Growth Fund	Thomas F. Marsicob	30 RICs 15 PIVs 136 other accounts	$15.647 billion $2.286 billion $13.613 billion	None	None
	A. Douglas Raoc	10 RICs 2 other accounts	$9.580 billion $4.757 billion	None	None
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	James G. Gendelman	20 RICs 8 PIVs 22 other accounts	$7.607 billion $1.238 billion $2.201 billion	None	None
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	James G. Gendelman	20 RICs 8 PIVs 22 other accounts	$8.062 billion $1.238 billion $2.201 billion	None	None

* RIC refers to a Registered Investment Company; PIV refers to a Pooled Investment Vehicle.

^a One of the “Other Accounts” is a wrap fee platform, which includes 2,357 of underlying clients with total assets of approximately $458 million and one of the “Other Accounts” represents a model portfolio with total assets of approximately $117 million.

^b One of the “Other Accounts” is a wrap fee platform, which includes 9,270 underlying clients with total assets of approximately $2,945 and two of the “Other Accounts” represent model portfolio with total assets of approximately $1.813 billion.

96

^c The “Other Accounts” are a wrap fee platform, which includes approximately 9,270 underlying clients with total assets of approximately $2.945 billion, and a model portfolio with total assets of approximately $1.812 billion.

Marsico Portfolio Manager(s) Compensation

The compensation package for portfolio managers of Marsico is structured as a combination of base salary (may be reevaluated at least annually), and periodic cash bonuses. Bonuses are typically based on a number of factors including Marsico’s overall profitability for the period. Portfolio manager compensation takes into account, among other factors, the overall performance of all accounts for which the portfolio manager provides investment advisory services. In receiving compensation such as bonuses, portfolio managers do not receive special consideration based on the performance of particular accounts, and do not receive compensation from accounts charging performance-based fees. Exceptional individual efforts are rewarded through salary readjustments and greater participation in the bonus pool. No other special employee incentive arrangements are currently in place or being planned. In addition to salary and bonus, portfolio managers may participate in other Marsico benefits to the same extent and on the same basis as other Marsico employees. Portfolio manager compensation comes solely from Marsico. In addition, Marsico’s portfolio managers typically are offered equity interests in Marsico Management Equity, LLC, which indirectly owns Marsico, and may receive distributions on those equity interests.

As a general matter, Marsico does not tie portfolio manager compensation to specific levels of performance relative to fixed benchmarks. Although performance may be a relevant consideration, comparisons with fixed benchmarks may not always be useful. Relevant benchmarks vary depending on specific investment styles and client guidelines or restrictions, and comparisons to benchmark performance may at times reveal more about market sentiment than about a portfolio manager’s abilities. To encourage a long-term horizon for managing portfolios, Marsico evaluates a portfolio manager’s performance over periods longer than the immediate compensation period, and may consider a variety of measures such as the performance of unaffiliated portfolios with similar strategies and other measurements. Other factors that may also be significant in determining portfolio manager compensation include, without limitation, the effectiveness of the manager’s leadership within Marsico’s investment team, contributions to Marsico’s overall performance, discrete securities analysis, idea generation, ability to support and train other analysts, and other considerations.

Marsico Portfolio Managers and Potential Conflicts of Interest

As a general matter, Marsico faces the same need to balance the interests of different clients that any investment adviser with multiple clients might experience. Portfolio managers make investment decisions for each portfolio based on the investment objectives, policies, practices and other relevant investment considerations that the managers believe are applicable to that portfolio. Consequently, portfolio managers may or may not purchase (or sell) securities for one portfolio and not another portfolio, or may take similar actions for different portfolios at different times. As a result, the mix of securities purchased in one portfolio may perform better than the mix of securities purchased for another portfolio. Similarly, the sale of securities from one portfolio may cause that portfolio to perform better than others if the value of those securities subsequently decline. The management of multiple accounts may result in a portfolio manager devoting unequal time and attention to the management of each account. Although Marsico does not track the time a portfolio manager spends on a single portfolio, it does assess whether a portfolio manager has adequate time and resources to effectively manage all of the accounts for which he is responsible. Marsico seeks to manage competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers.

The need to balance the interests of multiple clients may also arise when allocating and/or aggregating trades. Marsico often aggregates into a single trade order several individual contemporaneous client trade orders in a single security. Under Marsico’s Portfolio Management and Trade Management Policy and Procedures, when trades are aggregated on behalf of more than one account, Marsico seeks to allocate such trades to

97

participating client accounts in a fair and equitable manner. With respect to IPOs and other syndicated or limited offerings, it is Marsico’s policy to seek to ensure that over the long term, accounts with the same or similar investment objectives or strategies will receive an equitable opportunity to participate meaningfully and will not be unfairly disadvantaged. To deal with these situations, Marsico has adopted policies and procedures for allocating transactions across multiple accounts. Marsico’s policies also seek to ensure that portfolio managers do not systematically allocate other types of trades in a manner that would be more beneficial to one account than another. Marsico’s compliance department monitors transactions made on behalf of multiple clients to seek to ensure adherence to its policies.

Marsico has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that seek to minimize potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of a portfolio manager advising multiple accounts. In addition, Marsico monitors a variety of areas, including compliance with primary Fund guidelines, the allocation of securities, and compliance with its Code of Ethics.

The Administrator

Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (which is also the Adviser) serves as Administrator of the Funds.

Services Provided

Pursuant to the terms of the Administrative Services Agreement, the Administrator has agreed to provide all of the services and facilities necessary for, or appropriate to, the business and effective operation of each Fund that are not (a) provided by employees or other agents engaged by each Fund or (b) required to be provided by any person pursuant to any other agreement or arrangement with each Fund.

Administration Fee Rates Paid by the Funds

The Administrator receives fees as compensation for its services, which are computed daily and paid monthly, as set forth in the Administrative Services Agreement, and as shown in the section entitled Primary Service Providers – The Administrator in each Fund’s prospectuses.

The Previous Administrator received fees from the Funds for its services as reflected in the following charts, which show administration fees paid to and, as applicable waived/reimbursed by the Previous Administrator, for the three most recently completed fiscal years, except as otherwise indicated.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Convertible Securities Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	645,345	$	867,215	$	1,501,974
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Global Value Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	65,422	$	211,052	$	483,369
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	760,800	$	970,695	$	1,247,255
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

98

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Large Cap Index Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	2,231,508	$	2,238,144	$	2,721,298
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Large Cap Value Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	3,641,178	$	4,741,946	$	7,040,233
Amount Reimbursed		—	$	200,002	$	200,001
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Marsico 21st Century Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	8,603,983	$	15,005,283	$	15,184,769
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Marsico Global Fund***
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		N/A
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		N/A
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	2,706,440	$	5,232,450	$	7,047,989
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Mid Cap Index Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	1,474,963	$	1,534,088	$	1,983,318
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Mid Cap Value Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	6,437,740	$	6,836,190	$	7,040,843
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	2,340,535	$	3,345,352	$	4,370,355
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Overseas Value Fund***
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		N/A
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		N/A
Amount Waived		—		—		N/A
Small Cap Index Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	1,163,978	$	1,162,133	$	1,544,239
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Small Cap Value Fund II
Administration Fee Paid	$	1,916,545	$	1,901,446	$	1,229,303
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

* All amounts were paid to or waived/reimbursed by the Previous Administrator.

99

** Marsico Global Fund commenced operations in April 2008 and therefore paid no administration fees prior to that date.

*** Overseas Value Fund commenced operations on March 31, 2008 and therefore paid no administration fees prior to that date.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008*			Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007*
International Value Fund**
Administration Fee Paid	$	2,523,528	$	3,627,490	$	5,790,419		$	6,574,153
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—		—			—
Large Cap Core Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	1,646,222	$	1,967,356	$	1,820,111	***	$	1,907,360	***
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—		—			—
Marsico Focused Equities
Administration Fee Paid	$	6,259,486	$	8,469,821	$	5,370,916	***	$	5,095,728	***
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—		—			—
Marsico Growth Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	8,032,650	$	7,436,572	$	7,074,752	***	$	5,791,064	***
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—		—			—
Small Cap Growth Fund II
Administration Fee Paid	$	296,532	$	372,770	$	331,182	***	$	416,914	***
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—			—
Amount Waived		—		—		—			—

* All amounts were paid to or waived/reimbursed by the Previous Administrator.

** The Administration fees are paid at both the Master Portfolio- and Feeder Fund –levels; amounts shown above include only the portion paid at the Feeder Fund-level.

*** Prior to the Fund’s conversion from a feeder fund in a master/feeder structure to a stand-alone fund, the Administration fees were paid at both the Master Portfolio- and Feeder-Fund levels; amounts shown include only the portion paid at the Feeder-Fund level.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
Asset Allocation Fund II
Administration Fee Paid	$	56,172	$	68,070	$	103,492
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	258,160	$	264,344	$	163,661
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Corporate Bond Portfolio
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

100

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	141,447	$	133,545	$	115,028
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
High Income Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	1,610,648	$	1,462,420	$	1,581,588	**
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Administration Fee Paid	$	39,883	$	38,550	$	39,819
Amount Reimbursed	$	27,743	$	26,949	$	30,446
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	181,093	$	177,259	$	176,246
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Masters International Equity Portfolio
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio
Administration Fee Paid		—		—		—
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	234,514	$	212,808	$	193,432
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Short Term Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	2,556,779	$	1,550,851	$	1,165,896
Amount Reimbursed	$	97,492	$	241,564		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

101

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	2,935,466	$	1,071,138	$	511,659
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	235,422	$	242,696	$	199,829
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Total Return Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	1,803,180	$	2,099,443	$	2,638,964
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—
Virginia Municipal Bond Fund
Administration Fee Paid	$	411,604	$	408,177	$	395,351
Amount Reimbursed		—		—		—
Amount Waived		—		—		—

* All amounts were paid to or waived/reimbursed by the Previous Administrator.

** Prior to the Fund’s conversion from a feeder fund in a master/feeder structure to a stand-alone fund, the Administration fees were paid at both the Master Portfolio- and Feeder-Fund levels; amounts shown include only the portion paid at the Feeder Fund-level.

Pricing and Bookkeeping Services

State Street is responsible for providing certain pricing and bookkeeping services to the Funds. The Administrator is responsible for overseeing the performance of these services and for certain other services.

Services Provided

Effective December 15, 2006, the Trust entered into a Financial Reporting Services Agreement with State Street and the Previous Adviser (the Financial Reporting Services Agreement) pursuant to which State Street provides financial reporting services to the Funds. Also effective December 15, 2006, the Trust entered into an Accounting Services Agreement with State Street and the Previous Adviser (collectively with the Financial Reporting Services Agreement, the State Street Agreements) pursuant to which State Street provides accounting services to the Funds. Effective May 1, 2010, the State Street Agreements were amended to, among other things, assign and delegate the Previous Adviser’s rights and obligations under the State Street Agreements to the Administrator. Under the State Street Agreements, each Fund (except the Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Portfolios and Masters International Equity Portfolio) pays State Street an annual fee of $38,000 paid monthly plus an additional monthly fee based on an annualized percentage rate of average daily net assets of the Fund for the month. The aggregate fee for a Fund during any year shall not exceed $140,000 annually (exclusive of out-of-pocket expenses and charges). Each Fund (except the Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio and LifeGoal^® Portfolios), also reimburses State Street for certain out-of-pocket expenses and charges.

Under the State Street Agreements, LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio and Masters International Equity Portfolio pay State Street an annual fee of $26,000 paid monthly. LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio also reimburses State Street for certain out-of-pocket expenses and charges. Except for LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio, the LifeGoal^® Portfolios do not pay any separate fees for services rendered under the State Street Agreements, and, except for LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio, the fees for pricing and bookkeeping services incurred by the LifeGoal^® Portfolios are paid as part of the management fee.

102

Pursuant to an assumption agreement with the Adviser, Corporate Bond Portfolio and Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio do not pay separate fees for services rendered under the State Street Agreements and do not pay fees for pricing and bookkeeping services.

From December 15, 2006 through May 1, 2010, the Trust was party to a Pricing and Bookkeeping Oversight and Services Agreement (the Services Agreement) with the Previous Adviser. Under the Services Agreement, the Previous Adviser provided services related to Fund expenses and the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and provided oversight of the accounting and financial reporting services provided by State Street. Under the Services Agreement, each Fund reimbursed the Previous Adviser for out-of-pocket expenses and charges, including fees payable to third parties, such as for pricing the Funds’ portfolio securities, incurred by the Previous Adviser in the performance of services under the Services Agreement. Prior to January 1, 2008, the Funds also reimbursed the Previous Adviser for accounting oversight services and services related to Fund expenses and the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Effective May 1, 2010, the services previously provided by the Previous Adviser under the Services Agreement began to be provided by the Administrator under the Administrative Services Agreement, and the Services Agreement was terminated.

Pricing and Bookkeeping Fees Paid by the Funds

The Previous Adviser and State Street received fees from the Funds for their services as reflected in the following charts, which show the net pricing and bookkeeping fees paid to State Street and to the Previous Adviser for the three most recently completed fiscal years, except as otherwise indicated.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Convertible Securities Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	117,450	$	136,127	$	155,666
Global Value Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	59,373	$	72,500	$	101,627
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	117,947	$	129,888	$	142,326
Large Cap Index Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		—
Amount Paid to State Street		—		—		—
Large Cap Value Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	141,357	$	141,105	$	141,180
Marsico 21st Century Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	147,990	$	144,160	$	151,351
Marsico Global Fund**
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		N/A
Amount Paid to State Street	$	22,418	$	16,411		N/A
Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	151,423	$	150,412	$	151,942

103

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Mid Cap Index Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	145,331	$	145,519	$	145,051
Mid Cap Value Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	141,991	$	141,486	$	141,577
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	155,605	$	153,963	$	155,814
Overseas Value Fund***
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		N/A
Amount Paid to State Street	$	15,682	$	14,124		N/A
Small Cap Index Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		—
Amount Paid to State Street		—		—		—
Small Cap Value Fund II
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	11,588
Amount Paid to State Street	$	141,971	$	141,609	$	139,589

* All amounts “Paid to Adviser” were paid to the Previous Adviser.

** Marsico Global Fund commenced operations in April 2008 and therefore paid no pricing and bookkeeping fees prior to that date.

*** Overseas Value Fund commenced operations on March 31, 2008 and therefore paid no pricing and bookkeeping fees prior to that date.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007*
International Value Fund**
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	2,603		—
Amount Paid to State Street	$	38,000	$	38,000	$	34,835	$	38,000
Large Cap Core Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	2,603		—
Amount Paid to State Street	$	144,815	$	144,115	$	34,834	$	38,000
Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	2,603		—
Amount Paid to State Street	$	143,765	$	143,367	$	34,834	$	38,000
Marsico Growth Fund***
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	2,603		—
Amount Paid to State Street	$	143,813	$	60,038	$	38,309	$	38,000
Small Cap Growth Fund II
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	2,603		—
Amount Paid to State Street	$	89,209	$	100,308	$	34,834	$	38,000

* All amounts “Paid to Adviser” were paid to the Previous Adviser.

** The Pricing and Bookkeeping Fees are paid at both the Master Portfolio- and Feeder Fund-levels; amounts shown above include only the portion paid at the Feeder Fund-level.

*** Marsico Growth Fund converted from a feeder fund in a master/feeder structure to a stand-alone fund on November 10, 2008. All amounts shown prior to that date are only the portion that was paid at the Feeder Fund-level.

104

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
Asset Allocation Fund II
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	69,984	$	73,930	$	78,683
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	89,890	$	93,328	$	72,662
Corporate Bond Portfolio
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		—
Amount Paid to State Street		—		—		—
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	68,821	$	66,874	$	64,146
High Income Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	2,603
Amount Paid to State Street	$	169,120	$	159,698	$	46,793
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		—
Amount Paid to State Street		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		—
Amount Paid to State Street		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		—
Amount Paid to State Street		—		—		—
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	8,032
Amount Paid to State Street	$	26,283	$	26,128	$	26,000
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	74,271	$	73,866	$	73,668
Masters International Equity Portfolio
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	8,032
Amount Paid to State Street	$	26,284	$	26,151	$	23,027
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—		—
Amount Paid to State Street		—		—		—
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	84,310	$	77,582	$	76,676
Short Term Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	170,978	$	171,635	$	159,889

105

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	184,672	$	159,109	$	108,490
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	81,480	$	81,703	$	74,147
Total Return Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	187,866	$	191,276	$	198,744
Virginia Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid to Adviser		—		—	$	10,280
Amount Paid to State Street	$	107,431	$	105,618	$	103,264

* All amounts “Paid to Adviser” were paid to the Previous Adviser.

The Principal Underwriter/Distributor

Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc. (the Distributor) serves as the principal underwriter and distributor for the continuous offering of shares of the Funds pursuant to a Distribution Agreement. The Distribution Agreement obligates the Distributor to use appropriate efforts to find purchasers for the shares of the Funds. The Distributor’s address is: One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111.

Distribution Obligations

Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, the Distributor, as agent, sells shares of the Funds on a continuous basis and transmits purchase and redemption orders that it receives to the Trust or the Transfer Agent, or their designated agents. Additionally, the Distributor has agreed to use appropriate efforts to solicit orders for the sale of shares and to undertake advertising and promotion as it believes appropriate in connection with such solicitation. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, the Distributor, at its own expense, finances those activities which are primarily intended to result in the sale of shares of the Funds, including, but not limited to, advertising, compensation of underwriters, dealers and sales personnel, the printing and mailing of prospectuses to other than existing shareholders, and the printing and mailing of sales literature. The Distributor, however, may be compensated or reimbursed for all or a portion of such expenses to the extent permitted by a Distribution Plan adopted by the Trust pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act. See Investment Advisory and Other Services – Distribution and Servicing Plans for more information about the share classes for which the Trust has adopted a Distribution Plan.

See Investment Advisory and Other Services – Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates – Certain Conflicts of Interest for more information about conflicts of interest, including those that relate to the Adviser and its affiliates.

The Distribution Agreement became effective with respect to each Fund after approval by its Board, and, after an initial two-year period, continues from year to year, provided that such continuation of the Distribution Agreement is specifically approved at least annually by the Board, including its Independent Trustees. The Distribution Agreement terminates automatically in the event of its assignment, and is terminable with respect to each Fund at any time without penalty by the Trust (by vote of the Board or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund) or by the Distributor on 60 days’ written notice.

106

Underwriting Commissions Paid by the Funds

The Previous Distributor received commissions and other compensation for its services as reflected in the following charts, which show amounts paid to the Previous Distributor, as well as amounts the Previous Distributor retained, for the three most recently completed fiscal years, except as otherwise indicated.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Convertible Securities Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	44,314	$	45,753	$	112,195
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	6,663	$	7,725	$	19,691
Class B shares	$	15,863	$	64,574	$	117,174
Class C shares	$	141	$	2,957	$	4,789
Global Value Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	5	$	534	$	516
Amount Retained
Class A shares		—	$	77	$	74
Class B shares	$	2,301	$	15,805	$	22,822
Class C shares		—	$	58	$	368
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares		—		—		—
Amount Retained
Class A shares		—		—		—
Class R shares		—		—		—
Large Cap Index Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares		—		—		—
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	15	$	446		—
Class B shares	$	4,216	$	14,227		—
Large Cap Value Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	153,445	$	178,936	$	353,351
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	25,081	$	29,956	$	60,814
Class B shares	$	57,696	$	221,885	$	492,464
Class C shares	$	1,728	$	2,847	$	6,649
Marsico 21st Century Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	813,469	$	4,159,043	$	12,947,491
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	120,518	$	683,537	$	2,024,258
Class B shares	$	402,871	$	516,184	$	289,032
Class C shares	$	144,216	$	531,406	$	345,480

107

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Marsico Global Fund**
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	12,606	$	6,062		N/A
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	1,779	$	696		N/A
Class C shares	$	743	$	606		N/A
Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	69,193	$	302,677	$	895,581
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	10,762	$	54,459	$	172,178
Class B shares	$	38,709	$	72,437	$	46,425
Class C shares	$	4,361	$	20,577	$	18,926
Mid Cap Index Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares		—		—		—
Amount Retained
Class A shares		—		—		—
Mid Cap Value Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	267,654	$	770,465	$	2,497,114
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	45,628	$	127,913	$	404,357
Class B shares	$	88,854	$	191,561	$	281,240
Class C shares	$	20,739	$	82,583	$	69,456
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	13,134	$	29,574	$	56,978
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	2,007	$	4,955	$	10,323
Class B shares	$	1,146	$	2,895	$	4,383
Class C shares		—	$	155	$	794
Overseas Value Fund***
Amount Paid		—		—		N/A
Amount Retained		—		—		N/A
Small Cap Index Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares		—		—		—
Amount Retained
Class A shares		—		—		—

108

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008*
Small Cap Value Fund II
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	8,583	$	69,290	$	369,025
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	1,118	$	13,657	$	59,495
Class B shares	$	8,191	$	13,646	$	7,183
Class C shares	$	1,745	$	18,619	$	11,554

* All amounts were paid to or retained by the Previous Distributor.

** Marsico Global Fund commenced operations in April 2008 and therefore paid no underwriting commissions prior to that date.

*** Overseas Value Fund commenced operations on March 31, 2008 and therefore paid no underwriting commissions prior to that date.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007*
International Value Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	242,634	$	684	$	3,365	$	4,037
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	34,160	$	123	$	514	$	2,873
Class B shares	$	507	$	6,436	$	21,443	$	68,082
Class C shares	$	827	$	241	$	246	$	2,382
Large Cap Core Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	42,420	$	51,581	$	55,167	$	63,329
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	6,503	$	8,300	$	7,051	$	9,738
Class B shares	$	3,239	$	4,423	$	7,596	$	12,538
Class C shares	$	203	$	128	$	1,173	$	3
Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	264,977	$	416,549	$	789,688	$	1,182,320
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	44,751	$	70,078	$	120,841	$	181,454
Class B shares	$	118,597	$	207,952	$	205,714	$	390,545
Class C shares	$	24,741	$	58,825	$	57,001	$	76,216
Marsico Growth Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	341,752	$	577,560	$	1,548,919	$	1,901,364
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	66,515	$	93,405	$	219,479	$	293,009
Class B shares	$	119,246	$	215,743	$	130,863	$	223,664
Class C shares	$	43,937	$	157,908	$	105,184	$	145,140

109

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009*		Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007*
Small Cap Growth Fund II
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	21,406	$	38,170	$	64,488	$	66,395
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	12,949	$	3,046	$	6,108	$	10,204
Class B shares	$	1,948	$	6,115	$	11,977	$	21,722
Class C shares	$	551	$	795	$	1,423	$	513

* All amounts were paid to or retained by the Previous Distributor.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
Asset Allocation Fund II
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	18,211	$	23,096	$	40,023
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	2,904	$	3,460	$	6,401
Class B shares	$	502	$	6,156	$	4,775
Class C shares	$	12	$	350	$	115
Corporate Bond Portfolio
Amount Paid
Shares		—		—		—
High Income Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	159,763	$	109,439	$	193,929
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	19,213	$	18,628	$	23,028
Class B shares	$	28,742	$	70,082	$	154,792
Class C shares	$	5,225	$	4,660	$	4,914
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	707,466	$	824,098	$	1,678,950
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	112,738	$	132,234	$	288,116
Class B shares	$	220,799	$	479,481	$	556,817
Class C shares	$	6,080	$	56,297	$	30,593
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	357,761	$	619,512	$	1,467,904
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	54,808	$	99,409	$	252,171
Class B shares	$	109,835	$	230,340	$	294,499
Class C shares	$	6,240	$	14,107	$	28,334

110

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008*
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	161,707	$	248,920	$	376,066
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	27,891	$	45,674	$	63,391
Class B shares	$	43,762	$	137,664	$	125,774
Class C shares	$	2,141	$	9,112	$	7,352
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	12,780	$	20,370	$	28,029
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	1,355	$	1,738	$	2,616
Class B shares	$	6,709	$	5,919	$	11,651
Class C shares	$	145	$	1,609	$	26
Masters International Equity Portfolio
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	22,038	$	125,854	$	385,492
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	17,969	$	21,250	$	66,088
Class B shares	$	14,287	$	19,308	$	17,122
Class C shares	$	588	$	6,443	$	7,687
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio
Amount Paid
Shares		—		—		—
Short Term Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	243,246	$	70,381	$	10,094
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	99,958	$	19,312	$	2,260
Class B shares	$	4,116	$	2,819	$	4,984
Class C shares	$	33,731	$	14,417	$	1,919
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	338,947	$	163,550	$	145
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	262,334	$	56,320	$	32
Class B shares		—		—		—
Class C shares	$	30,159	$	4,996	$	203
Total Return Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	16,557	$	14,461	$	7,265
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	1,585	$	1,258	$	795
Class B shares	$	2,468	$	8,232	$	7,327
Class C shares	$	420	$	278	$	600

* All amounts were paid to or retained by the Previous Distributor.

111

Fund	Fiscal Period Ended March 31, 2010*		Fiscal Period Ended March 31, 2009*		Fiscal Period Ended March 31, 2008*
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	13,765	$	13,086	$	1,585
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	4,013	$	21,316	$	162
Class B shares	$	991	$	1,377	$	540
Class C shares	$	828	$	406		—
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	32,915	$	4,631	$	7,927
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	3,025	$	454	$	839
Class B shares	$	582		—	$	2,301
Class C shares	$	462		—		—
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	71,197	$	31,838	$	11,083
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	6,775	$	3,179	$	1,176
Class B shares	$	485	$	283	$	654
Class C shares		—		—		—
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	31,713	$	21,324	$	6,097
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	13,321	$	2,537	$	669
Class B shares	$	713	$	229	$	2,893
Class C shares	$	409		—	$	263
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	53,622	$	18,959	$	4,052
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	24,755	$	7,258	$	345
Class B shares		—		—	$	1,134
Class C shares	$	322	$	141	$	1,210
Virginia Municipal Bond Fund
Amount Paid
Class A shares	$	28,594	$	22,633	$	21,118
Amount Retained
Class A shares	$	3,230	$	2,300	$	2,173
Class B shares	$	698	$	97	$	1.746
Class C shares	$	970	$	947	$	21

* All amounts were paid to or retained by the Previous Distributor.

112

Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates – Certain Conflicts of Interest

As described above in the Investment Advisory and Other Services section of this SAI, and in the Management of the Fund – Primary Service Providers section of each Fund’s prospectuses, the Adviser, Administrator, Distributor and Transfer Agent, all affiliates of Ameriprise Financial, receive compensation from the Funds for the various services they provide to the Funds. Additional information as to the specific terms regarding such compensation is set forth in these affiliated service providers’ contracts with the Funds, each of which typically is included as an exhibit to Part C of each Fund’s registration statement.

In many instances, the compensation paid to the Adviser and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates for the services they provide to the Funds is based, in some manner, on the size of the Funds’ assets under management. As the size of the Funds’ assets under management grows, so does the amount of compensation paid to the Adviser and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates for providing services to the Funds. This relationship between Fund assets and affiliated service provider compensation may create economic and other conflicts of interests of which Fund investors should be aware. These potential conflicts of interest, as well as additional ones, are discussed in detail below and also are addressed in other disclosure materials, including the Funds’ prospectuses. These conflicts of interest also are highlighted in account documentation and other disclosure materials of Ameriprise Financial affiliates that make available or offer the Columbia Funds as investments in connection with their respective products and services. In addition, Part 1A of the Adviser’s Form ADV, which it must file with the SEC as an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, provides information about the Adviser’s business, assets under management, affiliates and potential conflicts of interest. Part 1A of the Adviser’s Form ADV is available online through the SEC’s website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov.

Additional actual or potential conflicts of interest and certain investment activity limitations that could affect the Funds may arise from the financial services activities of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, including, for example, the investment advisory/management services provided for clients and customers other than the Funds. In this regard, Ameriprise Financial is a major financial services company. Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates are engaged in a wide range of financial activities beyond the mutual fund-related activities of the Adviser, including, among others, broker/dealer (sales and trading), asset management, insurance and other financial activities. The broad range of financial services activities of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates may involve multiple advisory, transactional, lending, financial and other interests in securities and other instruments, and in companies, that may be bought, sold or held by the Funds. The following describes certain actual and potential conflicts of interest that may be presented.

Actual and Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to the Investment Advisory/Management Activities of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates in Connection With Other Advised/Managed Funds and Accounts

The Adviser and other affiliates of Ameriprise Financial may advise or manage funds and accounts other than the Funds. In this regard, Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates may provide investment advisory/management and other services to other advised/managed funds and accounts that are similar to those provided to the Funds. The Adviser and Ameriprise Financial’s other investment adviser affiliates (including, for example, Columbia Wanger Asset Management, LLC) will give advice to and make decisions for all advised/managed funds and accounts, including the Funds, as they believe to be in that fund’s and/or account’s best interests, consistent with their fiduciary duties. The Funds and the other advised/managed funds and accounts of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates are separately and potentially divergently managed, and there is no assurance that any investment advice Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates give to other advised/managed funds and accounts will also be given simultaneously or otherwise to the Funds.

A variety of other actual and potential conflicts of interest may arise from the advisory relationships of the Adviser and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates with other clients and customers. Advice given to the Funds and/or investment decisions made for the Funds by the Adviser or other Ameriprise Financial affiliates may differ from, or may conflict with, advice given to and/or investment decisions made for other advised/managed

113

funds and accounts. As a result, the performance of the Funds may differ from the performance of other funds or accounts advised/managed by the Adviser or other Ameriprise Financial affiliates. Similarly, a position taken by Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, including the Adviser, on behalf of other funds or accounts may be contrary to a position taken on behalf of the Funds. Moreover, Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, including the Adviser, may take a position on behalf of other advised/managed funds and accounts, or for their own proprietary accounts, that is adverse to companies or other issuers in which the Funds are invested. For example, the Funds may hold equity securities of a company while another advised/managed fund or account may hold debt securities of the same company. If the portfolio company were to experience financial difficulties, it might be in the best interest of the Funds for the company to reorganize while the interests of the other advised/managed fund or account might be better served by the liquidation of the company. This type of conflict of interest could arise as the result of circumstances that cannot be generally foreseen within the broad range of investment advisory/management activities in which Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates engage.

Investment transactions made on behalf of other funds or accounts advised/managed by the Adviser or other Ameriprise Financial affiliates also may have a negative effect on the value, price or investment strategies of the Funds. For example, this could occur if another advised/managed fund or account implements an investment decision ahead of, or at the same time as, the Funds and causes the Funds to experience less favorable trading results than they otherwise would have experienced based on market liquidity factors. In addition, the other funds and accounts advised/managed by the Adviser and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates, including the other Columbia Funds, may have the same or very similar investment objective and strategies as the Funds. In this situation, the allocation of, and competition for, investment opportunities among the Funds and other funds and/or accounts advised/managed by the Adviser or other Ameriprise Financial affiliates may create conflicts of interest especially where, for example, limited investment availability is involved. The Adviser has adopted policies and procedures addressing the allocation of investment opportunities among the Funds and other funds and accounts advised by the Adviser and other affiliates of Ameriprise Financial. For more information, see Investment Advisory and Other Services – The Adviser and Investment Advisory Services – Portfolio Manager(s) – The Adviser’s Portfolio Managers and Potential Conflicts of Interests.

Sharing of Information among Advised/Managed Accounts

Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates also may possess information that could be material to the management of a Fund and may not be able to, or may determine not to, share that information with the Fund, even though the information might be beneficial to the Fund. This information may include actual knowledge regarding the particular investments and transactions of other advised/managed funds and accounts, as well as proprietary investment, trading and other market research, analytical and technical models, and new investment techniques, strategies and opportunities. Depending on the context, Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates generally will have no obligation to share any such information with the Funds. In general, employees of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, including the portfolio managers of the Adviser, will make investment decisions without regard to information otherwise known by other employees of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, and generally will have no obligation to access any such information and may, in some instances, not be able to access such information because of legal and regulatory constraints or the internal policies and procedures of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates. For example, if the Adviser or another Ameriprise Financial affiliate, or their respective employees, come into possession of non-public information regarding another advised/managed fund or account, they may be prohibited by legal and regulatory constraints, or internal policies and procedures, from using that information in connection with transactions made on behalf of the Funds. For more information, see Investment Advisory and Other Services – The Adviser and Investment Advisory Services – Portfolio Manager(s) – The Adviser’s Portfolio Managers and Potential Conflicts of Interests.

Soft Dollar Benefits

Certain products and services, commonly referred to as “soft dollar services” (including, to the extent permitted by law, research reports, economic and financial data, financial publications, proxy analysis, computer

114

databases and other research-oriented materials), that the Adviser may receive in connection with brokerage services provided to a Fund may have the inadvertent effect of disproportionately benefiting other advised/managed funds or accounts. This could happen because of the relative amount of brokerage services provided to a Fund as compared to other advised/managed funds or accounts, as well as the relative compensation paid by a Fund.

Services Provided to Other Advised/Managed Accounts

Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates also may act as an investment adviser, investment manager, administrator, transfer agent, custodian, trustee, broker/dealer, agent, or in another capacity, for advised/managed funds and accounts other than the Funds, and may receive compensation for acting in such capacity. This compensation that the Adviser, Distributor and Transfer Agent and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates receive could be greater than the compensation Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates receive for acting in the same or similar capacity for the Funds. In addition, the Adviser, Distributor and Transfer Agent and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates may receive other benefits, including enhancement of new or existing business relationships. This compensation and/or the benefits that Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates may receive from other advised/managed funds and accounts and other relationships could potentially create incentives to favor other advised/managed funds and accounts over the Funds. Trades made by Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates for the Funds may be, but are not required to be, aggregated with trades made for other funds and accounts advised/managed by the Adviser and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates. If trades are aggregated among the Funds and those other funds and accounts, the various prices of the securities being traded may be averaged, which could have the potential effect of disadvantaging the Funds as compared to the other funds and accounts with which trades were aggregated.

Proxy Voting

Although the Adviser endeavors to make all proxy voting decisions with respect to the interests of the Funds for which it is responsible in accordance with its proxy voting policies and procedures, the Adviser’s proxy voting decisions with respect to a Fund’s portfolio securities may nonetheless benefit other advised/managed funds and accounts, and/or clients, of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates. The Adviser has adopted proxy voting policies and procedures that are designed to provide that all proxy voting is done in the best interests of its clients, including the Funds, without any resulting benefit or detriment to the Adviser and/or its affiliates, including Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates. For more information about the Adviser’s proxy voting policies and procedures, see Investment Advisory and Other Services – Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Certain Trading Activities

The directors/trustees, officers and employees of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates may buy and sell securities or other investments for their own accounts, and in doing so may take a position that is adverse to the Funds. In order to reduce the possibility that such personal investment activities of the directors/trustees, officers and employees of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates will materially adversely affect the Funds, Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates have adopted policies and procedures, and the Funds, the Board, the Adviser and the Distributor have each adopted a Code of Ethics that addresses such personal investment activities. For more information, see Investment Advisory and Other Services – Codes of Ethics.

Affiliate Transactions

Subject to applicable legal and regulatory requirements, a Fund may enter into transactions in which Ameriprise Financial and/or its affiliates, or companies that are deemed to be affiliates of a Fund because of, among other factors, their or their affiliates’ ownership or control of shares of the Fund, may have an interest that potentially conflicts with the interests of the Fund. For example, an affiliate of Ameriprise Financial may sell securities to a Fund from an offering in which it is an underwriter or that it owns as a dealer, subject to applicable

115

legal and regulatory requirements. Applicable legal and regulatory requirements also may prevent a Fund from engaging in transactions with an affiliate of the Fund, which may include Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, or from participating in an investment opportunity in which an affiliate of a Fund participates.

Certain Investment Limitations

Regulatory and other restrictions may limit a Fund’s investment activities in various ways. For example, regulations regarding certain industries and markets, such as emerging or international markets, and certain transactions, such as those involving certain futures and derivatives as well as restrictions applicable to certain issuers (e.g., poison pills), may impose limits on the aggregate amount of investments that may be made by affiliated investors, including accounts owned or managed by the same or affiliated managers, in the aggregate or in individual issuers. In these circumstances, the Adviser may be prevented from acquiring securities for a Fund that it might otherwise prefer to acquire if the acquisition would cause the Fund and its affiliated investors to exceed an applicable limit. These types of regulatory and other applicable limits are complex and vary significantly in different contexts including, among others, from country to country, industry to industry and issuer to issuer. The Adviser has procedures in place designed to monitor potential conflicts arising from regulatory and other limits. Nonetheless, given the complexity of these limits, the Adviser and its affiliates may inadvertently breach these limits, and a Fund may therefore be required to sell securities that it might otherwise prefer to hold in order to comply with such limits. At certain times, a Fund may be restricted in its investment activities because of relationships that an affiliate of the Fund, which may include Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, may have with the issuers of securities. This could happen, for example, if a Fund desired to buy a security issued by a company for which Ameriprise Financial or an affiliate serves as underwriter. The internal policies and procedures of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates covering these types of restrictions and addressing similar issues also may at times restrict a Fund’s investment activities. See also About the Funds’ Investments – Certain Investment Activity Limits.

Actual and Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates’ Non-Advisory Relationships with Clients and Customers other than the Funds

The financial relationships that Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates may have with companies and other entities in which a Fund may invest can give rise to actual and potential conflicts of interest. Subject to applicable legal and regulatory requirements, a Fund may invest (a) in the securities of Ameriprise Financial and/or its affiliates and/or in companies in which Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates have an equity, debt or other interest, and/or (b) in the securities of companies held by other Columbia Funds. The purchase, holding and sale of such securities by a Fund may enhance the profitability and the business interests of Ameriprise Financial and/or its affiliates and/or other Columbia Funds. There also may be limitations as to the sharing with the Adviser of information derived from the non-investment advisory/management activities of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates because of legal and regulatory constraints and internal policies and procedures (such as information barriers and ethical walls). Because of these limitations, Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates generally will not share information derived from its non-investment advisory/management activities with the Adviser.

Actual and Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Ameriprise Financial Affiliates’ Marketing and Use of the Columbia Funds as Investment Options

Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates also provide a variety of products and services that, in some manner, may utilize the Columbia Funds as investment options. For example, the Columbia Funds may be offered as investments in connection with brokerage and other securities products offered by Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, and may be utilized as investments in connection with fiduciary, investment management and other accounts offered by affiliates of Ameriprise Financial, as well as for other Columbia Funds structured as “funds of funds.” The use of the Columbia Funds in connection with other products and services offered by Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates may introduce economic and other conflicts of interest. These conflicts of interest are highlighted in account documentation and other disclosure materials for the other products and services offered by Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates.

116

Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, including the Adviser, may make payments to their affiliates in connection with the promotion and sale of the Funds’ shares, in addition to the sales-related and other compensation that these parties may receive from the Funds. As a general matter, personnel of Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates, do not receive compensation in connection with their sales or use of the Funds that is greater than that paid in connection with their sales of other comparable products and services. Nonetheless, because the compensation that the Adviser and other affiliates of Ameriprise Financial may receive for providing services to the Funds is generally based on the Funds’ assets under management and those assets will grow as shares of the Funds are sold, potential conflicts of interest may exist. See Brokerage Allocation and Other Practices – Additional Financial Intermediary Payments for more information.

Other Services Provided

The Transfer Agent

Columbia Management Investment Services Corp. (formerly, RiverSource Service Corporation) is the transfer agent for the Funds. The Transfer Agent is located at One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111. Under the Transfer Agency Agreement, the Transfer Agent provides transfer agency, dividend disbursing agency and shareholder servicing agency services to the Funds. Effective September 7, 2010, the Funds, except for Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio, and LifeGoal^® Income and Growth Portfolio, pay the Transfer Agent an annual transfer agency fee of $12.08 per account, payable monthly for all share classes, except for Class I shares, and, prior to September 7, 2010, paid the Transfer Agent (and, prior to May 1, 2010, the Previous Transfer Agent) an annual transfer agency fee of $22.36 per account, payable monthly.

In addition, effective September 7, 2010, the Funds, except for Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio, and LifeGoal^® Income and Growth Portfolio, reimburse the Transfer Agent for the fees and expenses the Transfer Agent pays to financial intermediaries that maintain omnibus accounts with the Funds in an annual amount equal to 0.20% of the average aggregate value of the Fund’s shares maintained in such omnibus accounts (other than omnibus accounts for which American Enterprise Investment Services, Inc. is the broker of record or accounts where the beneficial owner is a customer of Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., for which the Transfer Agent is reimbursed $16.00 annually, calculated monthly based on the total number of positions in such accounts at the end of such month) for all share classes, except for Class I, Class R4, and Class Y shares. For Class R4 shares, the Funds, except for Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio, and LifeGoal^® Income and Growth Portfolio, reimburse the Transfer Agent for the fees and expenses the Transfer Agent pays to financial intermediaries that maintain omnibus accounts with the Funds subject to an annual limitation of 0.05% of the net assets attributable to such shares. Prior to September 7, 2010, the Funds, except for Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio, and LifeGoal^® Income and Growth Portfolio, reimbursed the Transfer Agent (and, prior to May 1, 2010, the Previous Transfer Agent) for the fees and expenses the Transfer Agent paid to financial intermediaries that maintained omnibus accounts with the Funds, subject to a cap of up to $22.36 per account for financial intermediaries that sought payment by the Transfer Agent on a per account basis and a cap equal to 0.15% of a Fund’s net assets represented by such an account for financial intermediaries that sought payment by the Transfer Agent based on a percentage of net assets.

The Funds, except for Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio, and LifeGoal^® Income and Growth Portfolio, also pay certain reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses of the Transfer Agent. The Transfer Agent also may retain as additional compensation for its services revenues for fees for wire, telephone and redemption orders, IRA trustee agent fees and account transcripts due the Transfer Agent from Fund shareholders and credits (net of bank charges) earned with respect to balances in accounts the Transfer Agent maintains in connection with its services to the Funds.

117

For the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009, the Previous Transfer Agent was paid an annual transfer agency fee of $17.34 per account, payable monthly. In addition, the Previous Transfer Agent was paid for the fees and expenses the Previous Transfer Agent paid to third party dealer firms that maintained omnibus accounts with certain of the Funds, subject to a cap equal to 0.15% of a Fund’s net assets represented by the account. For the period April 1, 2006 through December 31, 2007, the Previous Transfer Agent was paid an annual fee of $17.00 per account, payable monthly. For the period November 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006, the Previous Transfer Agent was paid an annual fee of $15.23 per account, payable monthly. For the period September 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, the Previous Transfer Agent was entitled to reimbursement by certain Funds for the fees and expenses that the Previous Transfer Agent paid to dealer firms or transfer agents that maintained omnibus accounts with such Funds, subject to a cap equal to 0.11% of a Fund’s net assets represented by the account.

The Funds that offer Class R4 shares have a Plan Administration Services Agreement with the Transfer Agent. Under the agreement, the Funds pay for plan administration services, including services such as implementation and conversion services, account set-up and maintenance, reconciliation and account recordkeeping, education services and administration to various plan types, including 529 plans, retirement plans and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The fee for services is equal on an annual basis to 0.25% of the average daily net assets of each Fund attributable to Class R4 shares.

Transfer agency costs for each Fund are calculated separately for each of (i) Class Y shares, (ii) Class R4 shares and (iii) all other share classes (except Class I shares, which pay no transfer agency fees). The fees paid to the Transfer Agent may be changed by the Board without shareholder approval.

The Transfer Agent retains BFDS/DST, 2 Heritage Drive, North Quincy, MA 02171 as the Funds’ sub-transfer agent. BFDS/DST assists the Transfer Agent in carrying out its duties.

The Custodian

State Street, which is located at State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 02111, is the Funds’ Custodian. State Street is responsible for safeguarding the Funds’ cash and securities, receiving and delivering securities and collecting the Funds’ interest and dividends.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, which is located at 125 High Street, Boston, MA 02110, is the Funds’ independent registered public accounting firm. The Funds issue unaudited financial statements semi-annually and audited financial statements annually. The financial statements for the fiscal years ended on or after March 31, 2010 contained in a Fund’s Annual Report were audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The Board has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Funds’ books and review their tax returns for the fiscal years ended on or after March 31, 2011.

The Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and the audited financial statements are included in the annual reports to shareholders of the Funds, and are incorporated herein by reference. No other parts of the annual reports or semi-annual reports to shareholders are incorporated by reference herein. The financial statements incorporated by reference into the Funds’ prospectuses and this SAI have been so incorporated in reliance upon the report of the independent registered public accounting firm, given on its authority as an expert in auditing and accounting.

Counsel

Goodwin Procter LLP serves as legal counsel to the Trust. Its address is 901 New York Avenue N.W., Washington, DC, 20001.

118

Distribution and Servicing Plans

The Trust has adopted distribution and/or shareholder servicing plans for the Class B shares, Class C shares, Class R shares, Class R4 shares and Class W shares of the Funds and a combined shareholder servicing and distribution plan for Class A shares. See Capital Stock and Other Securities for information about which Funds offer which classes of shares. The Funds no longer accept investments from new or existing investors in Class B shares, except for certain limited transactions from existing investors in any such shares. See the prospectuses for Class B shares of the Funds for details.

The table below shows the annual distribution and/or services fees (payable monthly and calculated based on an annual percentage of average daily net assets) and the combined amount of such fees applicable to each share class:

	Distribution Fee		Service Fee		Combined Total
Class A	none		none		0.25	%*
Class B	0.75	%	0.25	%	1.00	%
Class C	0.75	%	0.25	%	1.00	%a
Class I	none		none		none
Class R	0.50	%	—	b	0.50	%
Class R4	none		0.25	%c	0.25	%c
Class W	0.25	%	0.25	%	0.25	%
Class Y	none		none		none
Class Z	none		none		none

* The Funds pay a combined distribution and service fee pursuant to their combined shareholder servicing and distribution plan for Class A shares.

^a The Distributor has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the distribution fee for Class C shares of Short Term Bond Fund so that the distribution fee does not exceed 0.31% annually and the combined distribution and service fee does not exceed 0.56% annually. This arrangement may be modified or terminated by the Distributor at any time.

^b Class R shares pay a distribution fee pursuant to a Fund’s distribution (Rule 12b-1) plan for Class R shares. The Funds do not have a shareholder service plan for Class R shares.

^c The shareholder service fees for Class R4 shares are not paid pursuant to a 12b-1 plan. Under a Plan Administration Services Agreement, the Funds’ Class R4 shares pay for plan administration services, including services such as implementation and conversion services, account set-up. and maintenance, reconciliation and account recordkeeping, education services and administration to various plan types, including 529 plans, retirement plans and health savings accounts.

The shareholder servicing plans permit the Funds to compensate or reimburse servicing agents for the shareholder services they have provided. The distribution plans, adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, permit the Funds to compensate or reimburse the Distributor and/or selling agents for activities or expenses primarily intended to result in the sale of the classes’ shares. Payments are made at an annual rate and paid monthly, as a percentage of average daily net assets, set from time to time by the Board, and are charged as expenses of each Fund directly to the applicable share class. A substantial portion of the expenses incurred pursuant to these plans may be paid to affiliates of the Distributor and Ameriprise Financial.

Under the shareholder servicing plan, the Board must review, at least quarterly, a written report of the amounts paid under the servicing agreements and the purposes for which those expenditures were made. The initial term of the shareholder servicing plan is one year and it will continue in effect from year to year after its initial one-year term provided that its continuance is specifically approved at least annually by a majority of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees who have no direct or indirect financial interest in the operation of the shareholder servicing plan or in any agreement related to it. Any material amendment to the

119

shareholder servicing plan must be approved in the same manner. The shareholder servicing plan is terminable at any time with respect to the Funds by a vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees.

The Trustees believe the distribution plans could be a significant factor in the growth and retention of a Fund’s assets resulting in more advantageous expense ratios and increased investment flexibility which could benefit each class of Fund shareholders. The distribution plans will continue in effect from year to year so long as continuance is specifically approved at least annually by a vote of the Trustees, including the Independent Trustees. The distribution plans may not be amended to increase the fee materially without approval by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the relevant class of shares, and all material amendments of the distribution plans must be approved by the Trustees in the manner provided in the foregoing sentence. The distribution plans may be terminated at any time by vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the relevant class of shares.

Distribution and Service Fees Paid by the Funds

The Previous Distributor received distribution and service fees from the Funds for its services as reflected in the following charts, which show distribution and service fees paid to and waived by the Previous Distributor for the most recently completed fiscal year, except as otherwise indicated. The Trust is not aware as to what amount, if any, of the distribution and service fees paid to the Distributor and Previous Distributor were, on a Fund-by-Fund basis, used for advertising, printing and mailing of prospectuses to other than current shareholders, compensation to broker-dealers, compensation to sales personnel, or interest, carrying or other financing charges. Class Y shares and Class Z shares do not pay distribution and service fees.

Distribution and Services Fees Paid by the Funds for the Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010*

Fund	Class A Shares		Class B Shares		Class C Shares		Class R Shares
Convertible Securities Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	452,015		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	217,252	$	151,485	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	72,417	$	50,495	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—	N/A
Global Value Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	43,756		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	60,336	$	175,288	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	20,112	$	58,429	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—	N/A
International Value Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	839,422		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	117,908	$	471,362	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	39,414	$	157,299	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—	N/A

120

Fund	Class A Shares		Class B Shares		Class C Shares		Class R Shares
Large Cap Core Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	308,472		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	25,822	$	16,769		N/A
Service Fee		—	$	8,610	$	5,586		N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	29,925		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—		N/A		N/A	$	365
Service Fee		—		N/A		N/A		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		N/A		N/A		—
Large Cap Index Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	450,571		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	28,498		N/A		N/A
Service Fee		—	$	9,500		N/A		N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		N/A		N/A
Large Cap Value Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	2,116,593		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	931,465	$	278,193	$	1,043
Service Fee		—	$	310,488	$	92,731		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—
Marsico 21st Century Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	5,312,864		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	865,694	$	5,219,447	$	229,926
Service Fee		—	$	288,564	$	1,739,815		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—
Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	3,765,167		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	520,025	$	2,265,084		N/A
Service Fee		—	$	173,342	$	755,028		N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A
Marsico Global Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	4,057		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—		N/A	$	8,834	$	4,318
Service Fee		—		N/A	$	2,945		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		N/A		—		—
Marsico Growth Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	4,043,631		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	377,764	$	3,184,187	$	65,356
Service Fee		—	$	125,921	$	1,061,396		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—

121

Fund	Class A Shares		Class B Shares		Class C Shares		Class R Shares
Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	554,223		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	141,837	$	353,171	$	15,664
Service Fee		—	$	47,279	$	117,724		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—
Mid Cap Index Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	297,022		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—		N/A		N/A		N/A
Service Fee		—		N/A		N/A		N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		N/A		N/A		N/A
Mid Cap Value Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	3,275,124		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	555,246	$	1,337,147	$	1,054,475
Service Fee		—	$	183,887	$	443,036		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	58,172		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	9,896	$	13,300	$	992
Service Fee		—	$	3,299	$	4,433		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—
Overseas Value Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—		N/A		—		—
Service Fee		—		N/A		—		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—
Small Cap Growth Fund II
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	295,265		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	27,741	$	19,673		N/A
Service Fee		—	$	9,242	$	6,551		N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A
Small Cap Index Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	166,219		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—		N/A		N/A		N/A
Service Fee		—		N/A		N/A		N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		N/A		N/A		N/A
Small Cap Value Fund II
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	869,827		N/A		N/A		N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	22,185	$	188,396	$	103,273
Service Fee		—	$	7,388	$	62,797		—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—

* All amounts were paid to or waived by the Previous Distributor.

122

Distribution and Services Fees Paid by the Funds for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010*

Fund	Class A Shares		Class B Shares		Class C Shares		Class R Shares		Shares
Asset Allocation Fund II
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	169,852		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	17,494	$	5,233		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	5,831	$	1,744		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	43,341		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	1,855	$	11,515		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	618	$	3,839		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A
Corporate Bond Portfolio
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	—
Service Fee		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	—
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	43,782		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	9,036	$	22,158		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	3,015	$	7,386		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A
High Income Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	248,940		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	280,926	$	168,507		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	93,642	$	56,169		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	546,946		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	1,354,042	$	596,938	$	9,178	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	451,347	$	198,979		—	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—	N/A
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	391,736		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	671,947	$	471,008	$	6,656	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	223,982	$	157,003		—	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—	N/A

123

Fund	Class A Shares		Class B Shares		Class C Shares		Class R Shares		Shares
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	136,936		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	322,250	$	161,951	$	2,344	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	107,417	$	54,049		—	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—	N/A
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	33,338		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	56,642	$	41,333		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	18,891	$	13,781		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	64,534		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	11,470	$	19,721		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	3,828	$	6,571		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A
Masters International Equity Portfolio
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	138,968		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	29,802	$	82,039	$	150	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	9,938	$	27,350		—	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		—	N/A
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	—
Service Fee		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	—
Fees Waived by the Distributor		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A	—
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	71,879		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	12,236	$	28,699		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	4,079	$	9,566		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A
Short Term Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	467,584		N/A		N/A		N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	76,368	$	532,171		N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	25,456	$	177,390		N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—		N/A	N/A

124

Fund	Class A Shares		Class B Shares		Class C Shares		Class R Shares	Shares
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	940,719		N/A		N/A	N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	3,281	$	381,034	N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	1,094	$	127,022	N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—	N/A	N/A
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	58,148		N/A		N/A	N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	12,402	$	58,377	N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	4,126	$	19,458	N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—	N/A	N/A
Total Return Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	48,959		N/A		N/A	N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	35,210	$	29,886	N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	11,737	$	9,962	N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—	N/A	N/A
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Combined Shareholder Servicing and Distribution Fee	$	127,074		N/A		N/A	N/A	N/A
Distribution Fee		—	$	14,232	$	16,153	N/A	N/A
Service Fee		—	$	4,759	$	5,385	N/A	N/A
Fees Waived by the Distributor		—		—		—	N/A	N/A

* All amounts were paid to or waived by the Previous Distributor.

The Distributor may use the entire amount of its fees to defray the costs of commissions and service fees paid to selling and/or servicing agents and for certain other purposes. Since the distribution and service fees are payable regardless of the Distributor’s expenses, the Distributor may realize a profit from the fees. The distribution plans authorize any other payments by the Funds to the Distributor and its affiliates (including the Adviser) to the extent that such payments might be construed to be indirectly financing the distribution of a Fund’s shares. There were no unreimbursed expenses incurred under the distribution plans in the previous fiscal year to be carried over to the current fiscal year.

The Funds participate in joint distribution activities with other Columbia Funds. The fees paid under a distribution plan adopted by a Fund may be used to finance the distribution of the shares of other Columbia Funds. Such distribution costs are allocated based on the relative net asset size of the respective Funds.

Expense Limitations

The Adviser has voluntarily agreed to reimburse a portion of the Funds’ expenses so that the Funds’ ordinary operating expenses (excluding any distribution and service fees, brokerage commissions, interest, taxes

125

and extraordinary expenses, but including custodian charges relating to overdrafts, if any) after giving effect to any balance credits from the Funds’ custodian, do not exceed the following percentages:

Fund	Expenses as a Percent of Average Daily Net Assets on an  Annualized Basis
For Funds with fiscal year ended February 28
Convertible Securities Fund	0.95	%
Global Value Fund*	1.35	%
International Value Fund	1.35	%
Large Cap Core Fund	1.00	%
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund*	0.70	%
Large Cap Index Fund*	0.14	%
Large Cap Value Fund	1.00	%
Marsico 21st Century Fund	1.20	%
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	1.20	%
Marsico Global Fund	N/A
Marsico Growth Fund	1.20	%
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	1.50	%
Mid Cap Index Fund	0.20	%
Mid Cap Value Fund	1.05	%
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	1.35	%
Overseas Value Fund	1.35	%
Small Cap Growth Fund II*	1.10	%
Small Cap Index Fund*	0.20	%
Small Cap Value Fund II*	1.10	%

Fund	Expenses as a Percent of Average Daily Net Assets on an  Annualized Basis
For Funds with fiscal year ended March 31
Asset Allocation Fund II	0.95	%
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund*	0.55	%
Corporate Bond Portfolio	N/A
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund*	0.55	%
High Income Fund	1.00	%
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	N/A
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	N/A
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	N/A
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	N/A
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund*	0.55	%
Masters International Equity Portfolio	0.00	%
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio	N/A
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund*	0.55	%
Short Term Bond Fund	0.48	%
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund*	0.50	%
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund*	0.55	%
Total Return Bond Fund*	0.70	%
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund*	0.55	%

* The Adviser is entitled to recover from the Fund any fees waived or expenses reimbursed for a three year period following the date of such waiver or reimbursement if such recovery does not cause the Fund’s expenses to exceed the expense limitations in effect at the time of recovery.

126

These arrangements may be modified or terminated by the Adviser at any time.

For Short Term Bond Fund, the Distributor has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the distribution fee for Class C shares so that it does not exceed 0.31% annually. This arrangement may be modified or terminated by the Distributor at any time.

Advisory Fee Waiver for Certain Funds – Period ending June 30, 2011

The Adviser has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the investment advisory fee for Marsico 21st Century Fund, Marsico Focused Equities Fund, Marsico International Opportunities Fund, Marsico Growth Fund and Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund through June 30, 2011 in an amount that is calculated based on the difference between the subadvisory fees that would have been payable to Marsico based on the subadvisory fee rates then in effect immediately prior to January 1, 2008 and the fees payable to Marsico under the current subadvisory fee rates. See Investment Advisory and Other Services – The Subadviser(s) and Investment Subadvisory Services for information on the subadvisory fee rates.

Advisory Fee Waiver for LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio – Period ending July 31, 2011

The Adviser has contractually agreed to reimburse a portion of LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio’s expenses through July 31, 2011 so that the Portfolio’s ordinary operating expenses (excluding any distribution and service fees, brokerage commissions, interest, taxes and extraordinary expenses, and expenses associated with the Portfolio’s investments in other investment companies, but including custodian charges relating to overdrafts, if any), after giving effect to any balance credits from the Portfolio’s custodian, do not exceed the following percentages:

Portfolio	Expenses as a Percent of Average Daily Net Assets on an Annualized Basis
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio (Portfolio-level commitment)	0.42	%

Advisory/Administration Fee Waivers for LifeGoal^® Income Portfolio – Period ending July 31, 2011

Portfolio	Advisory Waivers		Administration Waivers
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	0.10	%1	0.10	%2

¹ The Adviser shall waive advisory fees payable to it under the Investment Management Services Agreement on assets invested in individual securities, Corporate Bond Portfolio and Mortgage-and Asset-Backed Portfolio.

² The Adviser shall waive administration fees payable to it under the Administration Agreement on assets invested in other Columbia Funds (Corporate Bond Portfolio and Mortgage-and Asset-Backed Portfolio are not considered Columbia Funds).

Codes of Ethics

The Funds, the Adviser, the subadvisers and the Distributor have adopted Codes of Ethics pursuant to the requirements of the 1940 Act, including Rule 17j–1 under the 1940 Act. These Codes of Ethics permit personnel subject to the Codes of Ethics to invest in securities, including securities that may be bought or held by the Funds. These Codes of Ethics are included as exhibits to Part C of the Funds’ registration statement. These Codes of Ethics can be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room and may be obtained by calling the SEC at 202.551.8090; they also are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov, and may be obtained, after paying a duplicating fee, by electronic request to publicinfo@sec.gov or by writing to the SEC’s Public Reference Section, Washington, D.C. 20549–1520.

127

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

The Funds have delegated to the Adviser, or as applicable, the subadviser, the responsibility to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities held by the Funds. In deciding to delegate this responsibility to the Adviser, the Board reviewed and approved the policies and procedures adopted by the Adviser and, as applicable, a subadviser. These included the procedures that the Adviser follows when a vote presents a conflict between the interests of the Funds and their shareholders and the Adviser (or subadviser), its affiliates, its other clients or other persons.

The Adviser’s policy is to vote all proxies for Fund securities in a manner considered by the Adviser to be in the best interest of the Funds and their shareholders without regard to any benefit to the Adviser, its affiliates, its other clients or other persons. The Adviser examines each proposal and votes against the proposal, if, in its judgment, approval or adoption of the proposal would be expected to have an adverse impact on the current or potential market value of the issuer’s securities. The Adviser also examines each proposal and votes the proxies against the proposal, if, in its judgment, the proposal would be expected to affect adversely the best interest of the Funds. The Adviser determines the best interest of the Funds in light of the potential economic return on each Fund’s investment.

The Adviser seeks to address potential material conflicts of interest by having predetermined voting guidelines. For those proposals that require special consideration or in instances where special circumstances may require varying from the predetermined guideline, the Adviser’s Proxy Voting Committee determines the vote in the best interest of the Funds, without consideration of any benefit to the Adviser, its affiliates, its other clients or other persons. The Adviser’s Proxy Voting Committee is composed of representatives of the Adviser’s equity investments, equity research, compliance, legal and operations functions. In addition to the responsibilities described above, the Proxy Voting Committee has the responsibility to review, at least annually, the Adviser’s proxy voting policies to ensure consistency with internal policies and regulatory requirements and to develop additional predetermined voting guidelines to assist in the review of proxy proposals.

The Proxy Voting Committee may vary from a predetermined guideline if it determines that voting on the proposal according to the predetermined guideline would be expected to have an adverse impact on the current or potential market value of the issuer’s securities or to affect adversely the best interest of the Funds. References to the best interests of the Funds refer to the interest of the Funds in terms of the potential economic return on the client’s investment. In determining the vote on any proposal, the Proxy Voting Committee does not consider any benefit other than benefits to the Funds. A member of the Proxy Voting Committee is prohibited from voting on any proposal for which he or she has a conflict of interest by reason of a direct relationship with the issuer or other party affected by a given proposal. Persons making recommendations to the Proxy Voting Committee or its members are required to disclose to the Committee any relationship with a party making a proposal or other matter known to the person that would create a potential conflict of interest.

The Adviser has retained Glass-Lewis & Co., a third-party vendor, to implement its proxy voting process. Glass-Lewis & Co. provides proxy analysis, record keeping services and vote disclosure services. Information regarding how the Columbia Funds (except certain Columbia Funds that do not invest in voting securities) voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve month period ended June 30 will be available by August 31 of this year free of charge: (i) through the Columbia Funds’ website at www.columbiamanagement.com and (ii) on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. For a copy of the Adviser’s and subadvisers’ policies and procedures that are used to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities held by the Columbia Funds, see Appendix B to this SAI.

Expenses Paid by Third Parties

The Distributor and the Administrator furnish, without additional cost to the Funds, the services of certain officers of the Funds and such other personnel (other than the personnel of the Adviser or the investment

128

subadviser(s), if applicable) as are required for the proper conduct of the Funds’ affairs. The Distributor bears the incremental expenses of printing and distributing prospectuses used by the Distributor or furnished by the Distributor to investors in connection with the public offering of the Funds’ shares and the costs of any other promotional or sales literature, except that to the extent permitted under the Distribution Plans of each Fund, sales-related expenses incurred by the Distributor may be reimbursed by the Funds.

The Funds pay or cause to be paid all other expenses of the Funds, including, without limitation: the fees of the Adviser, the Distributor and the Administrator; the charges and expenses of any registrar, any custodian or depository appointed by the Funds for the safekeeping of their cash, Fund securities and other property, and any stock transfer, dividend or accounting agent or agents appointed by the Funds; brokerage commissions chargeable to the Funds in connection with Fund securities transactions to which the Funds are a party; all taxes, including securities issuance and transfer taxes; corporate fees payable by the Funds to federal, state or other governmental agencies; all costs and expenses in connection with the registration and maintenance of registration of the Funds’ shares with the SEC and various states and other jurisdictions (including filing fees, legal fees and disbursements of counsel); the costs and expenses of preparing and typesetting prospectuses and statements of additional information of the Funds (including supplements thereto) and periodic reports and of printing and distributing such prospectuses and statements of additional information (including supplements thereto) to the Funds’ shareholders; all expenses of shareholders’ and Trustee meetings and of preparing, printing and mailing proxy statements and reports to shareholders; fees and travel expenses of directors or director members of any advisory board or committee; all expenses incident to the payment of any distribution, whether in shares or cash; charges and expenses of any outside service used for pricing of the Funds’ shares; fees and expenses of legal counsel and of independent auditors in connection with any matter relating to the Funds; membership dues of industry associations; interest payable on Fund borrowings; postage and long-distance telephone charges; insurance premiums on property or personnel (including officers and directors) of the Funds which inure to their benefit; extraordinary expenses (including, but not limited to, legal claims and liabilities and litigation costs and any indemnification related thereto); and all other charges and costs of the Funds’ operation unless otherwise explicitly assumed by the Adviser or the Administrator.

The Adviser has agreed to bear all fees and expenses of Corporate Bond Portfolio, Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Growth Portfolio, LifeGoal^® Balanced Growth Portfolio and LifeGoal^® Growth and Income Portfolio except taxes, brokerage fees and commissions, costs, including interest expenses, of borrowing money, extraordinary expenses and any applicable 12b-1 fees, shareholder servicing fees and/or shareholder administration fees. The expenses borne by the Adviser include custodian, transfer agent, legal and audit fees and costs, expenses of issue, sale, redemption and repurchase of shares, expenses of registering and qualifying shares for sale, expenses relating to trustee and shareholder meetings, the cost of preparing and distributing reports and notices to shareholders, and the cost of preparing and printing prospectuses and SAIs distributed to the Portfolios’ shareholders. This assumption does not include advisory fees to the Adviser.

Expenses of the Funds which are not attributable to the operations of any class of shares or Fund are pro-rated among all classes of shares or certain Columbia Funds, including the Funds based upon the relative net assets of each class or Fund. Expenses which are not directly attributable to a specific class of shares but are attributable to a specific Fund are prorated among all the classes of shares of such Fund based upon the relative net assets of each such class of shares. Expenses which are directly attributable to a class of shares are charged against the income available for distribution as dividends to such class of shares.

129

FUND GOVERNANCE

The Board

Leadership Structure and Risk Oversight

The Board oversees management of the Trust and the Funds. The Board has a duty to act in the best interest of shareholders when supervising and overseeing the management and operations of the Trust. The Board consists of seven Trustees who have extensive and varied experience and skills. Six of the Trustees are Independent Trustees. The Trust currently treats the remaining Trustee, Dr. Anthony M. Santomero, as an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Columbia Funds (the Interested Trustee) because he serves as a Director of Citigroup, Inc. and CitiBank N.A. companies that may engage from time-to-time in brokerage execution, principal transactions and lending relationships with the Funds or other funds or accounts advised/managed by the Adviser. Further information about the background and qualifications of each of the Trustees can be found in the section Trustee Biographical Information and Qualifications.

The Board has appointed an Independent Trustee to serve in the role of Chairman. The Chairman actively participates in the development of the agendas for Board meetings, presides at Board Meetings and acts as a liaison with service providers, officers, attorneys, and other Trustees generally between meetings. The Chairman may also perform such other functions as may be delegated by the Board from time to time. Except for any duties specified herein or pursuant to the Trust’s charter document, the designation of Chairman does not impose on such Independent Trustee any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the duties, obligations or liability imposed on such person as a member of the Board generally.

The Board has several standing committees (the Committees), which are an integral part of the Funds’ overall governance and risk management oversight structure. The standing Committees are the Audit Committee, the Governance Committee, the Contracts Review Committee and the Investment Committee. The roles of each Committee are more fully described in the section Standing Committees below.

The Funds have retained the Adviser as the Funds’ investment adviser and administrator. The Adviser provides the Funds with investment advisory services, and is responsible for day-to-day management and administration of the Funds and management of the risks that arise from the Funds’ investments and operations. The Board is responsible for overseeing the Adviser and other service providers in the operation of the Trust, including with respect to risk management functions. The Funds and the Trust are subject to a number of risks, including investment, compliance, operational, and valuation risks, among others. Day-to-day risk management functions are subsumed within the responsibilities of the Adviser, the subadvisers and other service providers (depending on the nature of the risk), who carry out the Funds’ investment management and business affairs. Each of the Adviser, the subadvisers and other service providers have their own, independent interest in risk management, and their policies and methods of carrying out risk management functions will depend, in part, on their analysis of the risks, functions and business models.

Risk oversight forms part of the Board’s general oversight of the Funds and the Trust and is addressed as part of various Board and Committee activities. The Board recognizes that it is not possible to identify all of the risks that may affect a Fund or to develop processes and controls to eliminate or even mitigate their occurrence or effects. As part of its regular oversight of the Trust, the Board, directly or through a Committee, interacts with and reviews reports from, among others, the Adviser, subadvisers, the independent registered public accounting firm for the Fund, and internal auditors for the Adviser or its affiliates, as appropriate, regarding risks faced by the Funds and relevant risk functions. The Board and the Audit Committee also meet periodically with the Funds’ Chief Compliance Officer, to receive reports regarding the compliance of the Funds and their principal service providers with the federal securities laws and their internal compliance policies and procedures. The Board and the Audit Committee review and approve the compliance program of the Fund and certain of its service providers, and also receive periodic and annual reports from the Funds’ Chief Compliance Officer, as required under applicable regulations. The Board, with the assistance of the Investment Committee, reviews investment policies and risks in connection with its review of the Funds’ performance, and meets periodically

130

with the portfolio managers of the Funds to receive reports regarding the management of the Funds, including their investment risks. In addition, as part of the Board’s periodic review of the Funds’ advisory, subadvisory and other service provider agreements, the Board may consider risk management aspects of their operations and the functions for which they are responsible.

The Independent Trustees have engaged independent legal counsel to assist them in performing their oversight responsibilities. The Board reviews its leadership structure periodically and believes that its structure is appropriate because it allows the Board to exercise informed and independent judgment over matters under its purview, and it allocates areas of responsibility among committees of Trustees and the full Board in a manner that enhances effective oversight. In particular, the Board believes that having an Independent Trustee serve as the chair of the Board and each Committee promotes independence from the Adviser in setting agendas and conducting meetings. The Board believes that its committee structure makes the oversight process more efficient and more effective by allowing smaller groups of Trustees to bring increased focus to matters within the purview of each Committee. The leadership structure of the Board, including the manner in which it conducts its risk oversight role, may be changed, at any time and in the discretion of the Board, including in response to changes in circumstances or the characteristics of the Trust.

Standing Committees

The Trust has four standing Committees, which are the Audit Committee, the Contracts Review Committee, the Governance Committee and the Investment Committee.

In general, the function of the Audit Committee is oversight of the financial aspects of the Trust and Funds and approval of and interaction with the Funds’ Independent Auditors. Management (which generally means the appropriate officers of the Trust, and a Fund’s investment adviser(s), administrator(s) and other key service providers (other than the independent registered public accounting firm)) is primarily responsible for the preparation of the financial statements of each Fund, and the independent registered public accounting firm is responsible for auditing those financial statements. Management also is responsible for maintaining appropriate systems for accounting and “internal controls over financial reporting” (as such term is defined in Rule 30a-3 under the 1940 Act), and the independent registered public accounting firm is primarily responsible for considering such internal controls over financial reporting in connection with its financial statement audits. While the Audit Committee has the duties and powers set forth in the Audit Committee charter, the Audit Committee is not responsible for planning or conducting any Fund audit or for determining whether a Fund’s financial statements are complete and accurate and are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The Audit Committee has, among other things, specific power and responsibility to: (i) oversee its Funds’ accounting and financial reporting processes and practices, its internal controls over financial reporting and, as appropriate, the internal controls over financial reporting of the Funds maintained by key service providers; (ii) approve, and recommend to the full Board for its approval in accordance with applicable law, the selection and appointment of an independent registered public accounting firm for the Fund prior to the engagement of such independent registered public accounting firm; (iii) pre-approve all audit and non-audit services provided to a Fund by its independent registered public accounting firm, directly or by establishing pre-approval policies and procedures pursuant to which such services may be rendered, provided however, that the policies and procedures are detailed as to the particular service and the Audit Committee is informed of each service, and such policies do not include the delegation to management of the Audit Committee’s responsibilities under the 1934 Act or applicable rules or listing requirements; and (iv) pre-approve all non-audit services provided by a Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm to the Fund’s investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to a Fund, if the engagement relates directly to the operations and financial reporting of a Fund. The members of the Audit Committee are William A. Hawkins (Chair), Edward J. Boudreau, Jr. and William P. Carmichael. The Audit Committee members are all Independent Trustees.

131

The primary responsibilities of the Contracts Review Committee, as set forth in its charter, include reviewing and making recommendations to the Board as to: (i) contractual arrangements; (ii) the factors considered in approving investment advisory and the investment subadvisory agreements; and (iii) service provider oversight and performance. Among other responsibilities, the Contracts Review Committee also oversees and coordinates activities of consultants and legal or financial experts that may be engaged under certain circumstances. The members of the Contracts Review Committee are R. Glenn Hilliard (Chair), William P. Carmichael, John J. Nagorniak and Anthony M. Santomero. With the exception of the Interested Trustee, the Contracts Review Committee members are all Independent Trustees.

The primary responsibilities of the Governance Committee include, as set forth in its charter: (i) nominating Independent Trustees; (ii) overseeing issues of corporate governance for the Trust and the Funds; (iii) addressing matters relating to compensation of Trustees who are not current directors, officers or employees of a Fund’s investment adviser or subadviser or any control affiliate thereof, including deferred compensation and retirement policies; and (iv) evaluating each Board and its committee structure as often as it deems necessary or desirable to determine whether each is functioning effectively. The Governance Committee shall determine the nature of the evaluation and its role therein in its sole discretion. The members of the Governance Committee are Minor M. Shaw (Chair), William A. Hawkins, R. Glenn Hilliard and William P. Carmichael (ex officio). The Governance Committee members are all Independent Trustees.

The primary responsibilities of the Investment Committee are, as set forth in its charter, to assist the Board in carrying out its oversight responsibilities in specific areas of investment management, both by acting as liaison between the full Board and the Adviser on investment matters, and by acting on behalf of the Board with respect to investment issues in extraordinary circumstances when it is impractical to convene a meeting of the full Board. In carrying out these general responsibilities, the Investment Committee assists the Board in connection with issues relating to: the investment policies and procedures adopted for each Fund; appropriate performance benchmarks and other comparative issues; portfolio management staffing and other personnel issues of the Adviser; investment related compliance issues; possible exemptive applications or other relief necessary or appropriate with respect to investment matters; and other investment related matters referred from time to time to the Committee by the full Board. The Committee reports its activities to the full Board on a regular basis and is responsible for making such recommendations with respect to the matters described above and other matters as the Committee may deem necessary or appropriate. The Chairperson of the Investment Committee is Edward J. Boudreau, Jr. Each Trustee is a member of the Investment Committee. With the exception of the Interested Trustee, the Investment Committee members are all Independent Trustees.

The table below shows the number of times the committees met during each Fund’s most recent fiscal year. The table is organized by fiscal year end.

Fiscal Period	Audit Committee	Contracts Review Committee	Governance Committee	Investment Committee
For Funds with fiscal years ending February 28	5	4	7	7
For Funds with fiscal years ending March 31	5	4	7	7

The Trust’s Declaration of Trust does not set forth any specific qualifications to serve as a Trustee other than that each Trustee shall be an individual of at least 21 years of age who is not under a legal disability. The Charter of the Governance Committee also does not set forth any specific qualifications, but does set forth certain factors that the Committee may take into account in considering Trustee candidates. Among the attributes or skills common to all Trustees are their ability to review critically, evaluate, question and discuss information provided to them, to interact effectively with the other Trustees, the Adviser, subadvisers, other service providers, counsel and the independent registered public accounting firm, and to exercise effective and independent business judgment in the performance of their duties as Trustees. Each Trustee’s ability to perform his or her duties effectively has been attained through: (i) the individual’s business and professional experience and accomplishments; (ii) the individual’s experience working with the other Trustees and management; (iii) the

132

individual’s prior experience, if any, serving on the boards of public companies (including, where relevant, other investment companies) and other complex enterprises and organizations; and (iv) his or her educational background, professional training, and/or other life experiences. Generally, no one factor was decisive in determining that an individual should serve as a Trustee.

Following is a summary of each Trustee’s particular professional and other experience that qualifies each person to serve as a Trustee of the Trust as of the date of this SAI:

Edward J. Boudreau, Jr. Mr. Boudreau has been a Trustee of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 2005. In addition, he has over thirty years of business and consulting experience, primarily in the financial services industry, including as the chief executive of a mutual fund management company.

William P. Carmichael. Mr. Carmichael has been a Trustee of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 1999, and has served as Chairman of the Board of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 2003. Mr. Carmichael served in various senior financial and directorship positions with global consumer products companies. Mr. Carmichael is a certified public accountant and a licensed attorney.

William A. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins has been a Trustee of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 2005. He currently serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of California General Bank and has over thirty years of executive level experience in the banking industry. Mr. Hawkins is a certified financial planner and a chartered property and casualty underwriter, as well as holding series 7, 24 and 63 licenses from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

R. Glenn Hilliard. Mr. Hilliard has been a Trustee of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 2005. Mr. Hilliard is currently the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Hilliard Group, LLC. He has over twenty years executive level experience in the insurance industry. Mr. Hilliard has served on the Board of Directors and as non-executive chairman of Conseco, Inc. for a number of years. Mr. Hilliard is also a licensed attorney.

John J. Nagorniak. Mr. Nagorniak has been a Trustee of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 2008. Mr. Nagorniak has served in executive level and director positions for over twenty-five years. He is a chartered financial analyst and is currently a Trustee of the Research Foundation of the CFA Institute.

Minor M. Shaw. Ms. Shaw has served as a Trustee of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 2003. Ms. Shaw is the President of certain private companies and is a member of the Board of Piedmont Natural Gas and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina. Ms. Shaw also serves as an active member on the boards of numerous educational and public service organizations.

Anthony M. Santomero. Dr. Santomero has been a Trustee of the Trust and of certain other trusts in the Columbia Funds Complex since 2008. Dr. Santomero has over thirty years of experience as a professor of finance and private consultant specializing in issues including risk management, financial restructuring, credit risk evaluation and management, and regulation. He has served as consultant to financial institutions and agencies in the U.S. and various countries in the European Union and the European Community itself, as well as institutions in various countries around the world. Additionally, Dr. Santomero has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

The following table provides additional biographical information about the Trustees as of the date of this SAI, including their principal occupations during the past five years, although their specific titles may have varied over the period. The mailing address of each Trustee is: c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, One Financial Center, Mail Stop MA5-515-11-05, Boston, MA 02111.

133

Independent Trustee Biographical Information

Name, Year of Birth and Position Held with the Trust	Year First Appointed or Elected to a Board in the Columbia Funds Complex	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years	Number of Funds in the Columbia Funds Complex Overseen	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past Five Years
Independent Trustees
Edward J. Boudreau, Jr. (Born 1944) Trustee	Indefinite term; Trustee since January 2005	Managing Director – E.J. Boudreau & Associates (consulting), from 2000 through current	52	Trustee – BofA Funds Series Trust (II Portfolios)
William P. Carmichael (Born 1943) Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite term; Trustee since 1999	Retired	52	Director – Cobra Electronics Corporation (electronic equipment manufacturer); Simmons Company (bedding); and The Finish Line (athletic shoes and apparel); Trustee – BofA Funds Series Trust (II Portfolios); former Director of Spectrum Brands, Inc. (consumer products)
William A. Hawkins (Born 1942) Trustee	Indefinite term; Trustee since January 2005	President and Chief Executive Officer – California Bank, N.A., from January 2008 through current	52	Trustee – BofA Funds Series Trust (II Portfolios)
R. Glenn Hilliard (Born 1943) Trustee	Indefinite term; Trustee since January 2005	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer – Hilliard Group LLC (investing and consulting), from April 2003 through current; Non-Executive Director & Chairman – Conseco, Inc. (insurance), September 2003 through current; Executive Chairman – Conseco, Inc. (insurance), August 2004 through September 2005	52	Director – Conseco, Inc. (insurance); Trustee – BofA Funds Series Trust (II Portfolios)

134

Name, Year of Birth and Position Held with the Trust	Year First Appointed or Elected to a Board in the Columbia Funds Complex	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years	Number of Funds in the Columbia Funds Complex Overseen	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past Five Years
John J. Nagorniak (Born 1944) Trustee	Indefinite term; Trustee since January 2008	Retired; President and Director – Foxstone Financial, Inc. (consulting), 2000 through December 2007; Director – Mellon Financial Corporation affiliates (investing), 2000 through 2007; Chairman – Franklin Portfolio Associates (investing – Mellon affiliate) 1982 through 2007	52	Trustee – Research Foundation of CFA Institute; Director – MIT Investment Company; Trustee – MIT 401k Plan; Trustee – BofA Funds Series Trust (II Portfolios)
Minor M. Shaw (Born 1947) Trustee	Indefinite term; Trustee since 2003	President – Micco Corporation and Mickel Investment Group	52	Board Member – Piedmont Natural Gas; Trustee – BofA Funds Series Trust (II Portfolios)
Interested Trustee Biographical Information
Anthony M. Santomero1 (Born 1946) Trustee	Indefinite term; Trustee since January 2008	Richard K. Mellon Professor Emeritus of Finance, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, from 2002 through current; Senior Advisor – McKinsey & Company (consulting), 2006 through 2008; President and Chief Executive Officer – Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 2000 through 2006	52	Director – Renaissance Reinsurance Ltd.; Trustee – Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company; Director – Citigroup; Trustee – BofA Funds Series Trust (II Portfolios)

¹ Dr. Santomero is currently deemed by the Columbia Funds to be an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Funds because he serves as a Director of Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank N.A., companies that may directly or through subsidiaries and affiliates engage from time-to-time in brokerage execution, principal transactions and lending relationships with the Columbia Funds or other funds or accounts advised/managed by the Adviser.

135

Compensation

Trustees are compensated for their services to the Columbia Funds complex on a complex-wide basis, as shown in the table below.

	Aggregate Compensation from Fund
	Independent Trustees
Fund	Edward J. Boudreau, Jr.1	William P. Carmichael2	Minor M. Shaw3	R. Glenn Hilliard4	William A. Hawkins5	John J. Nagorniak6
For Funds with fiscal year ending February 28
Convertible Securities Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Global Value Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
International Value Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Large Cap Core Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Large Cap Index Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Large Cap Value Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Marsico 21st Century Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Marsico Global Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Marsico Growth Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Mid Cap Index Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Mid Cap Value Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Overseas Value Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Small Cap Growth Fund II	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Small Cap Index Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173

136

	Aggregate Compensation from Fund
	Independent Trustees
Fund	Edward J. Boudreau, Jr.1	William P. Carmichael2	Minor M. Shaw3	R. Glenn Hilliard4	William A. Hawkins5	John J. Nagorniak6
Small Cap Value Fund II	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
For Funds with fiscal year ending March 31
Asset Allocation Fund II	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Corporate Bond Portfolio	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
High Income Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Masters International Equity Portfolio	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Short Term Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173

137

	Aggregate Compensation from Fund
	Independent Trustees
Fund	Edward J. Boudreau, Jr.1	William P. Carmichael2	Minor M. Shaw3	R. Glenn Hilliard4	William A. Hawkins5	John J. Nagorniak6
Total Return Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$4,608	$5,546	$4,452	$4,530	$4,608	$3,908
Amount deferred	$1,571	$0	$2,226	$0	$83	$1,173

¹ During the calendar year ended December 31, 2009, Mr. Boudreau deferred $81,627 of his total compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex pursuant to the deferred compensation plan. As of December 31, 2009, the value of Mr. Boudreau’s account under that plan was $286,846.

² During the calendar year ended December 31, 2009, Mr. Carmichael deferred $0 of his total compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex pursuant to the deferred compensation plan. As of December 31, 2009, the value of Mr. Carmichael’s account under that plan was $1,056,273.

³ During the calendar year ended December 31, 2009, Ms. Shaw deferred $132,587 of her total compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex pursuant to the deferred compensation plan. As of December 31, 2009, the value of Ms. Shaw’s account under that plan was $576,224.

⁴ During the calendar year ended December 31, 2009, Mr. Hilliard deferred $31,154 of his total compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex pursuant to the deferred compensation plan. As of December 31, 2009, the value of Mr. Hilliard’s account under that plan was $605,201.

⁵ During the calendar year ended December 31, 2009, Mr. Hawkins deferred $0 of his total compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex pursuant to the deferred compensation plan. As of December 31, 2009, the value of Mr. Hawkins’s account under that plan was $0.

⁶ During the calendar year ended December 31, 2009, Mr. Nagorniak deferred $69,170 of his total compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex pursuant to the deferred compensation plan. As of December 31, 2009, the value of Mr. Nagorniak’s account under that plan was $130,303.

Aggregate Compensation from Fund
	Interested Trustee
Fund	Anthony M. Santomero7
For funds with fiscal year ending February 28
Convertible Securities Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Global Value Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
International Value Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Large Cap Core Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Large Cap Index Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Large Cap Value Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Marsico 21st Century Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931

138

Aggregate Compensation from Fund
	Interested Trustee
Fund	Anthony M. Santomero7
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Marsico Global Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Marsico Growth Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Mid Cap Index Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Mid Cap Value Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Overseas Value Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Small Cap Growth Fund II	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Small Cap Index Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Small Cap Value Fund II	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
For funds with fiscal year ending March 31
Asset Allocation Fund II	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Corporate Bond Portfolio	$	4,139
Amount deferred		N/A
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
High Income Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	$	4,139
Amount deferred		N/A
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	$	4,139
Amount deferred		N/A
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	$	4,139
Amount deferred		N/A
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931

139

Aggregate Compensation from Fund
	Interested Trustee
Fund	Anthony M. Santomero7
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Masters International Equity Portfolio	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	$	4,139
Amount deferred		N/A
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Short Term Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Total Return Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	$	4,139
Amount deferred	$	1,931

⁷ During the calendar year ended December 31, 2009, Dr. Santomero deferred $122,207 of his total compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex pursuant to the deferred compensation plan. As of December 31, 2009, the value of Dr. Santomero’s account under that plan was $203,951.

Independent Trustee Compensation for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009

	Total Compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex Paid to Independent Trustees for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009a
Independent Trustees
Edward J. Boudreau, Jr.	$295,000
William P. Carmichael	$357,500
Minor M. Shaw	$287,500
R. Glenn Hilliard	$290,000
William A. Hawkins	$297,500
John J. Nagorniak	$250,000

Interested Trustee Compensation for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009

	Total Compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex Paid to Interested Trustee for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009a
Interested Trustees
Anthony M. Santomero	$265,000

Columbia Funds Deferred Compensation Plan

Under the terms of the Deferred Fee Agreement (the Deferred Compensation Plan), each eligible Trustee may elect, on an annual basis, to defer receipt of all or a portion of compensation payable to him or her for

140

service as Trustee for that calendar year. Fees deferred by a Trustee are credited to a book reserve account (the Deferral Account) established by the Columbia Funds, the value of which is derived from the rate of return of one or more Columbia Funds selected by the Trustee (with accruals to the Deferral Account beginning at such time as a Trustee’s fund elections having been established, and fees for service having been paid into such account, and terminating at such time as when proceeds become payable to such Trustee under the Deferred Compensation Plan). Trustees may change their fund elections only in accordance with the provisions of the Deferred Compensation Plan.

Distributions from a Trustee’s Deferral Account will be paid by check, either in a lump sum or in annual installments. Payments made in annual installments are disbursed over a period of up to ten years, following such time as a Trustee may qualify to receive such payments. If a deferring Trustee dies prior to or after the commencement of the disbursement of amounts accrued in his/her Deferral Account, the balance of the account will be distributed to his/her designated beneficiary either in lump sum or in annual payments as established by such Trustee himself/herself, his/her beneficiary or his/her estate. Amounts payable under the Deferred Compensation Plan are not funded or secured in any way, and each deferring Trustee has the status of an unsecured creditor of the Columbia Fund(s) selected by such Trustee.

Beneficial Equity Ownership

As of the date of this SAI, the Trustees and Officers of the Trust, as a group, beneficially owned less than 1% of each class of shares of each Fund. The table below shows, for each Trustee, the amount of Fund equity securities beneficially owned by the Trustee and the aggregate value of all investments in equity securities of the Columbia Funds Family overseen by the Trustees, including notional amounts through the Deferred Compensation Plan, stated as one of the following ranges: A = $0; B = $1-$10,000; C = $10,001-$50,000; D = $50,001-$100,000; and E = over $100,000.

Independent Trustee Ownership for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009

Fund	Edward J. Boudreau, Jr.	William P. Carmichael	Minor M. Shaw	R. Glenn Hilliard	William A. Hawkins	John J. Nagorniak
Asset Allocation Fund II	A	A	A	A	A	A
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Convertible Securities Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Corporate Bond Portfolio	A	A	A	A	A	A
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Global Value Fund	C	A	A	A	A	A
High Income Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
International Value Fund	A	E	A	A	A	A
Large Cap Core Fund	C	A	A	A	A	A
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Large Cap Index Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Large Cap Value Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	A	A	A	A	A	A
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	A	A	A	A	A	A
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	A	A	A	A	A	A
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	A	A	A	A	A	A
Marsico 21st Century Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	B	D	A	A	A	A
Marsico Global Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A

141

Fund	Edward J. Boudreau, Jr.	William P. Carmichael	Minor M. Shaw	R. Glenn Hilliard	William A. Hawkins	John J. Nagorniak
Marsico Growth Fund	A	D	A	A	A	A
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Masters International Equity Portfolio	A	A	A	A	A	A
Mid Cap Index Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Mid Cap Value Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	A	A	A	A	A	A
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Overseas Value Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Short Term Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Small Cap Growth Fund II	B	D	A	A	A	A
Small Cap Index Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Small Cap Value Fund II	B	A	A	A	A	A
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Total Return Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A	A	A	A	A	A
Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities in all Funds in the Columbia Funds Family Overseen by the Trustee	E	E	E	E	A	E

Interested Trustee Ownership for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009

Fund	Anthony M. Santomero
Asset Allocation Fund II	A
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A
Convertible Securities Fund	A
Corporate Bond Portfolio	A
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A
Global Value Fund	A
High Income Fund	A
International Value Fund	A
Large Cap Core Fund	A
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	A
Large Cap Index Fund	A
Large Cap Value Fund	A
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	A
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	A
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	A
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	A

142

Fund	Anthony M. Santomero
Marsico 21st Century Fund	A
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	A
Marsico Global Fund	A
Marsico Growth Fund	A
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	A
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A
Masters International Equity Portfolio	A
Mid Cap Index Fund	A
Mid Cap Value Fund	A
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	A
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	A
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A
Overseas Value Fund	A
Short Term Bond Fund	A
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	A
Small Cap Growth Fund II	A
Small Cap Index Fund	A
Small Cap Value Fund II	A
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A
Total Return Bond Fund	A
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	A
Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities in all Funds in the Columbia Funds Family Overseen by the Trustee	E

The Officers

The following table provides basic information about the Officers of the Trust as of the date of this SAI, including their principal occupations during the past five years, although their specific titles may have varied over the period.

Name, Year of Birth and Address	Position with the Trust	Year First Elected or Appointed to Office	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
J. Kevin Connaughton (Born 1964) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	President (Principal Executive Officer)	2009	Senior Vice President and General Manager – Mutual Fund Products, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since May 2010; President, Columbia Funds, since 2009, and RiverSource Funds, since May 2010 (previously Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Columbia Funds, from June 2008 to January 2009, Treasurer, Columbia Funds, from October 2003 to May 2008, and senior officer of various other affiliated funds since 2000); Managing Director, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from December 2004 to April 2010.

143

Name, Year of Birth and Address	Position with the Trust	Year First Elected or Appointed to Office	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
Michael G. Clarke (Born 1969) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)	2009	Vice President, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since May 2010; Managing Director of Fund Administration, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC, from September 2004 to April 2010; senior officer of Columbia Funds and affiliated funds since 2002.
Scott R. Plummer (Born 1959) 5228 Ameriprise Financial Center Minneapolis, MN 55474	Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer	2010	Chief Legal Officer and Assistant Secretary, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since June 2005; Vice President and Lead Chief Counsel – Asset Management, Ameriprise Financial, Inc. since May 2010 (previously Vice President and Chief Counsel – Asset Management, from 2005 to April 2010, and Vice President – Asset Management Compliance from 2004 to 2005); Vice President, Chief Counsel and Assistant Secretary, Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc. since 2008; Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Ameriprise Certificate Company since 2005; Chief Counsel, RiverSource Distributors, Inc. since 2006; Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, RiverSource Funds, since December 2006; Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer, Columbia Funds, since May 2010.
Linda J. Wondrack (Born 1964) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer	2007	Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since May 2010; Chief Compliance Officer, Columbia Funds, since 2007, and RiverSource Funds, since May 2010; Director (Columbia Management Group, LLC and Investment Product Group Compliance), Bank of America, from June 2005 to April 2010; Director of Corporate Compliance and Conflicts Officer of MFS Investment Management (investment management) from August 2004 to May 2005.

144

Name, Year of Birth and Address	Position with the Trust	Year First Elected or Appointed to Office	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
William F. Truscott (Born 1960) 53600 Ameriprise Financial Center Minneapolis, MN 55474	Senior Vice President	2010	Chairman of the Board, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since May 2010 (previously President, Chairman of the Board and Chief Investment Officer, from 2001 to April 2010); Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Asset Management & President, Annuities, Ameriprise Financial, Inc. since May 2010 (previously President – U.S. Asset Management and Chief Investment Officer from 2005 to April 2010, and Senior Vice President – Chief Investment Officer, from 2001 to 2005); Director, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ameriprise Certificate Company since 2006; Director, Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc. since May 2010 (previously Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer from 2008 to April 2010); Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, RiverSource Distributors, Inc. since 2006.
Colin Moore (Born 1958) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Senior Vice President	2010	Director and Chief Investment Officer, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since May 2010; Manager, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer of Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from 2007 to April 2010; Head of Equities, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from 2002 to 2007.
Michael A. Jones (Born 1959) 100 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110	Senior Vice President	2010	Director and President, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since May 2010; President and Director, Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc. since May 2010; Manager, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from 2007 to April 2010; Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, Columbia Management Distributors, Inc. from November 2006 to April 2010; previously, co-president and senior managing director at Robeco Investment Management.

145

Name, Year of Birth and Address	Position with the Trust	Year First Elected or Appointed to Office	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
Amy Johnson (Born 1965) 5228 Ameriprise Financial Center Minneapolis, MN 55474	Senior Vice President	2010	Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Adviser, since May 2010; Chief Administrative Officer, the Adviser from 2009 until May 2010; Vice President – Asset Management and Trust Company Services, the Adviser, 2006-2009; Vice President – Operations and Compliance, the Adviser, 2004-2006; Director of Product Development – Mutual Funds, Ameriprise Financial, 2001-2004.
Joseph F. DiMaria (Born 1968) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer	2008	Vice President, Mutual Fund Administration, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, since May 2010; Director of Fund Administration, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from January 2006 to April 2010; Head of Tax/Compliance and Assistant Treasurer, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC, from November 2004 to December 2005.
Marybeth Pilat (Born 1968) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Deputy Treasurer	2010	Vice President, Mutual Fund Administration, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, since May 2010; Vice President, Investment Operations, Bank of America, from October 2008 to April 2010; Finance Manager, Boston Children’s Hospital from August 2008 to October 2008; Director, Mutual Fund Administration, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC, from May 2007 to July 2008; Vice President, Mutual Fund Valuation, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC, from January 2006 to May 2007; Vice President, Mutual Fund Accounting Oversight, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from January 2005 to January 2006.

146

Name, Year of Birth and Address	Position with the Trust	Year First Elected or Appointed to Office	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
Julian Quero (Born 1967) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Deputy Treasurer	2008	Vice President, Mutual Fund Administration, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC since May 2010; Director of Fund Administration, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC, from August 2008 to April 2010; Senior Tax Manager, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from August 2006 to July 2008; Senior Compliance Manager, Columbia Management Advisors, LLC from April 2002 to August 2006.
Stephen T. Welsh (Born 1957) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Vice President	2006	President and Director, Columbia Management Investment Services Corp. since May 2010; President and Director, Columbia Management Services, Inc. from July 2004 to April 2010; Managing Director, Columbia Management Distributors, Inc. from August 2007 to April 2010.
Kathryn Thompson (Born 1967) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Assistant Treasurer	2006	Director, Mutual Fund Accounting Oversight and Treasury of the Adviser, since May 2010; Vice President, Mutual Fund Accounting Oversight of the Previous Adviser from December 2004 to April 2010; Vice President, State Street Corporation (financial services) prior to December 2004.
Paul B. Goucher (Born 1968) 5228 Ameriprise Financial Center Minneapolis, MN 55474	Assistant Secretary	2010	Vice President and Chief Counsel of Ameriprise Financial since January 2010 (formerly Vice President and Group Counsel from November 2008 to January 2010); Director, Managing Director and General Counsel of J. & W. Seligman & Co. Incorporated (Seligman) from July 2008 to November 2008 and Managing Director and Associate General Counsel of Seligman from January 2005 to July 2008.
Ryan C. Larrenaga (Born 1970) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Assistant Secretary	2005	Counsel, Ameriprise Financial since May 2010; Assistant General Counsel, Bank of America from March 2005 to April 2010; Associate, Ropes & Gray LLP (law firm) from 1998 to February 2005.

147

Name, Year of Birth and Address	Position with the Trust	Year First Elected or Appointed to Office	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
Christopher O. Petersen (Born 1970) 5228 Ameriprise Financial Center Minneapolis, MN 55474	Assistant Secretary	2010	Vice President and Chief Counsel, Ameriprise Financial since January 2010 (formerly Vice President and Group Counsel or Counsel from April 2004 to January 2010); Assistant Secretary of RiverSource Funds since January 2007.

148

BROKERAGE ALLOCATION AND OTHER PRACTICES

General Brokerage Policy, Brokerage Transactions and Broker Selection

Subject to policies established by the Board, the Adviser (or the investment subadviser(s) who make the day-to-day investment decisions for a Fund, as applicable) is responsible for decisions to buy and sell securities for each Fund, for the selection of broker/dealers, for the execution of a Fund’s securities transactions and for the allocation of brokerage commissions in connection with such transactions. The Adviser’s primary consideration in effecting a security transaction is to obtain the best net price and the most favorable execution of the order. Purchases and sales of securities on a securities exchange are effected through brokers who charge negotiated commissions for their services. Orders may be directed to any broker to the extent and in the manner permitted by applicable law.

In the over-the-counter market, securities generally are traded on a “net” basis with dealers acting as principals for their own accounts without stated commissions, although the price of a security usually includes a profit to the dealer. In underwritten offerings, securities are bought at a fixed price that includes an amount of compensation to the underwriter, generally referred to as the underwriter’s “concession” or “discount.” On occasion, certain money market instruments may be bought directly from an issuer, in which case no commissions or discounts are paid.

In placing orders for portfolio securities of the Funds, the Adviser gives primary consideration to obtaining the best net prices and most favorable execution. This means that the Adviser will seek to execute each transaction at a price and commission, if any, which provides the most favorable total cost or proceeds reasonably attainable in the circumstances. In seeking such execution, the Adviser will use its best judgment in evaluating the terms of a transaction, and will give consideration to various relevant factors, including, without limitation, the size and type of the transaction, the nature and character of the market for the security, the confidentiality, speed and certainty of effective execution required for the transaction, the general execution and operational capabilities of the broker/dealer, the reputation, reliability, experience and financial condition of the broker/dealer, the value and quality of the services rendered by the broker/dealer in this instance and other transactions and the reasonableness of the spread or commission, if any. Research services received from broker/dealers supplement the Adviser’s own research and may include the following types of information: statistical and background information on industry groups and individual companies; forecasts and interpretations with respect to U.S. and foreign economies, securities, markets, specific industry groups and individual companies; information on political developments; Fund management strategies; performance information on securities and information concerning prices of securities; and information supplied by specialized services to the Adviser and to the Board with respect to the performance, investment activities and fees and expenses of other mutual funds. Such information may be communicated electronically, orally or in written form. Research services also may include the arranging of meetings with management of companies and the provision of access to consultants who supply research information.

The outside research is useful to the Adviser since, in certain instances, the broker/dealers utilized by the Adviser may follow a different universe of securities issuers and other matters than those that the Adviser’s staff can follow. In addition, this research provides the Adviser with a different perspective on financial markets, even if the securities research obtained relates to issues followed by the Adviser. Research services that are provided to the Adviser by broker/dealers are available for the benefit of all accounts managed or advised by the Adviser. In some cases, the research services are available only from the broker/dealer providing such services. In other cases, the research services may be obtainable from alternative sources. The Adviser is of the opinion that because the broker/dealer research supplements rather than replaces the Adviser’s own research, the receipt of such research does not tend to decrease the Adviser’s expenses, but tends to improve the quality of its investment advice. However, to the extent that the Adviser would have bought any such research services had such services not been provided by broker/dealers, the expenses of such services to the Adviser could be considered to have been reduced accordingly. Certain research services furnished by broker/dealers may be useful to the clients of

149

the Adviser other than the Funds. Conversely, any research services received by the Adviser through the placement of transactions of other clients may be of value to the Adviser in fulfilling its obligations to the Funds. The Adviser is of the opinion that this material is beneficial in supplementing its research and analysis; and, therefore, it may benefit the Trust by improving the quality of the Adviser’s investment advice. The advisory fees paid by the Trust are not reduced because the Adviser receives such services.

Under Section 28(e) of the 1934 Act, the Adviser shall not be “deemed to have acted unlawfully or to have breached its fiduciary duty” solely because under certain circumstances it has caused the account to pay a higher commission than the lowest available. To obtain the benefit of Section 28(e), the Adviser must make a good faith determination that the commissions paid are “reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by such member, broker, or dealer, viewed in terms of either that particular transaction or his overall responsibilities with respect to the accounts as to which he exercises investment discretion.” Accordingly, the price to a Funds in any transaction may be less favorable than that available from another broker/dealer if the difference is reasonably justified by other aspects of the portfolio execution services offered. Some broker/dealers may indicate that the provision of research services is dependent upon the generation of certain specified levels of commissions and underwriting concessions by the Adviser’s clients, including the Funds.

Commission rates are established pursuant to negotiations with broker/dealers based on the quality and quantity of execution services provided by broker/dealers in light of generally prevailing rates. On exchanges on which commissions are negotiated, the cost of transactions may vary among different broker/dealers. Transactions on foreign stock exchanges involve payment of brokerage commissions that generally are fixed. Transactions in both foreign and domestic over-the-counter markets generally are principal transactions with dealers, and the costs of such transactions involve dealer spreads rather than brokerage commissions. With respect to over-the-counter transactions, the Adviser, where possible, will deal directly with dealers who make a market in the securities involved, except in those circumstances in which better prices and execution are available elsewhere.

In certain instances there may be securities that are suitable for a Fund as well as for one or more of the other clients of the Adviser. Investment decisions for the Funds and for the Adviser’s other clients are made with the goal of achieving their respective investment objectives. A particular security may be bought or sold for only one client even though it may be held by, or bought or sold for, other clients. Likewise, a particular security may be bought for one or more clients when one or more other clients are selling that same security. Some simultaneous transactions are inevitable when a number of accounts receive investment advice from the same investment adviser, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objectives of more than one client. When two or more clients are engaged simultaneously in the purchase or sale of the same security, the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed to be equitable to each. In some cases, this policy could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security in a particular transaction that may affect the Funds.

The Funds may participate, if and when practicable, in bidding for the purchase of portfolio securities directly from an issuer in order to take advantage of the lower purchase price available to members of a bidding group. A Fund will engage in this practice, however, only when the Adviser, in its sole discretion, believes such practice to be otherwise in such Fund’s interests.

The Trust will not execute portfolio transactions through, or buy or sell portfolio securities from or to, the Distributor, the Adviser, the Administrator or their affiliates acting as principal (including repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements), except to the extent permitted by applicable law, regulation or order. However, the Adviser is authorized to allocate buy and sell orders for portfolio securities to certain broker/dealers and financial institutions, including, in the case of agency transactions, broker/dealers and financial institutions that are affiliated with Ameriprise Financial. To the extent that a Fund executes any securities trades with an affiliate of Ameriprise Financial, such Fund does so in conformity with Rule 17e-1 under the 1940 Act and the procedures that such Fund has adopted pursuant to the rule. In this regard, for each transaction, the Board will determine

150

that: (i) the transaction resulted in prices for and execution of securities transactions at least as favorable to the particular Fund as those likely to be derived from a non-affiliated qualified broker/dealer; (ii) the affiliated broker/dealer charged the Fund commission rates consistent with those charged by the affiliated broker/dealer in similar transactions to clients comparable to the Fund and that are not affiliated with the broker/dealer in question; and (iii) the fees, commissions or other remuneration paid by the Fund did not exceed 2% of the sales price of the securities if the sale was effected in connection with a secondary distribution, or 1% of the purchase or sale price of such securities if effected in other than a secondary distribution.

Certain affiliates of Ameriprise Financial may have deposit, loan or commercial banking relationships with the corporate users of facilities financed by industrial development revenue bonds or private activity bonds bought by certain of the Columbia Funds. Ameriprise Financial or certain of its affiliates may serve as trustee, custodian, tender agent, guarantor, placement agent, underwriter, or in some other capacity, with respect to certain issues of securities. Under certain circumstances, a Fund may buy securities from a member of an underwriting syndicate in which an affiliate of Ameriprise Financial is a member. The Trust has adopted procedures pursuant to Rule 10f-3 under the 1940 Act, and intends to comply with the requirements of Rule 10f-3, in connection with any purchases of municipal securities that may be subject to Rule 10f-3.

Given the breadth of the Adviser’s investment management activities, investment decisions for the Funds are not always made independently from those for other funds, or other investment companies and accounts advised or managed by the Adviser. When a purchase or sale of the same security is made at substantially the same time on behalf of one or more of the Columbia Funds and another investment portfolio, investment company or account, the transaction will be averaged as to price and available investments allocated as to amount in a manner which the Adviser believes to be equitable to the Funds and such other funds, investment portfolio, investment company or account. In some instances, this investment procedure may adversely affect the price paid or received by a Fund or the size of the position obtained or sold by the Fund. To the extent permitted by law, the Adviser may aggregate the securities to be sold or bought for the Funds with those to be sold or bought for other funds, investment portfolios, investment companies, or accounts in executing transactions.

See Investment Advisory and Other Services – Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates – Certain Conflicts of Interest for more information about these and other conflicts of interest.

Brokerage Commissions

The following charts reflect the amounts of brokerage commissions paid by the Funds for the three most recently completed fiscal periods/years. In certain instances, the Funds may pay brokerage commissions to broker/dealers that are affiliates of Ameriprise Financial. As indicated above, all such transactions involving the payment of brokerage commissions to affiliates are done in compliance with Rule 17e-1 under the 1940 Act.

Aggregate Brokerage Commissions Paid by the Funds

The following charts reflect the aggregate amount of brokerage commissions paid by the Funds for the three most recently completed fiscal periods/years. Differences, year to year, in the amount of brokerage commissions paid by a Fund were primarily the result of increased market volatility as well as shareholder purchase and redemption activity in the Fund.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008
Convertible Securities Fund	$	78,360	$	322,359	$	284,499
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	$	252,593	$	1,214,329	$	903,415
Large Cap Index Fund	$	79,256	$	57,287	$	36,653
Large Cap Value Fund	$	3,143,773	$	3,621,587	$	3,846,915
Marsico 21st Century Fund	$	14,472,692	$	18,909,158	$	17,682,363

151

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010			Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009			Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008
Mid Cap Value Fund	$	6,634,701		$	5,535,587		$	3,076,353
Small Cap Value Fund II	$	4,607,371		$	2,963,749		$	2,042,309
Global Value Fund	$	43,086		$	97,403.51		$	336,900
Marsico Global Fund1	$	19,741		$	15,550			N/A
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	$	4,199,116		$	7,094,625		$	8,847,436
Mid Cap Index Fund	$	126,059		$	131,394		$	146,945
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	$	2,712,557	*	$	3,912,632	**	$	4,860,579	***
Overseas Value Fund2	$	16,847		$	28,497			N/A
Small Cap Index Fund	$	123,678		$	188,373		$	172,836

* This amount includes $220,976 in commissions paid by the portion of the Fund that was subadvised by Causeway and $2,491,581 in commissions paid by the portion of the Fund that is subadvised by Marsico.

** This amount includes $829,079 in commissions paid by the portion of the Fund that was subadvised by Causeway and $3,083,553 in commissions paid by the portion of the Fund that is sub-advised by Marsico.

*** This amount includes $1,112, 239 in commissions paid by the portion of the Fund that was subadvised by Causeway and $3,748,340 in commissions paid by the portion of the Fund that is sub-advised by Marsico.

¹ Marsico Global Fund commenced operations in April 2008 and therefore paid no brokerage commissions prior to that date.

² Overseas Value Fund commenced operations on March 31, 2008 and therefore paid no brokerage commissions prior to that date.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007
International Value Fund*	$	962,909	$	1,020,816	$	3,079,182	$	3,022,497
Large Cap Core Fund	$	3,517,838	$	3,504,058	$	2,410,933	$	3,338,986
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	$	6,633,291	$	7,461,288	$	7,365,073	$	3,408,940
Marsico Growth Fund	$	8,957,276	$	11,114,481	$	5,108,886	$	3,906,181
Small Cap Growth Fund II	$	1,469,836	$	1,413,250	$	2,688,711	$	2,144,191

* Because the Feeder Fund’s brokerage commissions are paid at the Master Portfolio level, amounts shown are for the Fund’s Master Portfolio.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2009		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008
Asset Allocation Fund II	$	21,870	$	41,585	$	28,943
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—	$	1,099		—
Corporate Bond Portfolio	$	961	$	12,273	$	1,862
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—	$	472		—
High Income Fund	$	3,715	$	36,672	$	75,531
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	$	8,650		—		—
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	$	5,730		—		—
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	$	2,180		—		—
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio		—		—		—
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—	$	875		—
Masters International Equity Portfolio		—		—		—
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio		—		—		—
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—	$	1,619		—
Short Term Bond Fund	$	34,869	$	10,309	$	8,123
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund		—		—		—
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—	$	1,486		—
Total Return Bond Fund	$	85,184	$	89,362	$	57,337
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—	$	1,261		—

152

Brokerage Commissions Paid by the Funds to Certain Broker/Dealers

The Funds paid brokerage commissions to certain broker/dealers for the three most recently completed fiscal periods/years, as indicated in the following table:

		Aggregate Brokerage Commissions Paid
Fund	Broker/Dealer*	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Year Ended February 29, 2008
Global Value Fund	BAS		—	$	2,907	$	3,722
	MLPF&S	$	2,509		—		N/A
Marsico 21st Century Fund	Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS)		—		—		—
	Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPF&S)	$	413,221	$	12,001		N/A
Marsico Global Value Fund	BAS		—		—		N/A
	MLPF&S	$	839		—		N/A
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	BAS		—		—		N/A
	MLPF&S	$	184,099	$	24,106		N/A
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund (Causeway** and Marsico)	BAS		—		—		N/A
Causeway**	MLPF&S	$	33,848	$	11,737		N/A
Marsico	MLPF&S	$	106,469	$	13,484		N/A

		Aggregate Brokerage Commissions Paid
Fund	Broker/Dealer*	Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2010		Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2009		Fiscal Period Ended February 29, 2008		Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007
International Value Fund	BAS		—		—	$	5,021	N/A
	MLPF&S	$	12,546	$	40,508		N/A	N/A
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	BAS		—		—		—	—
	MLPF&S	$	70,447	$	713		N/A	N/A
Marsico Growth Fund	BAS		—		—		—	—
	MLPF&S	$	148,003	$	16,336		N/A	N/A

Fund	Broker/Dealer*	Percentage of the Fund’s Aggregate Brokerage Commissions Paid to the Certain Broker/Dealers During the Most Recent Fiscal Year		Percentage of the Fund’s Aggregate Dollar Amount of Transactions Involving the Payment of Commissions Effected Through the Broker/Dealer During the Most Recent Fiscal Year
Marsico 21st Century Fund	MLPF&S	2.86	%	2.68	%
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	MLPF&S	1.06	%	1.97	%

153

Fund	Broker/Dealer*	Percentage of the Fund’s Aggregate Brokerage Commissions Paid to the Certain Broker/Dealers During the Most Recent Fiscal Year		Percentage of the Fund’s Aggregate Dollar Amount of Transactions Involving the Payment of Commissions Effected Through the Broker/Dealer During the Most Recent Fiscal Year
Marsico Growth Fund	MLPF&S	1.65	%	2.42	%
Global Value Fund	MLPF&S	1.5	%	5.8	%
Marsico Global Value Fund	MLPF&S	4.25	%	3.59	%
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	MLPF&S	4.38	%	5.55	%
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Causeway**	MLPF&S	15	%	28	%
Marsico	MLPF&S	4.27	%	5.37	%
International Value Fund	MLPF&S	1.3	%	1.3	%

* Prior to May 1, 2010, BAS and MLPF&S (as of January 1, 2009) and other broker-dealers affiliated with BANA were affiliated broker/dealers of the Fund by virtue of being under common control with the Previous Adviser. The affiliation created by this relationship ended on May 1, 2010, when the investment advisory agreement with the Previous Adviser was terminated and the Fund entered into a new investment management services agreement with the Adviser. However, BANA, on behalf of its fiduciary accounts, continues to have investments in certain of the Columbia Funds. The amounts shown include any brokerage commissions paid to BAS and MLPF&S after May 1, 2010.

** Causeway served as co-investment subadviser to approximately half of the assets of Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund until July 8, 2009. At that time, the Previous Adviser assumed primary investment management responsibility for that portion of Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund previously subadvised by Causeway.

Directed Brokerage

The Funds or the Adviser, through an agreement or understanding with a broker/dealer, or otherwise through an internal allocation procedure, may direct, subject to applicable legal requirements, the Funds’ brokerage transactions to a broker/dealer because of the research services it provides the Funds or the Adviser.

During each Fund’s last fiscal year, the Funds directed certain brokerage transactions and paid related commissions in the amounts as follows:

Fund	Amount of Transactions		Related Commissions
For Funds with fiscal year ended February 28, 2010
Convertible Securities Fund	$	84,141,442	$	19,218
Global Value Fund		—		—
International Value Fund		—		—
Large Cap Core Fund	$	3,437,201,420	$	597,376
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund		—		—
Large Cap Index Fund		—		—
Large Cap Value Fund	$	2,852,218,744	$	356,068
Marsico 21st Century Fund	$	1,653,516,816	$	2,716,976
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	$	874,643,755	$	1,240,638
Marsico Global Fund	$	2,641,551	$	4,576
Marsico Growth Fund	$	1,072,612,866	$	1,670,277
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	$	1,148,257,498	$	2,071,350
Mid Cap Index Fund		—		—
Mid Cap Value Fund	$	4,260,260,243	$	407,393

154

Fund	Amount of Transactions		Related Commissions
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	$	730,003,570	$	1,447,999
Overseas Value Fund	$	8,723,978	$	2,053
Small Cap Growth Fund II	$	680,363,344	$	64,147
Small Cap Index Fund		—		—
Small Cap Value Fund II	$	1,661,955,281	$	199,929
For Funds with fiscal year ended March 31, 2010
Asset Allocation Fund II	$	764,628	$	604
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—		—
Corporate Bond Portfolio		—		—
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—		—
High Income Fund	$	81,665	$	464
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio		—		—
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio		—		—
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio		—		—
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio		—		—
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—		—
Masters International Equity Portfolio		—		—
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio		—		—
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—		—
Short Term Bond Fund		—		—
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund		—		—
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—		—
Total Return Bond Fund		—		—
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund		—		—

Securities of Regular Broker/Dealers

In certain cases, the Funds, as part of their principal investment strategies, or otherwise as a permissible investment, will invest in the common stock or debt obligations of the regular broker/dealers that the Adviser uses to transact brokerage for the Funds.

As of each Fund’s fiscal year end, the Funds owned securities of their “regular brokers or dealers” or their parents, as defined in Rule 10b-1 under the 1940 Act, as shown in the table below:

Investments in Securities of Regular Broker/Dealers

Fund	Broker/Dealer	Dollar Amount of Securities Held
For Funds with fiscal year ended February 28, 2010
Convertible Securities Fund	CS First Boston Corp.	$	4,440,770
	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	9,896,282
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	10,683,096
	Deutsche Bank AG	$	18,036,980
Global Value Fund	Citigroup, Inc.	$	790,054
International Value Fund	None	$	0

155

Fund	Broker/Dealer	Dollar Amount of Securities Held
Large Cap Core Fund	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	4,523,454
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	35,273,686
	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	27,955,380
	State Street Corp.	$	2,792,055
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	5,206,455
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	7,470,660
	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	284,618
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	4,344,860
Large Cap Index Fund	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	21,179,640
	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	10,092,695
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	43,572,205
	State Street Corp.	$	5,854,872
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	17,466,643
	Bank of New York Mellon Corp.	$	9,049,225
Large Cap Value Fund	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	71,514,490
	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	37,947,188
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	88,368,255
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	24,164,391
Marsico 21st Century Fund	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	209,491,338
	State Street Corp.	$	76,167,719
	Jefferies Group, Inc.	$	102,963,894
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	112,953,650
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	101,678,956
Marsico Global Fund	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	262,858
Marsico Growth Fund	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	136,367,376
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	119,551,041
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	CS First Boston Corp.	$	36,296,625
Mid Cap Index Fund	Jefferies Group, Inc.	$	6,256,224
Mid Cap Value Fund	None	$	0
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	Barclays Capital	$	11,847,972
	CS First Boston Corp.	$	22,572,834
Overseas Value Fund	Barclays Capital	$	144,656
Small Cap Growth Fund II	None	$	0
Small Cap Index Fund	None	$	0
Small Cap Value Fund II	None	$	0

156

Fund	Broker/Dealer	Dollar Amount of Securities Held
For Funds with fiscal year ended March 31, 2010
Asset Allocation Fund II	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	714,439
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	3,467,919
	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	644,830
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	710,140
	Barclays Capital	$	193,601
	CS First Boston Corp.	$	418,309
	Wachovia Corp.	$	646,632
	UBS Warburg LLC	$	326,481
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	None	$	0
Corporate Bond Portfolio	Barclays Capital	$	138,762
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	86,304
	Wells Fargo & Co.	$	135,807
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	None	$	0
High Income Fund	None	$	0
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	None	$	0
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	None	$	0
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	None	$	0
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	None	$	0
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	None	$	0
Masters International Equity Portfolio	None	$	0
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	CS First Boston Corp.	$	151,287
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	653,143
	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	1,294,949
	Wells Fargo & Co.	$	1,921,226
	UBS Warburg LLC	$	1,383,094
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	421,470
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	None	$	0
Short Term Bond Fund	Barclays Capital	$	15,359,481
	CS First Boston Corp.	$	78,017,877
	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	18,335,446
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	62,171,265
	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	10,283,062
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	17,660,333
	Wells Fargo & Co.	$	17,312,165
	UBS Warburg LLC	$	28,990,178
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	None	$	0
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	None	$	0

157

Fund	Broker/Dealer	Dollar Amount of Securities Held
Total Return Bond Fund	Barclays Capital	$	3,555,138
	Wells Fargo & Co.	$	51,378,326
	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	$	20,592,570
	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	$	40,962,258
	UBS Warburg LLC	$	20,553,415
	Citigroup, Inc.	$	13,233,784
	CS First Boston Corp.	$	22,018,435
	Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	15,153,171
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	None	$	0

Additional Shareholder Servicing Payments

The Funds, along with the Transfer Agent and/or the Distributor and the Adviser, may pay significant amounts to financial intermediaries (as defined below), including other Ameriprise Financial affiliates, for providing the types of services that would typically be provided directly by a mutual fund’s transfer agent. The level of payments made to financial intermediaries may vary. A number of factors may be considered in determining payments to a financial intermediary, including, without limitation, the nature of the services provided to shareholders or retirement plan participants that invest in the Funds through retirement plans. These services may include sub-accounting, sub-transfer agency or similar recordkeeping services, shareholder or participant reporting, shareholder or participant transaction processing, and/or the provision of call center support (additional shareholder services). These payments for shareholder servicing support with respect to the Columbia Funds vary by financial intermediary but generally are not expected, with certain limited exceptions, to exceed 0.40% of the average aggregate value of each Fund’s shares in the program on an annual basis for those classes of shares that pay a service fee pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 Plan, and 0.45% of the average aggregate value of each Fund’s shares in the program on an annual basis for those classes of shares that do not pay a service fee pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 Plan. The Board has authorized each Fund to pay up to 0.15% of the average aggregate value of each Fund’s shares. Such payments will be made by a Fund to the Transfer Agent who will in turn make payments to the financial intermediary for the provision of such additional shareholder services. The Funds’ Transfer Agent, Distributor or their affiliates will pay, from its or their own resources, amounts in excess of the amount paid by the Funds to financial intermediaries in connection with the provision of these additional shareholder services and other services.

For purposes of this section the term “financial intermediary” includes any broker/dealer, bank, bank trust department, registered investment advisor, financial planner, retirement plan or other third party administrator and any other institution having a selling, services or any similar agreement with the Distributor and/or other Ameriprise Financial affiliates.

The Funds also may make additional payments to financial intermediaries that charge networking fees for certain services provided in connection with the maintenance of shareholder accounts through the NSCC.

In addition, the Distributor and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates may make lump sum payments to selected financial intermediaries receiving shareholder servicing payments in reimbursement of printing costs for literature for participants, account maintenance fees or fees for establishment of the Funds on the financial intermediary’s system or other similar services.

As of the date of this SAI, the Distributor and/or other Ameriprise Financial affiliates had agreed to make shareholder servicing payments with respect to the Columbia Funds to the financial intermediaries or their affiliates shown below.

158

Recipients of Shareholder Servicing Payments with Respect to the Columbia Funds from the Distributor and/or other Ameriprise Financial Affiliates

• Acclaim Benefits, Inc.

• A.G. Edwards

• Alerus Retirement Solutions

• Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.*

• Bank of America, N.A.

• Benefit Plan Administrators

• Bisys Retirement Services

• Charles Schwab & Co.

• Charles Schwab Trust Co.

• Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

• CitiStreet LLC

• City National Bank

• Compensation & Capital Administrative Services, Inc.

• CPI Qualified Plan Consultants

• Daily Access Concepts, Inc.

• Digital Retirement Solutions

• Dreyfus

• Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.

• E*Trade Group, Inc.

• ExpertPlan

• Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co.

• First Clearing LLC

• Genworth Financial

• GPC Securities, Inc.

• Guardian Life Insurance Company

• GWFS Equities, Inc.

• Hartford Life Insurance Company

• Hewitt Associates LLC

• ICMA Retirement Corporation

• ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company

• ING Institutional Plan Services, LLP

• John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA)

• John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York

• JP Morgan Retirement Plan Services LLC

• Lincoln Financial Group

• LPL Financial Corporation

• Marshall & Illsley Trust Company

• Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

• Matrix Settlement & Clearance Services

• Mercer HR Services, LLC

• Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company

• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

• Mid Atlantic Capital Corporation

• Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.

• Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated

• MSCS Financial Services, LLC

• National Investor Services Corp.

• Newport Retirement Services, Inc.

• New York State Deferred Compensation Plan

• NYLife Distributors LLC

• PNC Advisors

• Princeton Retirement Group

• Principal Life Insurance Company

• Prudential Insurance Company of America

• Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co.

• Reliance Trust Company

• Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.

• Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.

• Standard Retirement Services, Inc.

• TD Ameritrade Clearing Inc.

• TD Ameritrade Trust Company

• Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America

• The 401k Company

• T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.

• The Vanguard Group, Inc.

• Unified Trust Company, N.A.

• UPromise Investments, Inc.

• VALIC Retirement Services

• Wachovia Bank, N.A.

• Wachovia Securities, LLC

• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Wells Fargo Funds Management, LLC

• Wilmington Trust Corporation

• Wilmington Trust Retirement & Institutional Services Company

* Ameriprise Financial affiliate

The Distributor and/or other Ameriprise Financial affiliates may enter into similar arrangements with other financial intermediaries from time to time. Therefore, the preceding list is subject to change at any time without notice.

159

Additional Financial Intermediary Payments

Financial intermediaries may receive different commissions, sales charge reallowances and other payments with respect to sales of different classes of shares of the Funds. These other payments may include servicing payments to retirement plan administrators and other institutions at rates up to those described above under Brokerage Allocation and Other Practices — Additional Shareholder Servicing Payments. For purposes of this section the term “financial intermediary” includes any broker/dealer, bank, bank trust department, registered investment adviser, financial planner, retirement plan or other third party administrator and any other institution having a selling, services or any similar agreement with the Distributor and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates.

The Distributor and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates may pay additional compensation to selected financial intermediaries, including other Ameriprise Financial affiliates, under the categories described below. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and a single financial intermediary may receive payments under all categories. A financial intermediary also may receive payments described above in Brokerage Allocation and Other Practices — Additional Shareholder Servicing Payments. These payments may create an incentive for a financial intermediary or its representatives to recommend or offer shares of a Fund to its customers. The amount of payments made to financial intermediaries may vary. In determining the amount of payments to be made, the Distributor and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates may consider a number of factors, including, without limitation, asset mix and length of relationship with the financial intermediary, the size of the customer/shareholder base of the financial intermediary, the manner in which customers of the financial intermediary make investments in the Funds, the nature and scope of marketing support or services provided by the financial intermediary (as described more fully below) and the costs incurred by the financial intermediary in connection with maintaining the infrastructure necessary or desirable to support investments in the Funds.

These additional payments by the Distributor and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates are made pursuant to agreements between the Distributor and other Ameriprise Financial affiliates and financial intermediaries, and do not change the price paid by investors for the purchase of a share, the amount a Fund will receive as proceeds from such sales or the distribution fees and expenses paid by the Fund as shown under the heading Fees and Expenses of the Fund/Portfolio in the Fund’s prospectuses.

Marketing Support Payments

The Distributor and the Adviser may make payments, from their own resources, to certain financial intermediaries, including other Ameriprise Financial affiliates, for marketing support services relating to the Columbia Funds, including, but not limited to, business planning assistance, educating financial intermediary personnel about the Funds and shareholder financial planning needs, placement on the financial intermediary’s preferred or recommended fund list or otherwise identifying the Funds as being part of a complex to be accorded a higher degree of marketing support than complexes not making such payments, access to sales meetings, sales representatives and management representatives of the financial intermediary, client servicing and systems infrastructure support. These payments are generally based upon one or more of the following factors: average net assets of the Columbia Funds distributed by the Distributor attributable to that financial intermediary, gross sales of the Columbia Funds distributed by the Distributor attributable to that financial intermediary, reimbursement of ticket charges (fees that a financial intermediary firm charges its representatives for effecting transactions in fund shares) or a negotiated lump sum payment.

While the financial arrangements may vary for each financial intermediary, the marketing support payments to each financial intermediary generally are expected to be between 0.05% and 0.50% on an annual basis for payments based on average net assets of the Columbia Funds attributable to the financial intermediary, and between 0.05% and 0.25% on an annual basis for firms receiving a payment based on gross sales of the Columbia Funds attributable to the financial intermediary. The Distributor and affiliates may make payments in materially larger amounts or on a basis materially different from those described above when dealing with certain financial intermediaries. Such increased payments may enable the financial intermediaries to offset credits that they may provide to their customers.

160

As of the date of this SAI, the Distributor and/or the Adviser had agreed to make marketing support payments with respect to the Columbia Funds to the financial intermediaries or their affiliates shown below.

Recipients of Marketing Support Payments with Respect to the Columbia Funds from the Distributor and/or other Ameriprise Financial Affiliates

• AIG Advisor Group

• Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.*

• AXA Advisors, LLC

• Banc of America Investment Services, Inc.

• Banc of America Securities LLC

• Bank of America, N.A.

• Bank of New York

• Citibank, N.A.

• Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

• Commonwealth Financial Network

• Custodial Trust Company

• Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc.

• Genworth Financial, Inc.

• Goldman, Sachs & Co.

• GunAllen Financial, Inc.

• Harris Corporation

• ING Life Insurance and Annuity Co.

• J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc.

• J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp.

• Liberty Life Insurance Co.

• Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp.

• Linsco/Private Ledger Corp.

• Mellon Financial Markets, LLC

• Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company

• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

• Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated

• MSCS Financial Services, LLC

• National Financial Services LLC

• Pershing LLC

• Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC

• Raymond James & Associates, Inc.

• Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.

• SEI Investments Inc.

• State Street Global Markets, LLC

• Transamerica Corporation

• UBS Financial Services Inc.

• US Bank National Association

• Wachovia Securities LLC

• Webster Investment Services, Inc.

• Wells Fargo Corporate Trust Services

• Wells Fargo Funds Management LLC

• Wells Fargo Investments, LLC

* Ameriprise Financial affiliate

The Distributor and/or the Adviser may enter into similar arrangements with other financial intermediaries from time to time. Therefore, the preceding list is subject to change at any time without notice.

Other Payments

From time to time, the Distributor, from its own resources, may provide additional compensation to certain financial intermediaries that sell or arrange for the sale of shares of the Funds to the extent not prohibited by laws or the rules of any self-regulatory agency, such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Such compensation provided by the Distributor may include financial assistance to financial intermediaries that enable the Distributor to participate in and/or present at financial intermediary-sponsored conferences or seminars, sales or training programs for invited registered representatives and other financial intermediary employees, financial intermediary entertainment and other financial intermediary-sponsored events, and travel expenses, including lodging incurred by registered representatives and other employees in connection with prospecting, retention and due diligence trips. The Distributor makes payments for entertainment events it deems appropriate, subject to the Distributor’s internal guidelines and applicable law. These payments may vary depending upon the nature of the event.

Your financial intermediary may charge you fees or commissions in addition to those disclosed in this SAI. You should consult with your financial intermediary and review carefully any disclosure your financial intermediary provides regarding its services and compensation. Depending on the financial arrangement in place

161

at any particular time, a financial intermediary and its financial consultants may have a financial incentive for recommending a particular fund or a particular share class over other funds or share classes. See Investment Advisory and Other Services – Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and its Affiliates – Certain Conflicts of Interest for more information.

162

CAPITAL STOCK AND OTHER SECURITIES

Description of the Trust’s Shares

The Funds offer shares in the classes shown in the table below. Subject to certain limited exceptions discussed in each Fund’s prospectuses, a Fund may no longer be accepting new investments from current shareholders or prospective investors. Class B shares of the Funds are closed to new investments, except for certain limited transactions from existing investors in Class B shares. Additional Class B shares of the Funds will be issued only in connection with (i) reinvestment of dividends and/or capital gain distributions in Class B shares of each Fund by the Fund’s existing Class B shareholders and (ii) exchanges by shareholders invested in Class B shares of a Columbia Fund may exchange those shares for Class B shares of a Fund. The Funds, however, may at any time and without notice, offer any of these classes to the general public for investment.

The Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust (Declaration of Trust) permits it to issue an unlimited number of full and fractional shares of beneficial interest of each Fund, without par value, and to divide or combine the shares of any series into a greater or lesser number of shares of that Fund without thereby changing the proportionate beneficial interests in that Fund and to divide such shares into classes. Each share of a class of a Fund represents an equal proportional interest in that Fund with each other share in the same class and is entitled to such distributions out of the income earned on the assets belonging to that Fund as are declared in the discretion of the Board. However, different share classes of a Fund pay different distribution amounts because each share class has different expenses. Each time a distribution is made, the net asset value per share of the share class is reduced by the amount of the distribution.

Share Classes Offered by the Funds

Fund	Class A Shares	Class B Shares1	Class C Shares	Class I Shares	Class R Shares	Class R4 Shares	Shares	Class W Shares	Class  Y Shares3	Class Z Shares
Asset Allocation Fund II	ü	ü	ü							ü
California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü							ü
Convertible Securities Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü						ü
Corporate Bond Portfolio							ü
Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü							ü
Global Value Fund	ü	ü	ü							ü
High Income Fund	ü	ü	ü							ü
International Value Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü					ü
Large Cap Core Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü				ü		ü
Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	ü			ü	ü				ü	ü
Large Cap Index Fund	ü	ü								ü
Large Cap Value Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü			ü	ü	ü
LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	ü	ü	ü		ü					ü

163

Fund	Class A Shares	Class B Shares1	Class C Shares	Class I Shares	Class R Shares	Class R4 Shares		Shares	Class W Shares	Class  Y Shares3	Class Z Shares
LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	ü	ü	ü		ü						ü
LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	ü	ü	ü		ü						ü
LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	ü	ü	ü								ü
Marsico 21st Century Fund	ü	ü	ü		ü						ü
Marsico Focused Equities Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü							ü
Marsico Global Fund	ü		ü		ü						ü
Marsico Growth Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü				ü		ü
Marsico International Opportunities Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü						ü
Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü								ü
Masters International Equity Portfolio	ü	ü	ü		ü						ü
Mid Cap Index Fund	ü			ü							ü
Mid Cap Value Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	2		ü	ü	ü
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio								ü
Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	2		ü		ü
North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü								ü
Overseas Value Fund	ü		ü		ü						ü
Short Term Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	2		ü	ü	ü
Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü								ü
Small Cap Growth Fund II	ü	ü	ü								ü
Small Cap Index Fund	ü										ü
Small Cap Value Fund II	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü						ü
South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü								ü

164

Fund	Class A Shares	Class B Shares1	Class C Shares	Class I Shares	Class R Shares	Class R4 Shares	Shares	Class W Shares	Class Y Shares3	Class Z Shares
Total Return Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü							ü
Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	ü	ü	ü							ü

¹ Class B shares of the Funds are closed to new investments, except for certain limited transactions from existing investors in Class B shares. Additional Class B shares of the Funds will be issued only in connection with (i) reinvestment of dividends and/or capital gain distributions in Class B shares of each Fund by the Fund’s existing Class B shareholders and (ii) exchanges by shareholders invested in Class B shares of a Columbia Fund may exchange those shares for Class B shares of a Fund. See the prospectuses for Class B shares of the Funds for details.

² Class R4 shares of Mid Cap Value Fund, Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund and Short Term Bond Fund have not commenced operations as of the date of this SAI.

³ The Funds also offers Class Y shares, which are included in a different statement of additional information.

Restrictions on Holding or Disposing of Shares

There are no restrictions on the right of shareholders to retain or dispose of the Funds’ shares, other than the possible future termination of the Funds. The Funds may be terminated by reorganization into another mutual fund or by liquidation and distribution of their assets. Unless terminated by reorganization or liquidation, the Funds will continue indefinitely.

Shareholder Liability

The Trust is organized under Delaware law, which provides that shareholders of a statutory trust are entitled to the same limitations of personal liability as shareholders of a corporation organized under Delaware law. Effectively, this means that a shareholder of the Funds will not be personally liable for payment of the Funds’ debts except by reason of his or her own conduct or acts. In addition, a shareholder could incur a financial loss on account of the Funds’ obligation only if the Funds had no remaining assets with which to meet such obligation. We believe that the possibility of such a situation arising is extremely remote.

Dividend Rights

The shareholders of a Fund are entitled to receive any dividends or other distributions declared for the Fund. No shares have priority or preference over any other shares of the Funds with respect to distributions. Distributions will be made from the assets of the Funds, and will be paid pro rata to all shareholders of each Fund (or class) according to the number of shares of each Fund (or class) held by shareholders on the record date. The amount of income dividends per share may vary between separate share classes of the Funds based upon differences in the way that expenses are allocated between share classes pursuant to a multiple class plan.

Voting Rights and Shareholder Meetings

Shareholders have the power to vote only as expressly granted under the 1940 Act or under Delaware statutory trust law. Shareholders have no independent right to vote on any matter, including the creation, operation, dissolution or termination of the Trust. Shareholders have the right to vote on other matters only as the Board authorizes. Currently, the 1940 Act requires that shareholders have the right to vote, under certain circumstances, to: (i) elect Trustees; (ii) approve investment advisory agreements and principal underwriting agreements; (iii) approve a change in subclassification of a Fund; (iv) approve any change in fundamental investment policies; (v) approve a distribution plan under Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act; and (vi) to terminate the independent accountant. With respect to matters that affect one class but not another, shareholders vote as a

165

class; for example, the approval of a distribution plan applicable to that class. Subject to the foregoing, all shares of the Trust have equal voting rights and will be voted in the aggregate, and not by Fund, except where voting by Fund is required by law or where the matter involved only affects one Fund. For example, a change in a Fund’s fundamental investment policy affects only one Fund and would be voted upon only by shareholders of the Fund involved. Additionally, approval of an investment advisory agreement or investment subadvisory agreement, since it only affects one Fund, is a matter to be determined separately by each Fund. Approval by the shareholders of one Fund is effective as to that Fund whether or not sufficient votes are received from the shareholders of the other series to approve the proposal as to those Funds. Shareholders are entitled to one vote for each whole share held and a proportional fractional vote for each fractional vote held, on matters on which they are entitled to vote. Fund shareholders do not have cumulative voting rights. The Trust is not required to hold, and has no present intention of holding, annual meetings of shareholders.

Liquidation Rights

In the event of the liquidation or dissolution of the Trust or the Funds, shareholders of the Funds are entitled to receive the assets attributable to the relevant class of shares of the Funds that are available for distribution and to a distribution of any general assets not attributable to a particular investment portfolio that are available for distribution in such manner and on such basis as the Board may determine.

Preemptive Rights

There are no preemptive rights associated with Fund shares.

Conversion Rights

With the exception of Class B shares, which no longer accept investments from new or existing investors in Class B shares, except for certain limited transactions from existing investors in Class B shares as described in the prospectuses for Class B shares of the Funds, shareholders have the right, which is subject to change by the Board, to convert or “exchange” shares of one class for another. Such right is outlined and subject to certain conditions set forth in each Fund’s prospectuses.

Redemptions

Each Fund’s dividend, distribution and redemption policies can be found in its prospectuses under the headings Buying, Selling and Exchanging Shares and Distributions and Taxes. However, the Board may suspend the right of shareholders to sell shares when permitted or required to do so by law or compel sales of shares in certain cases.

Sinking Fund Provisions

The Trust has no sinking fund provisions.

Calls or Assessment

All Fund shares are issued in uncertificated form only and when issued will be fully paid and non-assessable by the Trust.

166

PURCHASE, REDEMPTION AND PRICING OF SHARES

Purchase and Redemption

An investor may buy, sell and exchange shares in the Funds utilizing the methods, and subject to the restrictions, described in the Funds’ prospectuses. The following information supplements information in the Funds’ prospectuses.

The Funds have authorized one or more broker/dealers to accept buy and sell orders on the Funds’ behalf. These broker/dealers are authorized to designate other intermediaries to accept buy and sell orders on the Funds’ behalf. The Funds will be deemed to have received a buy or sell order when an authorized broker/dealer, or, if applicable, a broker/dealer’s authorized designee, accepts the order. Customer orders will be priced at each Fund’s net asset value next computed after they are accepted by an authorized broker/dealer or the broker’s authorized designee.

The Trust also may make payment for sales in readily marketable securities or other property if it is appropriate to do so in light of the Trust’s responsibilities under the 1940 Act.

Under the 1940 Act, the Funds may suspend the right of redemption or postpone the date of payment for shares during any period when (i) trading on the NYSE is restricted by applicable rules and regulations of the SEC; (ii) the NYSE is closed for other than customary weekend and holiday closings; (iii) the SEC has by order permitted such suspension; (iv) an emergency exists as determined by the SEC. (The Funds may also suspend or postpone the recordation of the transfer of their shares upon the occurrence of any of the foregoing conditions).

The Trust has elected to be governed by Rule 18f-1 under the 1940 Act, as a result of which each Fund is obligated to redeem shares, subject to the exceptions listed above, with respect to any one shareholder during any 90-day period, solely in cash up to the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of the net asset value of each Fund at the beginning of the period.

Tax-Advantaged Retirement Plans (Retirement Plans)

The Transfer Agent maintains prototype tax-qualified plans, including Pension and Profit-Sharing Plans, for individuals, corporations, employees and the self-employed. The minimum initial Retirement Plan investment is $1,000, applied at the plan level. BANA is the custodian/trustee and plan sponsor of the Columbia Management prototype plans offered through the Distributor. In general a $20 annual fee is charged.

Participants in Retirement Plans not sponsored by BANA, not including IRAs, may be subject to an annual fee of $20 unless the Retirement Plan maintains an omnibus account with the Transfer Agent. Participants in BANA sponsored prototype plans (other than IRAs) who liquidate the total value of their account may also be charged a $20 close-out processing fee payable to the Transfer Agent. The close-out fee applies to plans opened after September 1, 1996. The fee is in addition to any applicable CDSC. The fee will not apply if the participant uses the proceeds to open a Columbia Management IRA Rollover account in any fund distributed by the Distributor, or if the Retirement Plan maintains an omnibus account.

Consultation with a competent financial advisor regarding these Retirement Plans and consideration of the suitability of fund shares as an investment under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or otherwise is recommended.

Front-End Sales Charge Waivers

In addition to the eligible investors described in the prospectuses, the investors listed below can buy Class A shares, Class E shares or Class T shares, without paying a front-end sales charge:

• Employees of Bank of America, its affiliates and subsidiaries.

167

• Employees or partners of Columbia Wanger Asset Management, LLC and Marsico Capital Management, LLC (or their successors).

• Individuals receiving a distribution from a Bank of America trust, fiduciary, custodial or other similar account may use the proceeds of that distribution to buy Class A shares without paying a front-end sales charge, as long as the proceeds are invested in the funds within 90 days of the date of distribution.

• Any shareholder who owned shares of any fund of Columbia Acorn Trust (formerly named Liberty Acorn Trust) on September 29, 2000 (when all of the then outstanding shares of Columbia Acorn Trust were re-designated Class Z shares) and who since that time has remained a shareholder of any Fund, may buy Class A shares of any Fund without paying a front-end sales charge in those cases where a Columbia Fund Class Z share is not available.

• Galaxy Fund shareholders prior to December 1, 1995; and shareholders who (i) bought Galaxy Fund Prime A shares without paying a front-end sales charge and received Class A shares in exchange for those shares during the Galaxy/Liberty Fund reorganization; and (ii) continue to maintain the account in which the Prime A shares were originally bought.

• (For Class T shares only) Shareholders who (i) bought Galaxy Fund Retail A shares at net asset value and received Class T shares in exchange for those shares during the Galaxy/Liberty Fund reorganization; and (ii) continue to maintain the account in which the Retail A shares were originally bought; and Boston 1784 Fund shareholders on the date that those funds were reorganized into Galaxy Funds.

Class I shares are only available to the Funds and are sold without a front-end sales charge.

Class R shares and Class R4 shares are offered to certain institutional investors identified in the Fund’s prospectus. Class R shares and Class R4 shares are sold without a front-end sales charge.

Class W shares are offered to qualifying discretionary accounts. Class W shares are sold without a front-end sales charge.

Investors can also buy Class A shares without paying a sales charge if the purchase is made from the proceeds of a sale from any Columbia Fund Class A, B, C or T shares within 90 days, up to the amount of the sales proceeds. In addition, shareholders of the money market fund series of BofA Funds Series Trust, which were formerly referred to as the Columbia Money Market Funds (the Former Columbia Money Market Funds), can also buy Class A shares of the Columbia Funds without paying a sales charge if the purchase is made from the proceeds of a sale of shares from a Former Columbia Money Market Fund within 90 days, up to the amount of the sales proceeds, provided that the proceeds are from the sale of shares of a Former Columbia Money Market Fund purchased on or before April 30, 2010. To be eligible for these reinstatement privileges the purchase must be made into an account for the same owner, but does not need to be into the same Columbia Fund from which the shares were sold. The Transfer Agent, Distributor or their agents must receive a written reinstatement request within 90 days after the shares are sold and the purchase of Class A shares through this reinstatement privilege will be made at the NAV of such shares next calculated after the request is received in good order.

Restrictions may apply to certain accounts and certain transactions. The Fund may change or cancel these terms at any time. Any change or cancellation applies only to future purchases. Unless you provide your financial advisor with information in writing about all of the factors that may count toward a waiver of the sales charge, there can be no assurance that you will receive all of the waivers for which you may be eligible. You should request that your financial advisor provide this information to the Fund when placing your purchase order. For more information about the sales charge reductions and waivers described here, as well as additional categories of eligible investors, please see the prospectuses.

168

Contingent Deferred Sales Charge Waivers (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class T Shares)

In addition to the redemptions eligible for CDSC waivers described in the prospectuses, shareholders won’t pay a CDSC in the following circumstances:

Disability: For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on sales after the sole shareholder on an individual account or a joint tenant on a joint tenant account becomes disabled (as defined by Section 72(m)(7) of the Code). To be eligible for such a waiver: (i) the disability must arise after the account is opened and (ii) a letter from a physician must be signed under penalty of perjury stating the nature of the disability. If the account is transferred to a new registration and then shares are sold, the applicable CDSC will be charged.*

Health savings accounts: For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on shares sold by health savings accounts sponsored by third party platforms, including those sponsored by Bank of America affiliates.*

Medical payments: For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on (i) shares sold for medical payments that exceed 7.5% of income and (ii) distributions made to pay for insurance by an individual who has separated from employment and who has received unemployment compensation under a federal or state program for at least twelve weeks.*

Systematic Withdrawal Plan (SWP): For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on sales occurring pursuant to a SWP established with the Transfer Agent, to the extent that the sales do not exceed, on an annual basis, 12% of the account’s value as long as distributions are reinvested. Otherwise, a CDSC will be charged on SWP sales until this requirement is met.

Qualified retirement plans: CDSCs may be waived on shares (except for Class B shares) sold by certain group retirement plans held in omnibus accounts. However, CDSC may not be waived for Class C shares if the waiver would occur as a result of a plan-level termination.

Redemptions under certain retirement plans and accounts: CDSCs may be waived on shares sold in connection with distributions from qualified retirement plans, government (Section 457) plans, individual retirement accounts or custodial accounts under Section 403(b)(7) of the Code, following normal retirement or the attainment of age 59 ¹/2 for shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010.**

Loans from qualified retirement plans: For Class B shares, and for Class A and Class C shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on shares sold in connection with loans from qualified retirement plans to shareholders.*

* Fund investors and selling and/or servicing agents must inform the Fund or the Transfer Agent in writing that the Fund investor qualifies for the particular sales charge waiver and provide proof thereof.

** For direct trades on non-prototype retirement accounts where the date of birth of the Fund shareholder is not maintained, the shareholder or selling and/or servicing agent must inform the Fund or the Transfer Agent in writing that the Fund investor qualifies for the particular sales charge waiver and provide proof thereof.

Class I shares, Class R shares, Class R4 shares and Class W shares are sold without a CDSC.

Restrictions may apply to certain accounts and certain transactions. The Distributor may, in its sole discretion, authorize the waiver of the CDSC for additional classes of investors. The Fund may change or cancel these terms at any time. Any change or cancellation applies only to future purchases. For more information about the sales charge reductions and waivers described here, as well as additional categories of eligible redemptions, please see the prospectuses.

169

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance

The Funds are required to comply with various anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Consequently, the Funds may request additional required information from you to verify your identity. Your application will be rejected if it does not contain your name, social security number, date of birth and permanent street address. If at any time the Funds believe a shareholder may be involved in suspicious activity or if certain account information matches information on government lists of suspicious persons, the Funds may choose not to establish a new account or may be required to “freeze” a shareholder’s account. The Funds also may be required to provide a governmental agency with information about transactions that have occurred in a shareholder’s account or to transfer monies received to establish a new account, transfer an existing account or transfer the proceeds of an existing account to a governmental agency. In some circumstances, the law may not permit the Funds to inform the shareholder that it has taken the actions described above.

Offering Price

The share price of each Fund is based on each Fund’s net asset value per share, which is calculated separately for each class of shares as of the close of regular trading on the NYSE (which is usually 4:00 p.m. Eastern time unless the NYSE closes earlier) on each day the Funds are open for business, unless the Board determines otherwise.

The value of each Fund’s portfolio securities for which a market quotation is available is determined in accordance with the Trust’s valuation procedures. In general terms, the valuation procedures provide that domestic exchange traded securities (other than NASDAQ listed equity securities) generally will be valued at their last traded sale prices as reported on the principal exchange where those securities are traded. If no sales of those securities are reported on a particular day on the principal exchange, the securities generally will be valued at the mean between the latest bid and asked prices as reported on the principal exchange where those securities are traded. Securities traded on a foreign securities exchange will generally be valued at their last sale prices on the exchange where the securities are primarily traded, or in the absence of a reported sale on a particular day, at their bid prices (in the case of securities held long) or ask prices (in the case of securities held short) as reported by that exchange. Securities traded primarily on NASDAQ will generally be valued at the NASDAQ Official Closing Price (NOCP) (which is the last trade price at or before 4:00:02 p.m. (Eastern Time) adjusted up to NASDAQ’s best bid price if the last trade price is below such bid price or adjusted down to NASDAQ’s best ask price if the last trade price is above such ask price). If no NOCP is available, the security will generally be valued at the last sale price shown on NASDAQ prior to the calculation of the NAV of the Fund. If no sale price is shown on NASDAQ, the latest bid price will be used. If no sale price is shown and no latest bid price is available, the price will be deemed “stale” and the value will be determined in accordance with the Funds’ fair valuation procedures.

Securities not traded upon any exchange will generally be valued at the mean between the latest bid and asked prices based upon quotes furnished by the appropriate market makers. If quoted prices are unavailable or are believed to be inaccurate, market values will generally be determined based on quotes obtained from one or more broker(s) or dealer(s) or based on a price obtained from a reputable independent pricing service.

Financial futures will generally be valued at the latest reported sales price. Forward foreign currency contracts will generally be valued using market quotations from a widely used quotation system that reflects the current cost of covering or off-setting the contract. Exchange traded options will generally be valued at the latest reported sales price on their exchange. If there is no reported sale on the valuation date, the options will generally be valued at the mean between the latest bid and asked prices.

Over-the-counter derivatives will generally be valued at fair value in accordance with the Funds’ fair valuation procedures.

170

Repurchase agreements will generally be valued at a price equal to the amount of the cash invested in the repurchase agreement at the time of valuation. The market value of the securities underlying a repurchase agreement will be determined in accordance with the procedures above, as appropriate, for the purpose of determining the adequacy of collateral.

Shares of open-end investment companies held in each Fund’s portfolio will generally be valued at the latest net asset value reported by the investment company.

Debt securities will generally be valued by a pricing service which may employ a matrix or other indications of value, including but not limited to broker quotes, to determine valuations for normal institutional size trading units. The matrix can take into account various factors including, without limitation, bids, yield spreads, and/or other market data and specific security characteristics (e.g., credit quality, maturity and coupon rate). Debt securities for which a pricing service does not furnish valuations and for which market quotations are readily available will generally be valued based on the mean of the latest bid prices obtained from one or more dealers. Debt securities with remaining maturities of 60 days or less will, absent unusual circumstances, be valued at amortized cost.

Securities for which market quotations are not readily available for any reason, including that the latest quotation is deemed unreliable or unreasonable, securities and other assets and liabilities are valued at “fair value” as determined in good faith by the Adviser’s valuation committee. In general, any one or more of the following factors may be taken into account in determining fair value: the fundamental analytical data relating to the security; the value of other financial instruments, including derivative securities, traded on other markets or among dealers; trading volumes on markets, exchanges, or among dealers; values of baskets of securities traded on other markets; changes in interest rates; observations from financial institutions; government (domestic or foreign) actions or pronouncements; other news events; information as to any transactions or offers with respect to the security; price and extent of public trading in similar securities of the issuer or comparable companies; nature and expected duration of the event, if any, giving rise to the valuation issue; pricing history of the security; the relative size of the position in the portfolio; and other relevant information.

With respect to securities traded on foreign markets, the following factors also may be relevant: the value of foreign securities traded on other foreign markets; ADR trading; closed-end fund trading; foreign currency exchange activity; and the trading of financial products that are tied to baskets of foreign securities, such as World Equity Benchmark Shares™.

The Board has determined, and the valuation procedures provide, that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to use an alternative valuation method, such as in-kind redemptions with affiliated benefit plans where the Department of Labor requires that valuation to be done in accordance with Rule 17a-7 of the 1940 Act.

171

TAXATION

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Funds’ prospectuses entitled “Distributions and Taxes.” The prospectuses generally describe the U.S. federal income tax treatment of distributions by the Funds. This section of the SAI provides additional information concerning U.S. federal income taxes. It is based on the Code, applicable Treasury Regulations, judicial authority, and administrative rulings and practice, all as in effect as of the date of this SAI and all of which are subject to change, including changes with retroactive effect. Except as specifically set forth below, the following discussion does not address any state, local or foreign tax matters.

A shareholder’s tax treatment may vary depending upon his or her particular situation. This discussion applies only to shareholders holding Fund shares as capital assets within the meaning of the Code. Except as otherwise noted, it may not apply to certain types of shareholders who may be subject to special rules, such as insurance companies, tax-exempt organizations, shareholders holding Fund shares through tax-advantaged accounts (such as 401(k) Plan Accounts or Individual Retirement Accounts), financial institutions, broker-dealers, entities that are not organized under the laws of the United States or a political subdivision thereof, persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States, shareholders holding Fund shares as part of a hedge, straddle, or conversion transaction, and shareholders who are subject to the U.S. federal alternative minimum tax.

The Trust has not requested and will not request an advance ruling from the IRS as to the U.S. federal income tax matters described below. The IRS could adopt positions contrary to those discussed below and such positions could be sustained. In addition, the following discussion and the discussions in the prospectuses applicable to each shareholder address only some of the U.S. federal income tax considerations generally affecting investments in the Funds. Prospective shareholders are urged to consult with their own tax advisors and financial planners regarding the U.S. federal tax consequences of an investment in a Fund, the application of state, local, or foreign laws, and the effect of any possible changes in applicable tax laws on their investment in the Funds.

Qualification as a Regulated Investment Company

It is intended that each Fund qualify as a “regulated investment company” under Subchapter M of Subtitle A, Chapter 1 of the Code. Each Fund will be treated as a separate entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Thus, the provisions of the Code applicable to regulated investment companies generally will apply separately to each Fund, even though each Fund is a series of the Trust. Furthermore, each Fund will separately determine its income, gains, losses, and expenses for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In order to qualify for the special tax treatment accorded regulated investment companies and their shareholders, each Fund must, among other things, derive at least 90% of its gross income each taxable year generally from (i) dividends, interest, certain payments with respect to securities loans, gains from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities or foreign currencies, or other income attributable to its business of investing in such stock, securities or foreign currencies (including, but not limited to, gains from options, futures or forward contracts) and (ii) net income derived from an interest in a qualified publicly traded partnership, as defined below. In general, for purposes of this 90% gross income requirement, income derived from a partnership (other than a qualified publicly traded partnership) will be treated as qualifying income only to the extent such income is attributable to items of income of the partnership which would be qualifying income if realized directly by the regulated investment company. However, 100% of the net income derived from an interest in a qualified publicly traded partnership (defined as a partnership (x) the interests in which are traded on an established securities market or readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof, (y) that derives at least 90% of its income from the passive income sources defined in Code Section 7704(d), and (z) that derives less than 90% of its income from the qualifying income described in clause (i) above) will be treated as qualifying income. Certain of a Fund’s investments in master limited partnerships (MLPs), if any, may

172

qualify as interests in qualified publicly traded partnerships. In addition, although in general the passive loss rules do not apply to a regulated investment company, such rules do apply to a regulated investment company with respect to items attributable to an interest in a qualified publicly traded partnership.

Each Fund must also diversify its holdings so that, at the end of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year: (i) at least 50% of the fair market value of its total assets consists of (A) cash and cash items (including receivables), U.S. government securities and securities of other regulated investment companies, and (B) securities of any one issuer (other than those described in clause (A)) to the extent such securities do not exceed 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and are not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer, and (ii) not more than 25% of the value of the Fund’s total assets consists of the securities of any one issuer (other than those described in clause (i)(A)), the securities of two or more issuers the Fund controls and which are engaged in the same, similar, or related trades or businesses, or the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships. In addition, for purposes of meeting this diversification requirement, the term “outstanding voting securities of such issuer” includes the equity securities of a qualified publicly traded partnership and in the case of a Fund’s investments in loan participations, the Fund shall treat both the financial intermediary and the issuer of the underlying loan as an issuer. The qualifying income and diversification requirements described above may limit the extent to which a Fund can engage in certain derivative transactions, as well as the extent to which it can invest in MLPs.

In addition, each Fund generally must distribute to its shareholders at least 90% of its investment company taxable income for the taxable year, which generally includes its ordinary income and the excess of any net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital loss, and at least 90% of its net tax-exempt interest income (if any) for the taxable year.

If a Fund qualifies as a regulated investment company that is accorded special tax treatment, it generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on any of the investment company taxable income and net capital gain (i.e., the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss) it distributes to its shareholders (including Capital Gain Dividends, as defined below). Each Fund generally intends to distribute at least annually substantially all of its investment company taxable income (computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction) and substantially all of its net capital gain. However, no assurance can be given that a Fund will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxation. Any investment company taxable income retained by a Fund will be subject to tax at regular corporate rates.

In addition, although each Fund generally intends to distribute all of its net capital gain, a Fund may determine to retain for investment all or a portion of its net capital gain. If a Fund retains any net capital gain, it will be subject to a tax at regular corporate rates on the amount retained, but may designate the retained amount as undistributed capital gains in a notice to its shareholders, who (i) will be required to include in income for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as long-term capital gain, their shares of such undistributed amount, and (ii) will be entitled to credit their proportionate shares of the tax paid by the Fund on such undistributed amount against their U.S. federal income tax liabilities, if any, and to claim refunds to the extent the credit exceeds such liabilities. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the tax basis of shares owned by a shareholder of a Fund will be increased by an amount equal under current law to the difference between the amount of undistributed capital gains included in the shareholder’s gross income under clause (i) of the preceding sentence and the tax deemed paid by the shareholder under clause (ii) of the preceding sentence.

In determining its net capital gain for Capital Gain Dividend purposes, a regulated investment company generally must treat any net capital loss or any net long-term capital loss incurred after October 31 as if it had been incurred in the succeeding year. Treasury Regulations generally permit a regulated investment company, in determining its taxable income, to elect to treat all or part of any net capital loss, any net long-term capital loss or any foreign currency loss incurred after October 31 as if it had been incurred in the succeeding year.

173

In order to comply with the distribution requirements described above applicable to regulated investment companies, a Fund generally must make the distributions in the same taxable year that it realizes the income and gain, although in certain circumstances, a Fund may make the distributions in the following taxable year in respect of income and gains from the prior taxable year. Shareholders generally are taxed on any distributions from a Fund in the year they are actually distributed. If a Fund declares a distribution to shareholders of record in October, November or December of one calendar year and pays the distribution by January 31 of the following calendar year, however, the Fund and its shareholders will be treated as if the Fund paid the distribution by December 31 of the earlier year.

If, for any taxable year, a Fund fails to qualify as a regulated investment company accorded special tax treatment under the Code, it will be taxed in the same manner as an ordinary corporation without any deduction for its distributions to shareholders, and all distributions from the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits (including any distributions of its net tax-exempt income and net long-term capital gains) to its shareholders will be taxable to shareholders as dividend income. In addition, the Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay substantial taxes and interest and make substantial distributions before requalifying as a regulated investment company.

Excise Tax

If a Fund fails to distribute by December 31 of each calendar year at least the sum of 98% of its ordinary income for that year (excluding capital gains and losses) and 98% of its capital gain net income (adjusted for net ordinary losses) for the 1-year period ending on October 31 of that year (or November 30 or December 31 of that year if the Fund is permitted to elect and so elects), and any of its ordinary income and capital gain net income from previous years that were not distributed during such years, the Fund will be subject to a nondeductible 4% excise tax on the undistributed amounts. For these purposes, a Fund will be treated as having distributed any amount on which it has been subject to corporate income tax in the taxable year ending within the calendar year. Each Fund generally intends to actually distribute or be deemed to have distributed substantially all of its ordinary income and capital gain net income, if any, by the end of each calendar year and, thus, expects not to be subject to the excise tax. However, no assurance can be given that a Fund will not be subject to the excise tax. Moreover, each Fund reserves the right to pay an excise tax rather than make an additional distribution when circumstances warrant (for example, if the amount of excise tax to be paid is deemed de minimis by a Fund).

Capital Loss Carryforwards

Subject to certain limitations, a Fund is permitted to carry forward a net capital loss from any year to offset its capital gains, if any, realized during the eight years following the year of the loss. A Fund’s capital loss carryforward is treated as a short-term capital loss in the year to which it is carried. If future capital gains are offset by carried forward capital losses, such future capital gains are not subject to fund-level U.S. federal income taxation, regardless of whether they are distributed to shareholders. Accordingly, the Funds do not expect to distribute any such offsetting capital gains. The Funds cannot carry back or carry forward any net operating losses.

Equalization Accounting

Each Fund may use the so-called “equalization method” of accounting to allocate a portion of its “accumulated earnings and profits,” which generally equals a Fund’s undistributed net investment income and realized capital gains, with certain adjustments, to redemption proceeds. This method permits a Fund to achieve more balanced distributions for both continuing and redeeming shareholders. Although using this method generally will not affect a Fund’s total returns, it may reduce the amount of income and gains that the Fund would otherwise distribute to continuing shareholders by reducing the effect of redemptions of Fund shares on Fund distributions to shareholders. The IRS has not sanctioned the particular equalization method used by the Funds, and thus a Fund’s use of this method may be subject to IRS scrutiny.

174

Investment through Master Portfolios

Some Funds seek to continue to qualify as regulated investment companies by investing their assets through one or more Master Portfolios. Each Master Portfolio will be treated as a non-publicly traded partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes rather than as a regulated investment company or a corporation under the Code. Under the rules applicable to a non-publicly traded partnership, a proportionate share of any interest, dividends, gains and losses of a Master Portfolio will be deemed to have been realized (i.e., “passed through”) to its investors, including the corresponding Fund, regardless of whether any amounts are actually distributed by the Master Portfolio. Each investor in a Master Portfolio will be taxed on such share, as determined in accordance with the governing instruments of the particular Master Portfolio, the Code and Treasury Regulations, in determining such investor’s U.S. federal income tax liability. Therefore, to the extent a Master Portfolio were to accrue but not distribute any income or gains, the corresponding Fund would be deemed to have realized its proportionate share of such income or gains without receipt of any corresponding distribution. However, each of the Master Portfolios will seek to minimize recognition by its investors (such as a corresponding Fund) of income and gains without a corresponding distribution. Furthermore, each Master Portfolio intends to manage its assets, income and distributions in such a way that an investor in a Master Portfolio will be able to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company by investing its assets through the Master Portfolio.

Taxation of Fund Investments

In general, realized gains or losses on the sale of securities held by a Fund will be treated as capital gains or losses, and long-term capital gains or losses if the Fund has held or is deemed to have held the securities for more than one year at the time of disposition.

If a Fund purchases a debt obligation with original issue discount (OID) (generally a debt obligation with an issue price less than its stated principal amount, such as a zero-coupon bond), the Fund may be required to annually include in its income a portion of the OID as ordinary income, even though the Fund will not receive cash payments for such discount until maturity or disposition of the obligation. Inflation-protected bonds generally can be expected to produce OID income as their principal amounts are adjusted upward for inflation. In general, gains recognized on the disposition of (or the receipt of any partial payment of principal on) a debt obligation (including a municipal obligation) purchased by a Fund at a market discount, generally at a price less than its principal amount, will be treated as ordinary income to the extent of the portion of market discount which accrued, but was not previously recognized pursuant to an available election, during the term that the Fund held the debt obligation. A Fund generally will be required to make distributions to shareholders representing the OID or market discount (if an election is made by the Fund to accrue market discount over the holding period of the applicable debt obligation) on debt securities that is currently includible in income, even though the cash representing such income may not have been received by the Fund. Cash to pay such distributions may be obtained from borrowing or from sales proceeds of securities held by a Fund which the Fund otherwise might have continued to hold; obtaining such cash might be disadvantageous for the Fund.

In addition, payment-in-kind securities similarly will give rise to income which is required to be distributed and is taxable even though a Fund receives no cash interest payment on the security during the year. A portion of the interest paid or accrued on certain high-yield discount obligations (such as high-yield corporate debt securities) may not (and interest paid on debt obligations owned by a Fund that are considered for tax purposes to be payable in the equity of the issuer or a related party will not) be deductible to the issuer, possibly affecting the cash flow of the issuer.

If a Fund invests in debt obligations that are in the lowest rating categories or are unrated, including debt obligations of issuers not currently paying interest or who are in default, special tax issues may exist for the Fund. Tax rules are not entirely clear about issues such as whether a Fund should recognize market discount on a debt obligation and, if so, the amount of market discount the Fund should recognize, when a Fund may cease to accrue interest, OID or market discount, when and to what extent deductions may be taken for bad debts or

175

worthless securities and how payments received on obligations in default should be allocated between principal and income. These and other related issues will be addressed by a Fund when, as and if it invests in such securities, in order to seek to ensure that it distributes sufficient income to preserve its status as a regulated investment company and does not become subject to U.S. federal income or excise tax.

If an option granted by a Fund is sold, lapses or is otherwise terminated through a closing transaction, such as a repurchase by the Fund of the option from its holder, the Fund generally will realize a short-term capital gain or loss, depending on whether the premium income is greater or less than the amount paid by the Fund in the closing transaction. Some capital losses realized by a Fund in the sale, exchange, exercise or other disposition of an option may be deferred if they result from a position that is part of a “straddle,” discussed below. If securities are sold by a Fund pursuant to the exercise of a covered call option granted by it, the Fund generally will add the premium received to the sale price of the securities delivered in determining the amount of gain or loss on the sale. If securities are purchased by a Fund pursuant to the exercise of a put option written by it, the Fund generally will subtract the premium received from its cost basis in the securities purchased.

Some regulated futures contracts, foreign currency contracts, and non-equity, listed options that may be used by a Fund will be deemed “Section 1256 contracts.” A Fund will be required to “mark to market” any such contracts held at the end of the taxable year by treating them as if they had been sold on the last day of that year at market value. Sixty percent of any net gain or loss realized on all dispositions of Section 1256 contracts, including deemed dispositions under the “mark-to-market” rule, generally will be treated as long-term capital gain or loss, and the remaining 40% will be treated as short-term capital gain or loss, although certain foreign currency gains and losses from such contracts may be treated as ordinary income or loss as described below. These provisions may require a Fund to recognize income or gains without a concurrent receipt of cash. Transactions that qualify as designated hedges are exempt from the mark-to-market rule and the “60%/40%” rule and may require the Fund to defer the recognition of losses on certain futures contracts, foreign currency contracts, and non-equity options.

Foreign exchange gains and losses realized by a Fund in connection with certain transactions involving foreign currency-denominated debt securities, certain options, futures contracts, forward contracts and similar instruments relating to foreign currency, foreign currencies, or payables or receivables denominated in a foreign currency are subject to Section 988 of the Code, which generally causes such gains and losses to be treated as ordinary income or loss and may affect the amount and timing of recognition of the Fund’s income. Under future Treasury Regulations, any such transactions that are not directly related to a Fund’s investments in stock or securities (or its options contracts or futures contracts with respect to stock or securities) may have to be limited in order to enable the Fund to satisfy the 90% qualifying income test described above. If the net foreign exchange loss exceeds a Fund’s net investment company taxable income (computed without regard to such loss) for a taxable year, the resulting ordinary loss for such year will not be available as a carryforward and thus cannot be deducted by the Fund or its shareholders in future years.

Offsetting positions held by a Fund involving certain derivative instruments, such as forward, futures and options contracts, may be considered, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, to constitute “straddles.” “Straddles” are defined to include “offsetting positions” in actively traded personal property. The tax treatment of “straddles” is governed by Section 1092 of the Code which, in certain circumstances, overrides or modifies the provisions of Section 1256. If a Fund is treated as entering into a “straddle” and at least one (but not all) of the Fund’s positions in derivative contracts comprising a part of such straddle is governed by Section 1256 of the Code, described above, then such straddle could be characterized as a “mixed straddle.” A Fund may make one or more elections with respect to “mixed straddles.” Depending upon which election is made, if any, the results with respect to a Fund may differ. Generally, to the extent the straddle rules apply to positions established by a Fund, losses realized by the Fund may be deferred to the extent of unrealized gain in any offsetting positions. Moreover, as a result of the straddle rules, short-term capital loss on straddle positions may be recharacterized as long-term capital loss, and long-term capital gain may be characterized as short-term capital gain. In addition, the existence of a straddle may affect the holding period of the offsetting positions. As a result, the straddle rules

176

could cause distributions that would otherwise constitute “qualified dividend income” or qualify for the dividends-received deduction to fail to satisfy the applicable holding period requirements (as described below). Furthermore, the Fund may be required to capitalize, rather than deduct currently, any interest expense and carrying charges applicable to a position that is part of a straddle, including any interest on indebtedness incurred or continued to purchase or carry any positions that are part of a straddle. The application of the straddle rules to certain offsetting Fund positions can therefore affect the amount, timing, and character of distributions to shareholders, and may result in significant differences from the amount, timing and character of distributions that would have been made by the Fund if it had not entered into offsetting positions in respect of certain of its portfolio securities.

If a Fund enters into a “constructive sale” of any appreciated financial position in stock, a partnership interest, or certain debt instruments, the Fund will be treated as if it had sold and immediately repurchased the property and must recognize gain (but not loss) with respect to that position. A constructive sale of an appreciated financial position occurs when a Fund enters into certain offsetting transactions with respect to the same or substantially identical property, including, but not limited to: (i) a short sale; (ii) an offsetting notional principal contract; (iii) a futures or forward contract; or (iv) other transactions identified in future Treasury Regulations. The character of the gain from constructive sales will depend upon a Fund’s holding period in the appreciated financial position. Losses realized from a sale of a position that was previously the subject of a constructive sale will be recognized when the position is subsequently disposed of. The character of such losses will depend upon a Fund’s holding period in the position beginning with the date the constructive sale was deemed to have occurred and the application of various loss deferral provisions in the Code. Constructive sale treatment does not apply to certain closed transactions, including if such a transaction is closed on or before the 30th day after the close of the Fund’s taxable year and the Fund holds the appreciated financial position unhedged throughout the 60-day period beginning with the day such transaction was closed.

The amount of long-term capital gain a Fund may recognize from certain derivative transactions with respect to interests in certain pass-through entities is limited under the Code’s constructive ownership rules. The amount of long-term capital gain is limited to the amount of such gain the Fund would have had if the Fund directly invested in the pass-through entity during the term of the derivative contract. Any gain in excess of this amount is treated as ordinary income. An interest charge is imposed on the amount of gain that is treated as ordinary income.

If a Fund makes a distribution of income received by the Fund in lieu of dividends (a “substitute payment”) with respect to securities on loan pursuant to a securities lending transaction, such income will not constitute qualified dividend income to individual shareholders and will not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction for corporate shareholders. Similar consequences may apply to repurchase and other derivative transactions. Similarly, to the extent that a Fund makes distributions of income received by such Fund in lieu of tax-exempt interest with respect to securities on loan, such distributions will not constitute exempt-interest dividends (defined below) to shareholders.

In addition, a Fund’s transactions in securities and certain types of derivatives (e.g., options, futures contracts, forward contracts and swap agreements) may be subject to other special tax rules, such as the wash-sale rules or the short-sale rules, the effect of which may be to accelerate income to the Fund, defer losses to the Fund, cause adjustments in the holding periods of the Fund’s securities, convert long-term capital gains into short-term capital gains, and/or convert short-term capital losses into long-term capital losses. These rules could therefore affect the amount, timing and character of distributions to shareholders.

Certain of a Fund’s investments in derivative instruments and foreign currency-denominated instruments, as well as any of its foreign currency transactions and hedging activities, are likely to produce a difference between its book income and its taxable income. If a Fund’s book income exceeds the sum of its taxable income and net tax-exempt income (if any), the distribution (if any) of such excess generally will be treated as (i) a dividend to the extent of the Fund’s remaining earnings and profits (including earnings and profits arising from tax-exempt

177

income), (ii) thereafter, as a return of capital to the extent of the recipient’s basis in its shares, and (iii) thereafter, as gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset. If a Fund’s book income is less than the sum of its taxable income and net tax-exempt income (if any), the Fund could be required to make distributions exceeding book income to qualify as a regulated investment company that is accorded special tax treatment.

Rules governing the U.S. federal income tax aspects of derivatives, including swap agreements, are in a developing stage and are not entirely clear in certain respects. Accordingly, while each Fund intends to account for such transactions in a manner it deems to be appropriate, an adverse determination or future guidance by the IRS with respect to these rules (which determination or guidance could be retroactive) may affect whether a Fund has made sufficient distributions, and otherwise satisfied the relevant requirements to maintain its qualification as a regulated investment company and avoid fund-level tax. Certain requirements that must be met under the Code in order for a Fund to qualify as a regulated investment company may limit the extent to which a Fund will be able to engage in certain derivatives transactions.

Any investment by a Fund in equity securities of a REIT may result in the Fund’s receipt of cash in excess of the REIT’s earnings; if the Fund distributes these amounts, these distributions could constitute a return of capital to Fund shareholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Investments in equity securities of a REIT or another regulated investment company also may require a Fund to accrue and distribute income not yet received. To generate sufficient cash to make the requisite distributions, the Fund may be required to sell securities in its portfolio (including when it is not advantageous to do so) that it otherwise would have continued to hold. Dividends received by the Fund from a REIT generally will not constitute qualified dividend income and will not qualify for the dividends-received deduction.

A Fund may invest directly or indirectly in residual interests in REMICs or equity interests in taxable mortgage pools (TMPs). Under an IRS notice, and Treasury Regulations that have yet to be issued but may apply retroactively, a portion of a Fund’s income (including income allocated to the Fund from a REIT, a regulated investment company or other pass-through entity) that is attributable to a residual interest in a REMIC or an equity interest in a TMP (referred to in the Code as an “excess inclusion”) will be subject to U.S. federal income tax in all events. This notice also provides, and the regulations are expected to provide, that excess inclusion income of a regulated investment company, such as a Fund, will be allocated to shareholders of the regulated investment company in proportion to the dividends received by such shareholders, with the same consequences as if the shareholders held the related interest directly. As a result, the Fund may not be a suitable investment for certain tax-exempt shareholders, as noted under “Tax-Exempt Shareholders” below.

In general, excess inclusion income allocated to shareholders (i) cannot be offset by net operating losses (subject to a limited exception for certain thrift institutions), (ii) will constitute unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) to entities (including a qualified pension plan, an individual retirement account, a 401(k) plan, a Keogh plan or certain other tax-exempt entities) subject to tax on UBTI, thereby potentially requiring such an entity that is allocated excess inclusion income, and otherwise might not be required to file a tax return, to file a tax return and pay tax on such income, and (iii) in the case of a foreign shareholder, will not qualify for any reduction in U.S. federal withholding tax.

Some amounts received by a Fund from its investments in MLPs will likely be treated as returns of capital because of accelerated deductions available with respect to the activities of MLPs. On the disposition of an investment in such an MLP, the Fund will likely realize taxable income in excess of economic gain from that asset (or if a Fund does not dispose of the MLP, the Fund will likely realize taxable income in excess of cash flow received by the Fund from the MLP in a later period), and the Fund must take such income into account in determining whether the Fund has satisfied its regulated investment company distribution requirements. The Fund may have to borrow or liquidate securities to satisfy its distribution requirements and meet its redemption requests, even though investment considerations might otherwise make it undesirable for the Fund to borrow money or sell securities at the time. In addition, distributions attributable to gain from the sale of MLPs that are characterized as ordinary income under the Code’s recapture provisions will be taxable to Fund shareholders as ordinary income.

178

“Passive foreign investment companies” (PFICs) are generally defined as foreign corporations where at least 75% of their gross income for their taxable year is income from passive sources (such as certain interest, dividends, rents and royalties, or capital gains) or at least 50% of their assets on average produce such passive income. If a Fund acquires any equity interest in a PFIC, the Fund could be subject to U.S. federal income tax and interest charges on “excess distributions” received from the PFIC or on gain from the sale of such equity interest in the PFIC, even if all income or gain actually received by the Fund is timely distributed to its shareholders. Excess distributions and gain from the sale of interests in PFICs may be characterized as ordinary income even though, absent the application of PFIC rules, these amounts may otherwise have been classified as capital gain.

A Fund will not be permitted to pass through to its shareholders any credit or deduction for these special taxes and interest charges incurred with respect to a PFIC. Elections may be available that would ameliorate these adverse tax consequences, but such elections would require a Fund to include its share of the PFIC’s income and net capital gains annually, regardless of whether it receives any distribution from the PFIC (in the case of a “QEF election”), or to mark the gains (and to a limited extent losses) in its interests in the PFIC “to the market” as though the Fund had sold and repurchased such interests on the last day of the Fund’s taxable year, treating such gains and losses as ordinary income and loss (in the case of a “mark-to-market election”). The QEF and mark-to-market elections may require a Fund to recognize taxable income or gain without the concurrent receipt of cash and increase the amount required to be distributed by the Fund to avoid taxation. Making either of these elections therefore may require a Fund to liquidate other investments prematurely to meet the minimum distribution requirements described above, which also may accelerate the recognition of gain and adversely affect the Fund’s total return. Each Fund may attempt to limit and/or manage its holdings in PFICs to minimize tax liability and/or maximize returns from these investments but there can be no assurance that it will be able to do so. Moreover, because it is not always possible to identify a foreign corporation as a PFIC in advance of acquiring shares in the corporation, a Fund may incur the tax and interest charges described above in some instances. Dividends paid by PFICs will not be eligible to be treated as qualified dividend income, as defined below.

In addition to the investments described above, prospective shareholders should be aware that other investments made by a Fund may involve complex tax rules that may result in income or gain recognition by the Fund without corresponding current cash receipts. Although each Fund seeks to avoid significant noncash income, such noncash income could be recognized by a Fund, in which case the Fund may distribute cash derived from other sources in order to meet the minimum distribution requirements described above. In this regard, a Fund could be required at times to liquidate investments prematurely in order to satisfy its minimum distribution requirements, which may accelerate the recognition of gain and adversely affect the Fund’s total return.

Taxation of Distributions

Except for exempt-interest dividends (defined below) paid by a Fund, distributions paid out of a Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, whether paid in cash or reinvested in the Fund, generally are deemed to be taxable distributions and must be reported by each shareholder who is required to file a U.S. federal income tax return. Dividends and distributions on a Fund’s shares are generally subject to U.S. federal income tax as described herein to the extent they do not exceed the Fund’s realized income and gains, even though such dividends and distributions may economically represent a return of a particular shareholder’s investment. Such distributions are likely to occur in respect of shares purchased at a time when the Fund’s net asset value reflects either unrealized gains, or realized but undistributed income or gains. Such realized income and gains may be required to be distributed even when the Fund’s net asset value also reflects unrealized losses. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, a Fund’s earnings and profits, described above, are determined at the end of the Fund’s taxable year and are allocated pro rata to distributions paid over the entire year. Distributions in excess of a Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits will first be treated as a return of capital up to the amount of a shareholder’s tax basis in his or her Fund shares and then as capital gain. A return of capital is not taxable, but

179

it reduces a shareholder’s tax basis in his or her Fund shares, thus reducing any loss or increasing any gain on a subsequent taxable disposition by the shareholder of his or her shares. A Fund may make distributions in excess of its earnings and profits to a limited extent, from time to time.

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, distributions of investment income (except for exempt-interest dividends, defined below) are generally taxable as ordinary income, and distributions of gains from the sale of investments that a Fund owned (or is deemed to have owned) for one year or less will be taxable as ordinary income. Distributions properly designated by a Fund as capital gain dividends (Capital Gain Dividends) will be taxable to shareholders as long-term capital gain (to the extent such distributions do not exceed the Fund’s actual net long-term capital gain for the taxable year), regardless of how long a shareholder has held Fund shares, and do not qualify as dividends for purposes of the dividends-received deduction or as qualified dividend income (defined below). Each Fund will designate Capital Gain Dividends, if any, in a written notice mailed by the Fund to its shareholders not later than 60 days after the close of the Fund’s taxable year.

Some states will not tax distributions made to individual shareholders that are attributable to interest a Fund earns on direct obligations of the U.S. government if the Fund meets the state’s minimum investment or reporting requirements, if any. Investments in GNMA or FNMA securities, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, and repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. government securities generally do not qualify for tax-free treatment. This exemption may not apply to corporate shareholders.

Sales and Exchanges of Fund Shares

If a shareholder sells or exchanges his or her Fund shares, he or she generally will realize a taxable capital gain or loss on the difference between the amount received for the shares (or deemed received in the case of an exchange) and his or her tax basis in the shares. This gain or loss will be long-term capital gain or loss if he or she has held (or is deemed to have held) such Fund shares for more than one year at the time of the sale or exchange, and short-term capital gain or loss otherwise.

If a shareholder sells or exchanges Fund shares within 90 days of having acquired such shares and if, as a result of having initially acquired those shares, he or she subsequently pays a reduced sales charge on a new purchase of shares of the Fund or a different regulated investment company, the sales charge previously incurred in acquiring the Fund’s shares generally shall not be taken into account (to the extent the previous sales charges do not exceed the reduction in sales charges on the new purchase) for the purpose of determining the amount of gain or loss on the disposition, but generally will be treated as having been incurred in the new purchase. Also, if a shareholder realizes a loss on a disposition of Fund shares, the loss will be disallowed under “wash sale” rules to the extent that he or she purchases substantially identical shares within the 61-day period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the disposition. Any disallowed loss generally will be reflected in an adjustment to the tax basis of the purchased shares.

If a shareholder receives a Capital Gain Dividend or is deemed to receive a distribution of long-term capital gain with respect to any Fund share and such Fund share is held or treated as held for six months or less, then (unless otherwise disallowed) any loss on the sale or exchange of that Fund share will be treated as a long-term capital loss to the extent of the Capital Gain Dividend or deemed long-term capital gain distribution. If shares of a Fund are sold at a loss after being held for six months or less, the loss will be disallowed to the extent of any exempt-interest dividends (defined below) received on those shares.

Foreign Taxes

Amounts realized by a Fund from sources within foreign countries may be subject to withholding and other taxes imposed by such countries. Tax conventions between certain countries and the United States may reduce or eliminate such taxes. If more than 50% of the value of a Fund’s total assets at the close of its taxable year consists of securities of foreign corporations, the Fund will be eligible to file an annual election with the IRS

180

pursuant to which the Fund may pass through to its shareholders on a pro rata basis foreign income and similar taxes paid by the Fund with respect to foreign securities that the Fund has held for at least the minimum holding periods specified in the Code and such taxes may be claimed, subject to certain limitations, either as a tax credit or deduction by the shareholders. A Fund that invests primarily or exclusively in other regulated investment companies would not be eligible for this election, even if the underlying regulated investment companies were eligible and did make the election.

Certain Funds may qualify for and make the election; however, even if a Fund qualifies for the election for any year, it may determine not to make the election for such year. If a Fund does not so qualify or qualifies but does not so elect, then shareholders will not be entitled to claim a credit or deduction with respect to foreign taxes paid by or withheld from payments to the Fund. A Fund will notify its shareholders within 60 days after the close of the Fund’s taxable year if it has elected for the foreign taxes paid by it to “pass through” for that year.

In general, if a Fund makes the election, the Fund itself will not be permitted to claim a credit or deduction for foreign taxes paid in that year, and the Fund’s dividends-paid deduction will be increased by the amount of foreign taxes paid that year. Fund shareholders generally shall include their proportionate share of the foreign taxes paid by the Fund in their gross income and treat that amount as paid by them for the purpose of the foreign tax credit or deduction, provided that any applicable holding period and other requirements have been met. If a shareholder claims a credit for foreign taxes paid, in general, the credit will be subject to certain limits. A deduction for foreign taxes paid may be claimed only by shareholders that itemize their deductions.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates

As of the date of this SAI, the maximum stated U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to individuals generally is 35% for ordinary income and 15% for net long-term capital gain. Long-term capital gain rates applicable to individuals have been temporarily reduced — in general, to 15% with lower rates applying to taxpayers in the 10% and 15% rate brackets — for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2011. It is currently unclear whether Congress will extend this provision for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.

For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2011, U.S. federal income tax law also provides for a maximum individual U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to “qualified dividend income” equal to the highest net long-term capital gain rate, which, as described above, generally is 15%. It is currently unclear whether Congress will extend this provision for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. In general, “qualified dividend income” is income attributable to dividends received by a Fund from certain domestic and foreign corporations, as long as certain holding period and other requirements are met by the Fund with respect to the dividend-paying corporation’s stock and by the shareholders with respect to the Fund’s shares. If 95% or more of a Fund’s gross income (excluding net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss) constitutes qualified dividend income, all of its distributions (other than Capital Gain Dividends) will be generally treated as qualified dividend income in the hands of individual shareholders, as long as they have owned their Fund shares for at least 61 days during the 121-day period beginning 60 days before the Fund’s ex-dividend date (or, in the case of certain preferred stock, 91 days during the 181-day period beginning 90 days before such date) and meet certain other requirements specified in the Code. In general, if less than 95% of a Fund’s income is attributable to qualified dividend income, then only the portion of the Fund’s distributions that is attributable to qualified dividend income and designated as such in a timely manner will be so treated in the hands of individual shareholders who meet the aforementioned holding period requirements. The rules regarding the qualification of Fund distributions as qualified dividend income are complex, including the holding period requirements. Individual Fund shareholders therefore are urged to consult their own tax advisors and financial planners. Fixed income funds typically do not distribute significant amounts of qualified dividend income.

The maximum stated corporate U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to ordinary income and net capital gain is 35%. Actual marginal tax rates may be higher for some shareholders, for example, through reductions in deductions. Naturally, the amount of tax payable by any taxpayer will be affected by a combination of tax laws

181

covering, for example, deductions, credits, deferrals, exemptions, sources of income and other matters. U.S. federal income tax rates are set to increase in future years under various “sunset” provisions of U.S. federal income tax laws.

Backup Withholding

Each Fund generally is required to withhold, and remit to the U.S. Treasury, subject to certain exemptions, an amount equal to 28% of all distributions and redemption proceeds (including proceeds from exchanges and redemptions in-kind) paid or credited to a Fund shareholder if (1) the shareholder fails to furnish the Fund with a correct “taxpayer identification number” (TIN) or has not certified to the Fund that withholding does not apply or (2) the IRS notifies the Fund that the shareholder’s TIN is incorrect or the shareholder is otherwise subject to backup withholding. These backup withholding rules may also apply to distributions that are properly designated as exempt-interest dividends (defined below). This backup withholding is not an additional tax imposed on the shareholder. The shareholder may apply amounts required to be withheld as a credit against his or her future U.S. federal income tax liability, provided that the required information is furnished to the IRS. If a shareholder fails to furnish a valid TIN upon request, the shareholder can also be subject to IRS penalties. Unless Congress enacts legislation providing otherwise, the rate of backup withholding is set to increase to 31% for amounts distributed or paid after December 31, 2010.

Tax-Deferred Plans

The shares of a Fund may be available for a variety of tax-deferred retirement and other tax-advantaged plans and accounts. Prospective investors should contact their tax advisors and financial planners regarding the tax consequences to them of holding Fund shares through such plans and/or accounts.

Corporate Shareholders

Subject to limitations and other rules, a corporate shareholder of a Fund may be eligible for the dividends-received deduction on Fund distributions attributable to dividends received by the Fund from domestic corporations, which, if received directly by the corporate shareholder, would qualify for such a deduction. For eligible corporate shareholders, the dividends-received deduction may be subject to certain reductions, and a distribution by a Fund attributable to dividends of a domestic corporation will be eligible for the deduction only if certain holding period and other requirements are met. These requirements are complex; therefore, corporate shareholders of the Funds are urged to consult their own tax advisors and financial planners.

As discussed above, a portion of the interest paid or accrued on certain high-yield discount obligations that a Fund may own may not be deductible to the issuer. If a portion of the interest paid or accrued on these obligations is not deductible, that portion will be treated as a dividend. In such cases, if the issuer of the obligation is a domestic corporation, dividend payments by a Fund may be eligible for the dividends-received deduction to the extent of the dividend portion of such interest.

Foreign Shareholders

For purposes of this discussion, “foreign shareholders” generally include: (i) nonresident alien individuals, (ii) foreign trusts (i.e., a trust other than a trust with respect to which a U.S. court is able to exercise primary supervision over administration of that trust and one or more U.S. persons have authority to control substantial decisions of that trust), (iii) foreign estates (i.e., the income of which is not subject to U.S. tax regardless of source), and (iv) foreign corporations.

Generally, unless an exception applies, dividend distributions made to foreign shareholders other than Capital Gain Dividends and exempt-interest dividends (defined below) will be subject to non-refundable U.S. federal income tax withholding at a 30% rate (or such lower rate as may be provided under an applicable income

182

tax treaty) even if they are funded by income or gains (such as portfolio interest, short-term capital gains, or foreign-source dividend and interest income) that, if paid to a foreign person directly, would not be subject to withholding. However, generally, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2010, distributions made to foreign shareholders and properly designated by a Fund as “interest-related dividends” were exempt from U.S. federal income tax withholding. The exemption for interest-related dividends did not apply to any distribution to a foreign shareholder (i) to the extent that the dividend was attributable to certain interest on an obligation if the foreign shareholder was the issuer or was a 10% shareholder of the issuer, (ii) that was within certain foreign countries that had inadequate information exchange with the United States, or (iii) to the extent the dividend was attributable to interest paid by a person that was a related person of the foreign shareholder and the foreign shareholder was a controlled foreign corporation. Interest-related dividends were generally attributable to the Fund’s net U.S.-source interest income of types similar to those not subject to U.S. federal income tax if earned directly by an individual foreign shareholder. In order to qualify as an interest-related dividend, the Fund was required to designate a distribution as such in a written notice mailed to its shareholders not later than 60 days after the close of the Fund’s taxable year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a distribution described above is “effectively connected” with a U.S. trade or business (or, if an income tax treaty applies, is attributable to a U.S. permanent establishment) of the recipient foreign shareholder, U.S. federal income tax withholding will not apply. Instead, the distribution will be subject to the tax, reporting and withholding requirements generally applicable to U.S. persons, and an additional branch profits tax may apply if the recipient foreign shareholder is a foreign corporation.

In general, a foreign shareholder’s capital gains realized on the disposition of Fund shares and distributions properly designated as Capital Gain Dividends are not subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax, unless: (i) such gains or distributions are effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business (or, if an income tax treaty applies, are attributable to a U.S. permanent establishment) of the foreign shareholder; (ii) in the case of an individual foreign shareholder, the shareholder is present in the U.S. for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the year of the disposition of Fund shares or the receipt of Capital Gain Dividends and certain other conditions are met; or (iii) the Fund shares on which the foreign shareholder realized gain constitute U.S. real property interests (USRPIs, defined below) or, in certain cases, the distributions are attributable to gain from the sale or exchange of a USRPI, as discussed below. If the requirements of clause (i) are met, the tax, reporting and withholding requirements applicable to U.S. persons generally will apply to the foreign shareholder and an additional branch profits tax may apply if the foreign shareholder is a foreign corporation. If the requirements of clause (i) are not met, but the requirements of clause (ii) are met, such gains and distributions will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at a 30% rate (or such lower rate as may be provided under an applicable income tax treaty). Please see below for a discussion of the tax implications to foreign shareholders in the event that clause (iii) applies. With respect to taxable years of a Fund beginning before January 1, 2010, distributions to a foreign shareholder attributable to a Fund’s net short-term capital gain in excess of its net long-term capital loss and designated as such by the Fund in a written notice mailed by the Fund to its shareholders not later than 60 days after the close of the Fund’s taxable year (“short-term capital gain dividends”) were generally not subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax unless clause (i), (ii) or (iii) above applied to such distribution.

It is currently unclear whether Congress will extend the exemptions from withholding for interest-related dividends and short-term capital gain dividends with respect to taxable years of a Fund beginning on or after January 1, 2010 and what the terms of any such extension would be. Even if permitted to do so, each Fund provides no assurance that it would designate any distributions as interest-related dividends or short-term capital gain dividends.

In the case of shares held through an intermediary, even if a Fund makes a designation with respect to a payment, no assurance can be made that the intermediary will respect such a designation, and an intermediary may withhold even if a Fund makes a designation with respect to a payment. Foreign shareholders should contact their intermediaries regarding the application of these rules to their accounts.

183

Special rules apply to distributions to foreign shareholders from a Fund if it is either a “U.S. real property holding corporation” (USRPHC) or would be a USRPHC but for the operation of certain exceptions from USRPI treatment for interests in domestically controlled REITs or regulated investment companies and not-greater-than-5% interests in publicly traded classes of stock in REITs or regulated investment companies. Additionally, special rules apply to the sale of shares in a Fund if it is a USRPHC. Generally, a USRPHC is a domestic corporation that holds USRPIs — defined generally as any interest in U.S. real property or any equity interest in a USRPHC — the fair market value of which equals or exceeds 50% of the sum of the fair market values of the corporation’s USRPIs, interests in real property located outside the United States and other assets. If a Fund holds (directly or indirectly) significant interests in REITs, it may be a USRPHC.

If a Fund is a USRPHC or would be a USRPHC but for certain of the above-mentioned exceptions, amounts the Fund receives from REITs derived from gains realized from USRPIs generally will retain their character as such in the hands of the Fund’s foreign shareholders. In the hands of a foreign shareholder that holds (or has held in the prior 12 months) more than a 5% interest in any class of the Fund, such amounts generally will be treated as gains “effectively connected” with the conduct of a “U.S. trade or business,” and subject to tax at graduated rates. Moreover, such shareholder generally will be required to file a U.S. income tax return for the year recognized, and the Fund must withhold 35% of the amount of such distribution. Otherwise, in the case of all other foreign shareholders (i.e., those whose interest in any class of the Fund did not exceed 5% at any time during the prior 12 months), such amounts generally will be treated as ordinary income (regardless of any designation by the Fund that such distribution is a Capital Gain Dividend), and the Fund must withhold 30% (or a lower applicable treaty rate) of the amount of the distribution paid to such shareholders. If a Fund is subject to the rules of this paragraph, its foreign shareholders may also be subject to “wash sale” rules to prevent the avoidance of the foregoing tax-filing and payment obligations through the sale and repurchase of Fund shares. Prior to January 1, 2010, if a Fund was a USRPHC or would have been a USRPHC but for certain of the above-mentioned exceptions, similar rules generally also applied to any non-REIT USRPI gains recognized by the Fund directly or indirectly through certain lower-tier regulated investment companies. It is currently unclear whether Congress will extend such application for distributions made on or after January 1, 2010 and what the terms of any such extension would be.

In addition, if a Fund is a USRPHC, it generally must withhold 10% of the amount realized in redemption by a greater-than-5% foreign shareholder, and that shareholder must file a U.S. income tax return for the year of the disposition of the USRPI and pay any additional tax due on the gain. Prior to January 1, 2010, such withholding generally was not required with respect to amounts paid in redemption of shares of a Fund if it was a domestically controlled USRPHC, or, in certain limited cases, if the Fund (whether or not domestically controlled) held substantial investments in regulated investment companies that were domestically controlled USRPHCs. It is currently unclear whether Congress will extend this exemption from withholding for redemptions made on or after January 1, 2010 and what the terms of any such extension would be. Unless and until such legislation is enacted, beginning on January 1, 2010, withholding is required in respect of amounts paid in redemption of shares of a Fund by a greater-than-5% foreign shareholder if the Fund is a USRPHC, without regard to whether the Fund or any regulated investment company in which it invests is domestically controlled.

In order to qualify for any exemptions from withholding described above or for lower withholding tax rates under income tax treaties, or to establish an exemption from backup withholding, a foreign shareholder must comply with applicable certification requirements relating to its foreign status (including, in general, furnishing an IRS Form W-8BEN or substitute form). Foreign shareholders should consult their tax advisors in this regard.

Special rules (including withholding and reporting requirements) apply to foreign partnerships and those holding Fund shares through foreign partnerships. In addition, additional considerations may apply to foreign trusts and foreign estates. Investors holding Fund shares through foreign entities should consult their tax advisors about their particular situation.

184

If a Fund qualifies and makes an election to pass through foreign taxes to its shareholders, as described earlier, foreign shareholders of the Fund generally will be subject to increased U.S. federal income taxation without a corresponding benefit for the pass-through of foreign taxes.

A beneficial holder of shares who is a foreign person may be subject to state and local tax and to the U.S. federal estate tax in addition to the U.S. federal income tax referred to above.

Tax-Exempt Shareholders

Under current law, a Fund serves to “block” (that is, prevent the attribution to shareholders of) UBTI from being realized by tax-exempt shareholders. Notwithstanding this “blocking” effect, a tax-exempt shareholder could realize UBTI by virtue of its investment in a Fund if shares in the Fund constitute debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholder within the meaning of Code Section 514(b).

It is possible that a tax-exempt shareholder will also recognize UBTI if a Fund recognizes excess inclusion income (as described above) derived from direct or indirect investments in residual interests in REMICs or equity interests in TMPs. Furthermore, any investment in residual interests of a CMO that has elected to be treated as a REMIC can create complex tax consequences, especially if the Fund has state or local governments or other tax-exempt organizations as shareholders.

In addition, special tax consequences apply to charitable remainder trusts (CRTs) that invest in regulated investment companies that invest directly or indirectly in residual interests in REMICs or equity interests in TMPs. Under legislation enacted in December 2006, a CRT, as defined in Section 664 of the Code, that realizes UBTI for a taxable year must pay an excise tax annually of an amount equal to such UBTI. Under IRS guidance issued in October 2006, a CRT will not recognize UBTI solely as a result of investing in a Fund to the extent that it recognizes excess inclusion income. Rather, if at any time during any taxable year a CRT (or one of certain other tax-exempt shareholders, such as the United States, a state or political subdivision, or an agency or instrumentality thereof, and certain energy cooperatives) is a record holder of a share in a Fund and the Fund recognizes excess inclusion income, then the Fund will be subject to a tax on that portion of its excess inclusion income for the taxable year that is allocable to such shareholders at the highest U.S. federal corporate income tax rate. The extent to which the IRS guidance remains applicable in light of the December 2006 legislation is unclear. To the extent permitted under the 1940 Act, each Fund may elect to specially allocate any such tax to the applicable CRT, or other shareholder, and thus reduce such shareholder’s distributions for the year by the amount of the tax that relates to such shareholder’s interest in the Fund. Each Fund has not yet determined whether such an election will be made. CRTs are urged to consult their tax advisors concerning the consequences of investing in a Fund.

Shareholder Reporting Requirements Regarding Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts and Other Foreign Financial Assets

Effective for taxable years beginning after March 18, 2010, certain individuals (and, if provided in future guidance, certain domestic entities) must disclose annually their interests in “specified foreign financial assets” on their U.S. federal income tax returns. It is currently unclear under what circumstances, if any, a shareholder’s (indirect) interest in a Fund’s “specified foreign financial assets,” if any, falls within this requirement. In addition, shareholders that are U.S. persons and own, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of a Fund by vote or value could be required to report annually their “financial interest” in the Fund’s “foreign financial accounts,” if any, on Treasury Department Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). Shareholders should consult a tax advisor regarding the applicability to them of both of these reporting requirements.

185

Other Reporting and Withholding Requirements

New rules enacted in March 2010 require the reporting to the IRS of direct and indirect ownership of foreign financial accounts and foreign entities by U.S. persons. Failure, including by a U.S. person, to provide this required information can result in a 30% withholding tax on certain payments (“withholdable payments”) made after December 31, 2012. Withholdable payments include U.S.-source dividends and interest, and gross proceeds from the sale or other disposal of property that can produce U.S.-source dividends or interest.

The IRS has issued only limited guidance with respect to these new rules; their scope remains unclear and potentially subject to material change. Very generally, it appears that any distribution made by a Fund after December 31, 2012 (or such later date as may be provided in future guidance) to a shareholder, including a distribution in redemption of shares and a distribution of income or gains otherwise exempt from withholding under the rules applicable to non-U.S. shareholders described above (e.g., Capital Gain Dividends), will be subject to the new 30% withholding requirement. Payments to a foreign shareholder that is a “foreign financial institution” will generally be subject to withholding, unless such shareholder enters into an agreement with the IRS. Payments to shareholders that are U.S. persons or foreign individuals will generally not be subject to withholding, so long as such shareholders provide a Fund with such certifications or other documentation as the Fund requires to comply with the new rules. Persons investing in a Fund through an intermediary should contact their intermediary regarding the application of the new reporting and withholding regime to their investments in the Fund.

Shareholders are urged to consult a tax advisor regarding this new reporting and withholding regime, in light of their particular circumstances.

Tax Shelter Reporting Regulations

Under Treasury Regulations, if a shareholder recognizes a loss of $2 million or more for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more for a corporate shareholder, the shareholder must file with the IRS a disclosure statement on Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of a regulated investment company are not excepted. Future guidance may extend the current exception from this reporting requirement to shareholders of most or all regulated investment companies. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

Special Tax Considerations Pertaining to Tax-Exempt Funds

If, at the close of each quarter of a regulated investment company’s taxable year, at least 50% of the value of its total assets consists of obligations the interest on which is exempt from U.S. federal income tax under Section 103(a) of the Code, then the regulated investment company may qualify to pay “exempt-interest dividends” and pass through to its shareholders the tax-exempt character of its income from such obligations. Tax-exempt funds intends to so qualify and are designed to provide shareholders with a high level of income in the form of exempt-interest dividends, which are generally exempt from U.S. federal income tax.

Distributions of capital gains or income not attributable to interest on tax-exempt funds’ tax-exempt obligations will not constitute exempt-interest dividends and will be taxable to shareholders as described earlier.

Not later than 60 days after the close of a tax-exempt fund’s taxable year, the tax-exempt fund will notify its shareholders of the portion of the distributions for the taxable year which constitutes exempt-interest dividends. In general, if an amount of the tax-exempt fund’s distribution designated as an exempt-interest dividend exceeds the fund’s net-exempt interest, the amount so qualifying as tax-exempt will be scaled back ratably to the amount of its net-exempt income. In such a case, each tax-exempt fund shareholder must proportionately reduce the

186

amount of the dividend it treats as tax-exempt, and will generally include the excess income as a taxable dividend to the extent of certain disallowed deductions and thereafter as a return of capital. The deductibility of interest paid or accrued on indebtedness incurred by a shareholder to purchase or carry shares of a tax-exempt fund may be limited. The portion of such interest that is non-deductible generally equals the amount of such interest times the ratio of a tax-exempt fund’s exempt-interest dividends received by the shareholder to all of the tax-exempt fund’s dividends received by the shareholder (excluding Capital Gain Dividends and any capital gains required to be included in the shareholder’s long term capital gains in respect of capital gains retained by the tax-exempt fund, as described earlier).

Although exempt-interest dividends are generally exempt from U.S. federal income tax, there may not be a similar exemption under the laws of a particular state or local taxing jurisdiction. Thus, exempt-interest dividends may be subject to state and local taxes; however, tax-exempt funds invests at least 80% of its net assets in municipal bonds that pay interest that is exempt not only from U.S. federal income tax, but also from the applicable state’s personal income tax (but not necessarily local taxes or taxes of other states). You should consult your tax advisor to discuss the tax consequences of your investment in a tax-exempt fund.

Tax-exempt interest on certain “private activity bonds” has been designated as a “tax preference item” and must be added back to taxable income for purposes of calculating U.S. federal alternative minimum tax (AMT). To the extent that a tax-exempt fund invests in certain private activity bonds, its shareholders will be required to report that portion of a tax-exempt fund’s distributions attributable to income from the bonds as a tax preference item in determining their U.S. federal AMT, if any. Shareholders will be notified of the tax status of distributions made by a tax-exempt fund. Persons who may be “substantial users” (or “related persons” of substantial users) of facilities financed by private activity bonds should consult their tax advisors before purchasing shares in a tax-exempt fund. In addition, exempt-interest dividends paid by a tax-exempt fund to a corporate shareholder are, with very limited exceptions, included in the shareholder’s “adjusted current earnings” as part of its U.S. federal AMT calculation. As of the date of this SAI, individuals are subject to the U.S. federal AMT at a maximum rate of 28% and corporations at a maximum rate of 20%. Shareholders with questions or concerns about the U.S. federal AMT should consult their own tax advisors.

Ordinarily, a tax-exempt fund relies on an opinion from the issuer’s bond counsel that interest on the issuer’s obligation will be exempt from U.S. federal income taxation. However, no assurance can be given that the IRS will not successfully challenge such exemption, which could cause interest on the obligation to be taxable and could jeopardize a tax-exempt fund’s ability to pay exempt-interest dividends. Similar challenges may occur as to state-specific exemptions. Also, from time to time legislation may be introduced or litigation may arise that would change the treatment of exempt-interest dividends. Such litigation or legislation may have the effect of raising the state or other taxes payable by shareholders on such dividends. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors for the current law on exempt-interest dividends.

A shareholder who receives Social Security or railroad retirement benefits should consult his or her tax advisor to determine what effect, if any, an investment in a tax-exempt fund may have on the federal taxation of such benefits. Exempt-interest dividends are included in income for purposes of determining the amount of benefits that are taxable.

Special Tax Considerations Pertaining to California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

If, at the close of each quarter of its taxable year, at least 50% of the value of the total assets of a regulated investment company consists of obligations, which, when held by an individual, the interest therefrom is exempt from income taxation by California (California Exempt Securities), then the regulated investment company will be qualified to make distributions that are exempt from California state individual income tax (California exempt-interest distributions). For this purpose, California Exempt Securities generally are limited to California municipal securities and certain U.S. Government and U.S. Possession obligations. The California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund intends to qualify under the above requirements so that it can pay California exempt-interest distributions.

187

Within sixty days after the close of its taxable year, the Fund will notify its shareholders of the portion of the distributions paid by the Fund that is exempt from California state individual income tax. The total amount of California exempt-interest distributions paid by the Fund with respect to any taxable year cannot exceed the excess of the amount of interest received by the Fund for such year on California Exempt Securities over any amounts that, if the Fund were treated as an individual, would be considered expenses related to tax exempt income or amortizable bond premium that would not be deductible under federal income or California state individual income tax law.

Interest on indebtedness incurred or continued by a shareholder in a taxable year to purchase or carry shares of the California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund is not deductible for California state individual income tax purposes if the Fund distributes California exempt-interest distributions during the shareholder’s taxable year.

The foregoing is only a summary of some of the important California state individual income tax considerations generally affecting the California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund and its shareholders. No attempt is made to present a detailed explanation of the California state income tax treatment of the Fund or its shareholders, and this discussion is not intended as a substitute for careful planning. Further, it should be noted that the portion of any of the Fund’s distributions constituting California exempt-interest distributions is excludable from income for California state individual income tax purposes only. Any distributions paid to shareholders subject to California state franchise tax or California state corporate income tax may be taxable for such purposes. Accordingly, potential investors in the Fund, including, in particular, corporate investors which may be subject to either California franchise tax or California corporate income tax, should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the application of such taxes to the receipt of the Fund’s distributions and as to their own California state tax situation, in general.

Special Tax Considerations Pertaining to the Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

The portion of the Fund’s exempt-interest distributions paid to residents of Georgia attributable to interest received by the Georgia Funds on tax-exempt obligations of the State of Georgia or its political subdivision or authorities and other Fund distributions attributable to interest received from U.S. Government obligations will be exempt from Georgia individual and corporate income taxes. There is no Georgia intangibles tax or other personal property tax applicable to the shares of the Georgia Funds owned by investors residing in Georgia. The Georgia intangibles tax was repealed by the Georgia General Assembly on March 21, 1996, further ratified by a Constitutional Amendment approved in the November 1996 General Election (GA. L 1996, P.130 § 9). The Georgia intangibles tax was repealed for taxable years beginning after January 1, 1996. Distributions attributable to capital gains realized from the sale of Georgia municipal bonds and U.S. Government obligations will be subject to the State of Georgia short-term or long-term capital gains tax, which follow the federal income tax treatment. Interest received by a Georgia resident from non-Georgia municipal state bonds and distributions received from mutual funds that derive income from non-Georgia municipal or state bonds will be subject to Georgia income tax.

Special Tax Considerations Pertaining to Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

The portion of the Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund’s exempt-interest distributions attributable to interest received by the Fund on tax-exempt obligations of the state of Maryland or its political subdivisions or authorities, or obligations issued by the government of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa or their authorities (Maryland Municipal Bonds) and distributions attributable to gains from the disposition Maryland Municipal Bonds (other than obligations issued by U.S. possessions) or interest on U.S. Government obligations will be exempt from Maryland individual and corporate income taxes; any other Fund distributions will be subject to Maryland income tax. Fund shareholders will be informed annually regarding the portion of the Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund’s distributions that constitutes income exempt from Maryland income taxes. Maryland presently includes in Maryland taxable income a portion of certain items of tax preference as defined in the Code. Interest paid on certain private activity bonds constitutes such a tax

188

preference if the bonds (i) are not Maryland Municipal Bonds or (ii) are Maryland Municipal Bonds issued by U.S. possessions. Accordingly, up to 50% of any distributions from the Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund attributable to interest on such private activity bonds may not be exempt from Maryland state and local individual income taxes. Shares of the Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund will not be subject to the Maryland personal property tax.

Special Tax Considerations Pertaining to the North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

The portion of the North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund’s exempt-interest distributions attributable to interest received by the Fund on tax-exempt obligations of the State of North Carolina or its political subdivisions, commissions, authorities, agencies or non-profit educational institutions organized or chartered under the laws of North Carolina, or obligations issued by the United States or its possessions will be exempt from North Carolina individual and corporate income taxes. Although capital gain distributions generally are subject to tax in North Carolina, individual shareholders of the North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund may deduct the amount of capital gain distributions (if any) attributable to the sale of certain obligations issued before July 1, 1995 for purposes of determining their North Carolina taxable income.

Special Tax Considerations Pertaining to the South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

The portion of the South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund’s exempt-interest distributions attributable to interest received by the Fund on tax-exempt obligations of the State of South Carolina, its political subdivisions or exempt interest upon obligations of the United States will be exempt from South Carolina income taxes. Distributions of capital gains or income not attributable to interest from tax-exempt obligations of the State of South Carolina, its political subdivisions or exempt interest on obligations of the United States may be subject to South Carolina income taxes.

Although distributions of capital gains and the gain recognized with respect to the sale or exchange of shares of the Fund may be subject to the South Carolina state income tax, individuals, estates and trusts are entitled to a deduction for South Carolina taxable income purposes equal to 44% of the net capital gain recognized in South Carolina during a taxable year. The definition of net capital gain for federal income tax purposes is utilized for purposes of this deduction. In the case of estates or trusts, the deduction is applicable only to income taxed to the estate or trust or individual beneficiaries and not income passed through to non-individual beneficiaries.

Special Tax Considerations Pertaining to the Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

The portion of the Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund’s distributions attributable to interest on (i) debt obligations of Virginia or its political subdivisions, and (ii) debt obligations of the United States and any authority, commission or instrumentality of the United States (including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), that are, in each case, backed by the full faith and credit of the borrowing government, will be exempt from Virginia income tax. Furthermore, any of the Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund’s distributions that are attributable to realized gains from dispositions of the foregoing debt obligations may also be exempt from Virginia income tax.

189

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS

As of August 31, 2010, the name, address and percentage of ownership of each person who may be deemed to be a “principal holder “(i.e., owns of record or is known by the Trust to own beneficially 5% or more of any class of a Fund’s outstanding shares) is listed below.

Principal Holder Ownership of the Funds with fiscal year ending February 28:

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	7,676,047.3070	53.15%
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	539,148.0880	46.01%
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	726,305.3420	49.22%
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FLR. 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	88,552.6660	6.00%
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	6,573,901.9350	59.74%
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund Class Z	STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY AAF LIFEGOAL BALANCED GROWTH ATTN: JIM BOTSOLIS TWO AVENUE DE LAFAYETTE BOSTON MA 02111-1724	796,922.2030	7.24%

190

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund Class Z	STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY AAF LIFEGOAL GROWTH PORTFOLIO ATTN: JIM BOTSOLIS TWO AVENUE DE LAFAYETTE BOSTON MA 02111-1724	649,976.3610	5.91%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	551,871.7790	21.75%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class A	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA II, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	174,179.6740	6.86%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	123,752.4100	18.70%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class B	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA 2, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	174,179.6740	6.86%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class B	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FLR. 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	54,949.4480	8.30%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class B	PERSHING LLC P.O. BOX 2052 JERSEY CITY NJ 07303-2052	38,546.0020	5.82%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	850,692.7110	29.03%

191

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Global Value Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FLR. 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	284,293.1510	9.70%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	808,790.6280	55.02%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	347,662.9250	23.65%
Columbia Global Value Fund Class Z	FRONTIER TRUST CO FBO ASSOCIATES IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY P.O. BOX 10758 FARGO ND 58106-0758	93,358.6250	6.35%
Columbia International Value Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	5,157,701.7550	18.42%
Columbia International Value Fund Class A	PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT INS & ANN CO FBO VARIOUS RETIREMENT PLANS 200 WOOD AVE S ISELIN NJ 08830-2769	2,693,711.8980	9.62%
Columbia International Value Fund Class A	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104-4151	2,562,039.2280	9.15%
Columbia International Value Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	22,515,7400	19.90%

192

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia International Value Fund Class B	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	5,766.2090	5.10%
Columbia International Value Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,227,586.1220	27.38%
Columbia International Value Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	384,709.7330	8.58%
Columbia International Value Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN: BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	34,350,727.8690	39.52%
Columbia International Value Fund Class Z	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-4151	18,665,218.9790	21.47%
Columbia International Value Fund Class Z	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	7,422,644.5780	8.54%
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	7,591,092.9160	69.20%
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	72,603.6910	44.54%

193

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	59,048.1100	28.82%
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	30,086.1110	14.68%
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	51,769,526.9970	62.63%
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund Class Z	COLUMBIA MANAGEMENT ADVISOR COLUMBIA GROWTH ASST ALLOC-NY529 ATTN: JIM MARIN 3RD FL 245 SUMMER ST BOSTON MA 02210-1133	4,566,619.7210	5.52%
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	441,376.6610	43.79%
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class R	CHRISTI LAIRD FBO COUNTRYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 401K PROFIT SHARING PLAN & TRUST INC 9330 STEVENS RD STE A SANTEE CA 92071-5639	3,993.0390	42.27%
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class R	NFS LLC CUST HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK FBO: EB ACCOUNTS 7 EASTON OVAL COLUMBUS OH 43219-6010	3,140.5300	33.25%

194

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO APPLIED RELIABILITY ENGINEERING 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	2,173.7330	23.01%
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class Y	BANK OF AMERICA NA ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	2,867,095.5940	99.96%
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	32,562.941.9940	88.33%
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	2,032,605.2870	5.51%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class A	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-4151	1,883,865.3490	13.15%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class A	RELIANCE TRUST CO FBO RETIREMENT PLANS SERVICED BY METLIFE 8515 E ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	1,384,510.8550	9.67%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class A	ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY LLC TTEE FBO CLIENTS BENEFITS CLIENTS 401(K) PLAN 8515 E ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	802,853.0910	5.60%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	8,368.6480	5.43%

195

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO NFS/FMTC ROLLOVER IRA FBO GENE P ALVES 560 RAY ST FALL RIVER MA 02720-7208	7,847.3670	5.09%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA TTEE BANK OF AMERICA 401K PLAN ATTN NORMA AJA PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	28,122,739.8040	25.35%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	18,508,025.9610	16.68%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA TTEE 401(K) FOR LEGACY FLEET TRUST PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	14,756,633.7260	13.30%
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA TRANSFERRED SAVINGS CUST FBO BANK OF AMERICA N.A PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	5,948,594.3730	5.36%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	7,303,603.5440	14.22	%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	436,675.1230	7.89	%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	585,984.5170	17.12	%

196

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class R	MICHAEL MIRE FBO GULFSTREAM SERVICES INC 401K PSP & TRUST 103 DICKSON RD HOUMA LA 70363-7306	82,420.9220	78.32	%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class R	COMMUNITY BANK NA AS CUST FBO SIMED 1165(E) RETIREMENT PLAN 6 RHOADS DR STE 7 UTICA NY 13502-6317	19,418.2520	18.45	%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class Y	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	1,109,406.6510	99.89	%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	41,482,188.4480	34.60	%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA TTEE BANK OF AMERICA 401K PLAN ATTN: NORMA AJA P.O. BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	18,275,848.6640	15.24	%
Columbia Large Cap Value Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA TTEE 401(K) LEGACY FLEET TRUST PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	13,376,089.4290	11.16%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	11,199,371.5990	7.70%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class A	PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT MNGT SVC FBO MUTUAL FUND CLIENTS ATTN PRUCHOICE UNTI 194 WOOD AVE S ISELIN NJ 08830-2710	7,408,061.1970	5.10%

197

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,623,892.5810	17.14%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class B	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	904,907.5070	9.55%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	13,932,724.7210	26.51%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	6,482,084.5310	12.33%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class C	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA II, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	2,697,499.8120	5.13%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class R	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	353,713.0210	10.76%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class Z	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	13,447,698.8280	16.00%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	10,040,499.7850	11.95%

198

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMER 4800 DEER LAKE DR E JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	8,446,356.2090	10.05%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class Z	LPL FINANCIAL FBO CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS OPERATIONS P.O. BOX 509046 SAN DIEGO CA 92150-9046	6,869,310.5170	8.17%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class Z	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-415	6,773,805.6020	8.06%
Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund Class Z	FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INST L OPS CO FIIOC AS AGENT FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS 100 MAGELLAN WAY COVINGTON KY 41015-1999	6,751,574.6710	8.03%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class A	PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT MNGT SVC FBO MUTUAL FUND CLIENTS ATTN: PROCHOICE UNIT 194 WOOD AVE S ISELIN NJ 08830-2710	15,967,435.7510	21.28%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	8,736,281.8880	11.64%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,345,070.0140	48.70%

199

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	8,275,537.7720	53.82%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	1,209,057.3920	7.86%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA TTEE BANK OF AMERICA 401K PLAN ATTN NORMA AJA PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	9,804,286.9370	19.67%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	6,293,123.4110	12.63%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS 4800 DEER LAKE DR E JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	4,372,982.4200	8.77%
Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund Class Z	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-415	4,053,356.7700	8.13%
Columbia Marsico Global Fund Class A	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	125,467.7520	52.68%
Columbia Marsico Global Fund Class A	NFS LLC FEBO WILLIAM C LIVINGSTON BRONAH M LIVINGSTON 4254 RUSTLING WOODS DR DENVER NC 28037-5463	13,003.8390	5.46%

200

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico Global Fund Class C	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	125,000.0000	66.31%
Columbia Marsico Global Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	13,730.8890	7.28%
Columbia Marsico Global Fund Class R	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	125,246.4790	99.59%
Columbia Marsico Global Fund Class Z	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	125,689.4900	86.03%
Columbia Marsico Global Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA IRA CHARLES J HOWELL 600 UNIVERSITY ST STE 1725 SEATTLE WA 98101-4120	16,738.2680	11.46%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	9,616,817.1710	16.34%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class A	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY HARBOSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA 2, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	4,907,913.3890	8.34%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class A	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	3,347,885.8880	5.69%

201

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,121,699.8620	44.24%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class B	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	182,046.8070	7.18%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	12,100,883.2820	53.69%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	1,801,294.0250	7.99%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class C	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA 2I, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	1,300,891.0260	5.77%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class R	HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. SEPARATE ACCOUNT ATTN UIT OPERATIONS P.O. BOX 2999 HARTFORD CT 06104-2999	404,351.1090	44.63%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class R	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	67,289.3190	7.43%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	24,433,604.5490	25.46%

202

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class Z	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	17,430,361.2730	18.17%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class Z	LPL FINANCIAL FBO CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS OPERATIONS P.O. BOX 509046 SAN DIEGO CA 92150-9046	9,804,031.1820	10.22%
Columbia Marsico Growth Fund Class Z	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-4151	7,570,908.3860	7.89%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,493,803.5100	10.55%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	403,891.6150	26.24%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class B	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	139,719.1580	9.08%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	797,783.6690	19.90%

203

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	522,218.4880	13.03%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class C	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA 2, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	227,244.8610	5.67%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class R	ORCHARD TRUST CO TTEE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CLIENTS 401K 8515 E ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	47,994.4000	15.33%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class R	FRONTIER TRUST CO FBO DEARBORN MID WEST CONVEYOR CO 401K P.O. BOX 10758 FARGO ND 58106-0758	46,382.8210	14.82%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class R	NTC & CO CUST BODE CALL & STROUPE FBO BODE CALL & STROUPE P.O. BOX 173859 DENVER CO 80217-3859	32,856.3270	10.49%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO O DANIEL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 401K SA 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	22,172.4570	7.08%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class R	HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. SEPARATE ACCOUNT ATTN UIT OPERATIONS P.O. BOX 2999 HARTFORD CT 06104-2999	17,859.8770	5.70%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class R	GPC SECURITIES INC AGENT FOR RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY FBO WHITEMAN LUMBER COMPANY 401K PLAN P.O. BOX 79377 ATLANTA GA 30357-7377	16,562.9740	5.29%

204

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN: BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	54,208,961.1110	61.99%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class Z	VANGUARD FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY NATIONS FUNDS P.O. BOX 2600 VM 613 ATTN OUTSIDE FUNDS VALLEY FORGE PA 19482-2600	8,110,560.1520	9.27%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund Class Z	TEXAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION 1919 S.BRAESWOOD HOUSTON TX 77030-4412	6,027,850.6560	6.89%
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class A	NEW YORK LIFE TRUST COMPANY 690 CANTON ST STE 100 WESTWOOD MA 02090-2324	3,380,978.2100	16.08	%
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class A	PIMS/PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT AS NOMINEE FOR THE TTEE/CUST MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICE INC 6950 COLUMBIA GATEWAY DR COLUMBIA MD 21046-2706	1,349,770.7930	6.42	%
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class A	ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY LL TTEE FBO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CLIENTS 401(K) PLAN 8515 E ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	1,224,647.4640	5.82	%
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class A	JPMORGAN CHASE TRUSTEE CUST FBO ERICSSON CAPITAL ACCUMULATION AND SAVINGS PLAN 93 WARD PKWY KANSAS CITY MO 64114-3317	1,093,460.0330	5.20	%
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	68,401,274.4280	35.19	%

205

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA TTEE BANK OF AMERICA 401K PLAN ATTN NORMA AJA PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	42,191,802.7500	21.70	%
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA TTEE 401(K) FOR LEGACY FLEET TRUST PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	25,762,004.0100	13.25	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	7,435,760.4780	6.29	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class A	ING LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY CO ING FUND OPERATIONS 1 ORANGE WAY WINDSOR CT 06095-4773	6,528,034.4580	5.52	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	268,576.0030	6.18	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class B	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	239,097.0000	5.50	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	3,036,617.8700	21.09	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	1,340,383.1390	9.31	%

206

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class R	GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY C/O FASCORE LLC 8515 E ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	15,502,397.4310	61.70	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class R	HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO SEPARATE ACCOUNT ATTN UIT OPERATIONS P.O. BOX 2999 HARTFORD, CT 06104-2999	1,534,665.8730	6.11	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class Y	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	1,138.9930	100.00	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	41,442,903.6130	19.47	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class Z	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	31,705,425.6820	14.89	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class Z	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-4151	18,626,637.9240	8.75	%
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	18,364,780.9080	8.63	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	554,599.2450	26.38	%

207

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	35,532.3860	42.61	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	49,487.8760	39.83	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class C	SUMMERVILLE PEDIACTRICS PA PROFIT SHARING PLAN 312 MIDLAND PARKWAY SUMMERVILLE SC 29485-8102	9,433.2020	7.59	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	7,629.9760	6.14	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class R	GPC SECURITIES INC AGENT FOR RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY FBO VIRGINIA LAB SUPPLY 401K PSP PO BOX 79377 ATLANTA GA 30357-7377	11,0726210	50.08	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class R	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	5,494.4590	24.85	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO APPLIED RELIABILITY ENGINEERING 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	2,132.3010	9.65	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO MIRAMAR LABS 401K PROFIT-SHARING 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	2,075.4350	9.39	%

208

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN: BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	65,820,152.9370	57.36	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA TTEE BANK OF AMERICA 401K PLAN ATTN NORMA AJA PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	16,342,850.5470	14.24	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund Class Z	COLUMBIA MANAGEMENT ADVISORS INC FBO COLUMBIA MASTERS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY PORTFOLIO ATTN JIM MARIN ONE FINANCIAL CENTER FL 3 BOSTON MA 02111-2694	8,298,492.9220	7.23	%
Columbia Overseas Value Fund Class Z	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	1,088,418.8280	100.00	%
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	2,208,893.4990	17.25	%
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	79,205.3320	29.66	%
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	81,238.5560	30.31	%

209

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. HOUSE ACCOUNT ATTN: PETER BOOTH, 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	19,678.8020	7.34	%
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	12,402,334.2720	59.82	%
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II Class Z	GPC SECURITIES INC AGENT FOR RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY FBO PLEXUS CORP. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN P.O. BOX 79377 ATLANTA GA 30357-7377	1,435,274.1330	6.92	%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class A	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-4151	757,484.0330	8.95	%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class A	NFS LLC FEBO STATE STREET BANK TRUST CO TTEE VARIOUS RETIREMENT PLANS 4 MANHATTANVILLE RD PURCHASE NY 10577-2139	624,406.6530	7.37	%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class A	ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY LLC TTEE FBO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CLIENTS 401(K) PLAN 8515 E ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	546,792.3390	6.46	%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class A	NEW YORK LIFE TRUST COMPANY 690 CANTON ST STE 100 WESTWOOD MA 02090-2344	493,365.5470	5.83	%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class A	FIFTH THIRD BANK TTEE FBO VARIOUS FASCORE LL RECORDKEPT 8515 E ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	455,118.2040	5.38%

210

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	30,722,153.5870	33.60%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA TTEE BANK OF AMERICA 401K PLAN ATTN: NORMA AJA PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	18,829,065.7420	20.59%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA TTEE 401(K) FOR LEGACY FLEET TRUST PO BOX 1939 HOUSTON TX 77251-1939	9,275,354.8020	10.14%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	3,440,867.1760	8.49%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class A	SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME TRUST FUND P.O. BOX 8338 BOSTON MA 02266-8338	2,428,315.2810	5.99%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	29,982.8160	11.96%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	423,829.9170	22.45%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class C	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA II, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	106,397.2450	5.64%

211

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class R	HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. SEPARATE ACCOUNT ATTN UIT OPERATIONS P.O. BOX 2999 HARTFORD CT 06104-2999	585,318.4600	27.98%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class R	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	134,873.3930	6.45%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class R	DCGT TRUSTEE & OR CUSTODIAN FBO PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP QUALIFIED PRIN ADVTG OMNIBUS ATTN NPIO TRADE DESK 711 HIGH ST DES MOINES IA 50392-0001	110,452.0530	5.28%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class R	FIFTH THIRD BANK TRUSTEE FBO VARIOUS FASCORP RECORDKEPT PLANS C/O FASCORP 8515 ORCHARD RD GREENWOOD VLG CO 80111-5002	106,948.3090	5.11%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	13,440,556.3770	15.58%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	12,133,939.7780	14.06%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class Z	NFS LLC FEBO STATE STREET BANK TRUST CO TTEE VARIOUS RETIREMENT PLANS 4 MANHATTANVILLE RD PURCHASE NY 10577-2139	12,022,382.9750	13.93%

212

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class Z	FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INST L OPS CO FIIOC AS AGENT FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS 100 MAGELLAN WAY COVINGTON KY 41015-1999	6,938,111.8800	8.04%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class Z	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	5,423,694.2660	6.29%
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Class Z	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC SPECIAL CUSTODY ACCOUNT FOR BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS ATTN MUTUAL FUNDS 101 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-4151	4,800,292.2420	5.56%

Principal Holder Ownership of the Funds with fiscal year ending March 31:

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	2,488,370.7030	75.67	%
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	43.393.8240	61.67	%
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class C	UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. FBO BARBARA PHILLIPS 933 111TH AVE NE APT 532 BELLEVUE WA 98004-8544	11,416.4560	26.76	%
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	6,707.4070	15.72	%

213

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class C	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA 2, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	4,001.9850	9.38	%
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class C	UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. FBO RAYDEAN RANDLETT TRADITIONAL IRA 1135 HIDDEN OAKS DR MENLO PARK CA 94025-6042	2,679.5480	6.28	%
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class C	AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SVCS P.O. BOX 9446 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-9446	2,444.9880	5.73	%
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	1,095,457.0520	99.53	%
Columbia CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	594,993.7540	48.17	%
Columbia CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. FBO THELMA STEWART MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC 3031 W MARCH LN STE 123 STOCKTON CA 95219-6567	192,667.5230	15.60	%
Columbia CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	21,665.8350	96.98	%

214

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	151,043.7160	74.34	%
Columbia CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	FIRST CLEARING LLC EXEMPTION TR CREATED UNDER 2004 SICHI FAM TRUST TR 2555 TODD CT ARCATA CA 95521-5147	17,771.9890	8.75	%
Columbia CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	20,402,583.1980	91.11	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	500,329.0080	28.54	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	LPL FINANCIAL 9785 TOWNE CENTRE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92121-1968	236,234.9350	13.47	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund- Class A	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. HOUSE ACCOUNT ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	119,832.3740	6.83	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	34,565.4740	49.17	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	7,603.0950	10.82	%

215

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	FIRST CLEARING, LLC STEVE G LYMAN & ALIDA B LYMAN 4492 HAVERSTRAW DRIVE DUNWOODY GA 30338-6604	5,352.1450	7.61	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	FIRST CLEARING, LLC DAVID G HUNTER 4698 JERFFERSON TOWNSHIP LN MARIETTA GA 30066-3826	5,236.5320	7.45	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund- Class B	FIRST CLEARING, LLC WILSON S MOBLEY 2058 BRIAN WAY DECATUR GA 30033-3826	4,696.6730	6.68	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	PERSHING LLC P.O. BOX 2052 JERSEY CITY NJ 07303-2052	4,633.4730	6.59	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	91,354.3690	25.97	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	FIRST CLEARING LLC RUTH LAUTZ TR RUTH LAUTZ TTEE 3315 PEACHTREE INDUSTRIAL BLVD DECATUR GA 30033-3826	23,749.9060	6.75	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	9,169,349.1900	95.51	%
Columbia High Income Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	3,761,279.4370	24.05	%
Columbia High Income Fund Class A	NFS LLC FEBO TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS COMPANY 1150 S OLIVE ST STE 2700 LOS ANGELES CA 90015-2211	2,611,942.2490	16.70	%

216

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia High Income Fund Class A	NFS LLC FEBO TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE 1150 S OLIVE ST STE 2700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2211	851,362.5680	5.44	%
Columbia High Income Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,400,615.9210	44.23	%
Columbia High Income Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,132,847.9740	39.16	%
Columbia High Income Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. HOUSE ACCOUNT ATTN PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	176,673.0810	6.11	%
Columbia High Income Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	53,986,303.5250	68.78	%
Columbia High Income Fund Class Z	STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AAF LIFEGOAL BALANCED GROWTH ATTN JIM BOTSOLIS TWO AVENUE DE LAFAYETTE BOSTON MA 02111-1724	4,946,724.2400	6.30	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	10,224,400.9780	41.92	%

217

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	7,458,714.4550	48.57	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	3,766,178.7790	45.77	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO O DANIEL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 401K SA 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	98,224.7790	44.29	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class R	FRONTIER TRUST CO FBO BROWN & JONES REPORTING 401K PLAN PO BOX 10758 FARGO ND 58106-0758	29,283.8680	13.20	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class R	COUNSEL TRUST DBA MATC FBO V RAO EMANDI M D 401K PSP & TRUST 1251 WATERFRONT PL STE 525 PITTSBURGH PA 15222-4228	17,074.9380	7.70	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO ALBERT FREI & SONS INC 401K PLAN 700 17 TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	12,602.1910	5.68	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class R	JOSEPH D POLK FBO VANTAGE SYSTEMS INC 401K PSP & TRUST 4600 FORBES BLVD STE 250 LANHAM MD 20706-4359	12,156.0160	5.48	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	1,996,804.0880	41.68	%

218

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,829,657.0880	38.19	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	7,640,599.3170	45.11	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	4,280,791.5270	50.89	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	2,701,596.4930	39.75	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO O DANIEL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 401K SA 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	53,618.6240	30.15	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class R	FRONTIER TRUST CO FBO RIVERFRONT STEEL 401K PLAN P.O. BOX 10758 FARGO ND 58106-0758	25,358.8900	14.26	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO CLINICA CAMPESINA FAMILY HEALTH SER 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	23,993.0390	13.49	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class R	FRONTIER TRUST CO FBO BROWN & JONES REPORTING 401K PLAN P.O. BOX 10758 FARGO ND 58106-0758	18,004.5740	10.12	%

219

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO ALBERT FREI & SONS INC 401K PLAN 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	10,211.8830	5.74	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	2,165,077.3580	52.07	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,015,604.8400	24.42	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio Class Z	NFS LLC FEBO STATE STREET BANK TRUST CO TTEE VARIOUS RETIREMENT PLANS 4 MANHATTANVILLE RD PURCHASE NY 10577-2139	419,856.2380	10.10	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	2,178,076.5960	37.90	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,862,336.8520	54.65	%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	994,475.6320	42.97%

220

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO O DANIEL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 401K SA 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	32,943.8470	52.59%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class R	FRONTIER TRUST CO FBO GROSSMONT FAMILY MEDICAL GROUP 401K P.O. BOX 10758 FARGO ND 58106-0758	3,540.0850	5.65%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class R	MG TRUST CO CUST FBO MIRAMAR LABS 401K PROFIT-SHARING 700 17TH ST STE 300 DENVER CO 80202-3531	5,874.0900	9.38%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class R	FRONTIER TRUST CO FBO TRI-EAGLE SALES 401K PROFIT SHARING PO BOX 10758 FARGO, ND 58106-0758	7,257.2510	11.59%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	610,709.0520	29.68%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	582,540.4770	28.31%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio Class Z	NFS LLC FEBO STATE STREET BANK TRUST CO TTEE VARIOUS RETIREMENT PLANS 4 MANHATTANVILLE RD PURCHASE NY 10577-2139	164,256.6900	7.98%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	463,712.1810	33.18%

221

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	271,383.8400	43.10%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	174,454.9530	35.56%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio Class Z	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	126,661.8280	43.65%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	34,134.5560	11.76%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	NFS LLC FEBO ROBERT GLADSTONE LESLIE GLADSTONE 2468 BELMONT RD NW WASHINGTON DC 20008-1610	358,822.2860	13.95%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	220,932.6060	8.59%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	FIRST CLEARING LLC MARK & MARY ANN RONALD TRUST MARK & MARY ANN RONALD TTEES 7110 44TH ST CHEVY CHASE MD 20815-6039	132,477.3530	5.15%

222

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	9,001.3210	15.06%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO MARY A MICHELS 1658 HARDWICK RD BALTIMORE MD 21286-8128	5,894.5610	9.86%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO RALPH M VITALE SR AUDREY J VITALE 3510 E JOPPA RD BALTIMORE MD 21234-3313	5,224.3900	8.74%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	FIRST CLEARING, LLC ROBERT F ROHR & BARBARA M ROHR JT TEN 608 CHURCHILL RD BEL AIR MD 21014-4245	4,725.1010	7.91%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	FIRST CLERING LLC 2801 MARKET ST SAINT LOUIS MO 63103-2523	4,665.7530	7.81%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	PERSHING LLC P.O. BOX 2052 JERSEY CITY NJ 07303-2052	3,648.1450	6.10%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. HOUSE ACCOUNT ATTN: PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	3,596.6430	6.02%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA II, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	94,172.8150	22.35%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	88,159.2190	20.92%

223

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	11,376,071.5190	94.19%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	705,689.8330	12.28%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	115,823.5380	26.65%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	287,199.0170	24.11%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class C	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA 2. 3RD FL JERSEY CITY, NJ 07311	88,938.8090	7.47%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class R	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,664.9660	56.99%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class R	COUNSEL TRUST DBA MATC FBO PROST DATA INC 401K PSP & TRUST 1251 WATERFRONT PL STE 525 PITTSBURGH PA 15222-4228	399,5780	13.68%

224

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class R	BRETT PEAKS FBO LENOX VILLAGE DENTISTRY 401K PSP & TRUST 6905 LENOX VILLAGE DR NASHVILLE TN 37211-7172	386.9590	13.24%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class R	COUNSEL TRUST DBA MID ATLANTIC TRUST CO FBO SAL OPPENHEIM JR & CIE 401K PSP & TRUST 1251 WATERFRONT PL STE 525 PITTSBURGH PA 15222-4228	288.0130	9.86%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN: BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	6,650,697.2390	91.02%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC FBO MUTUAL FUND CLIENTS 100 MULBERRY ST NEWARK NJ 07102-4056	297,829.2580	8.26%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	NFS LLC FEBO MAURICIO CASTILLO TTEE MAURICIO CASTILLO LIVING TRUST 416 HILLSBOROUGH ST CHAPEL HILL NC 27514-3102	278,666.2040	7.73%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	FIRST CLEARING, LLC FRANK M DRENDEL P.O. BOX 9212 HICKORY NC 28603-9212	208,354.4670	5.78%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO FLOYD L & RAMONA M MORRIS TR FLOYD L MORRIS 3136 OLD LOWGAP RD LOWGAP NC 27024-7416	19,008.7090	16.32%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	RBS CAPITAL MARKETS CORP FBO EDWARD SANDERS DOUGLAS J SANDERS JT TEN/WROS 2218 RICHARDSON DR CHARLOTTE NC 28211-3265	14,212.1620	12.20%

225

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO LILLIAN G SHOAF 830 METAIRIE LN WINSTON SALEM NC 27104-3319	9,747.6860	8.37%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO JASON LAMBERTH CAROL LAMBERTH PO BOX 24 STATESVILLE NC 28687-0024	8,275.3300	7.10%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC ATTN MUTUAL FUND OPERATIONS 101 MONTGOMERY ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94101-4151	8,231.0200	7.07%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO KATE R HOOTS 1372 HARRIS AVE NEWTON CA 28658-1611	6,643.0310	5.70%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO CAROL LEE SMITH WOOD P.O. BOX 313 HAW RIVER NC 27258-0313	6,222.4570	5.34%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	145,918.7080	34.01%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	NFS LLC FEBO CREIGHTON W SOSSOMON BANK OF AMERICA COLLATERAL P.O. BOX 9 HIGHLANDS NC 28741-0009	28,307.1610	6.60%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	15,372,334.8690	91.85%

226

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	5,600,044.3410	18.66%
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	160,515.4320	18.20%
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	4,926,570.2190	38.23%
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC HOUSE ACCOUNT ATTN PETER BOOTH 7 TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	890,814.6430	6.91%
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class Y	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	1,894,327.6870	89.35%
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class Y	CLISE PROPERTIES INC 1700 7 TH AVE STE 1800 SEATTLE WA 98101-1312	224,803.2240	10.60%
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	145,294,168.8900	71.57%

227

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	10,051,809.7010	25.24%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class A	MORGAN STANLEY & CO HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA II, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	4,676,412.5930	11.74%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund- Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	6,954,9570	21.65%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO KEVIN W BARR FRANCINE BARR 5235 DRYSTACK LN GLEN ALLEN VA 23059-2532	4,906.4600	15.27%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO DARRELL C REED MAUREEN O REED 4681 SHELBURNE RD RADFORD VA 24141-8057	4,609.1020	14.35%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class B	SIDNEY MORRIS 3605 BERMUDA RUN DR VALDOSTA GA 31605-1082	3,505.4160	10.91%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	2,368,911.6830	47.51%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class C	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. HOUSE ACCOUNT ATTN PETER BOOTH 7TH FL 333 W 34TH ST NEW YORK NY 10001-2402	258,752.2480	5.19%

228

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	159,654,192.8970	86.25%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	775,103.7670	32.40%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	NFS LLC FEBO INTERNET RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BANK OF AMERICA NA COLLATERAL P.O. BOX 1329 FORT MILL SC 29716-1329	541,187.7690	22.63%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	58,892.8520	60.68%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY HARBORSIDE FINANCIAL CENTER PLAZA 2, 3RD FL JERSEY CITY NJ 07311	6,618.2480	6.82%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	FIRST CLEARING LLC SUE B JAMES EST TX SHEL TRUST 1129 WATERFRONT DR MT PLEASANT SC 29464-7428	5,355.4450	5.52%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	WELLS FARGO BANK NA FBO HOPKINS M CRTA P.O. BOX 1533 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55480-1533	5,203.0760	5.36%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	EDWARD D JONES & CO MUTUAL FUND SHAREHOLDER ACCOUNTING 201 PROGRESS PKWY MARYLAND HTS MO 63043-3009	5,040.7010	5.19%

229

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	367,785.4010	38.59%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOC INC FBO ANNIE LEE FAYSSOUX TTEE 203 PACOLET HWY GAFFNEY SC 29340-2816	72,740.5460	7.63%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	12,681,570.0070	89.93%
Columbia Total Return Bond Fund Class A	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	575,686.5780	26.27%
Columbia Total Return Bond Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	86,466.3060	24.94%
Columbia Total Return Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	292,987.2470	51.76%
Columbia Total Return Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	86,875,990.2020	79.37%

230

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class A	FIRST CLEARING LLC C HENRY JONES TTEE C HENRY JONES REVOCLIVTRUST 7320 COLONY POINT RD NORFOLK VA 23505-3300	235,505.2150	5.11%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	13,795.6150	14.62%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO EDWARD P HAZARD JR FRANCES H HAZARD 915 HOLLYWOOD DR CHESAPEAKE VA 23320-4821	8,324.7130	8.82%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	FIRST CLEARING LLC PETER BRUNK & DIANE BRUNK JT WROS 3501 CARDINAL LN PORTSMOUTH VA 23703-3631	7,391.2080	7.83%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	FIRST CLEARING CORPORATION MARTHA W STEERS TTEE MARTHA W STEERS LIVING TRUST 5801 WILLIAMSBURG LANDING DR WILLIAMSBURG VA 23185-3778	6,783.3320	7.19%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class B	NFS LLC FEBO NORMA F STUART 6809 DARBY LN SPRINGFIELD VA 22150-2006	5,537.5620	5.87%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class C	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	53,516.4800	17.68%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund Class Z	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	23,109,999.8350	92.99%

231

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Class
Corporate Bond Portfolio Class A	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN: BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	2,030,991.0000	99.24%
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio Class A	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN: BETTY BARLEY/FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	3,673,814.0810	86.12%
Mortgage- and Asset-Backed Portfolio Class A	STATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO AAF LIFEGOAL INCOME & GROWTH ATTN JIM BOTSOLIS TWO AVENUE DE LAFAYETTE BOSTON MA 02111-1724	430,028.9370	10.08%

As of August 31, 2010, the name, address and percentage of ownership of each person who may be deemed to be a “control person” (as that term is defined in the 1940 Act) of a Fund because it owns of record more than 25% of the outstanding shares of the Fund by virtue of its fiduciary roles with respect to its clients or otherwise, is shown below. A control person may be able to facilitate shareholder approval of proposals it approves and to impede shareholder approval of proposals it opposes. If a control person’s record ownership of a Fund’s outstanding shares exceeds 50%, then, for certain shareholder proposals, such control person may be able to approve, or prevent approval, of such proposals without regard to votes by other Fund shareholders.

Control Person Ownership of the Funds with fiscal year ending February 28:

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Fund
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	8,941,500.7370	31.83%
Columbia International Value Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	34,350,727.8690	28.74%
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	51,769,526.9970	55.08%

232

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Fund
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	35,430,037.5880	86.95%
Columbia Marsico Global Fund	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	501,403.7210	71.78	%
Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	54,208,961.1110	50.44	%
Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	68,401,274.4280	31.75	%
Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	65,820,152.9370	56.22	%
Columbia Overseas Value Fund	FIM FUNDING INC C/O BOFA GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 100 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110-1802	1,088,418.8280	100.00	%
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	12,402,334.2720	36.40	%
Columbia Small Cap Index Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	30,772,153.5870	30.75	%

233

Control Person Ownership of the Funds with fiscal year ending March 31:

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Fund
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	2,538,471.9340	56.38	%
Columbia CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	20,402,583.1980	85.53	%
Columbia GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	9,169,349.1900	77.87%
Columbia High Income Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	53,986,303.5250	53.88%
Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	23,278,951.3000	43.93%
Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	15,638,592.1770	42.86%
Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	5,645,598.1320	41.54%

234

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Fund
Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS CUSTOMERS ATTN: SERVICE TEAM 4800 DEER LAKE DR E FL 3 JACKSONVILLE FL 32246-6484	1,036.212.8020	36.90%
Columbia MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	11,376,071.5190	75.19%
Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	6,650,697.2390	45.30%
Columbia NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	15,372,334.8690	73.61%
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	147,188,496.5770	59.13%
Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	159,654,192.8970	69.43%
Columbia SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	2,681,570.0070	72.28%

235

Fund	Shareholder Account Registration	Share Balance	Percentage of Fund
Columbia Total Return Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS, TX 75202-3908	86,875,990.2020	77.18%
Columbia VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	23,109,999.8350	77.39%
Corporate Bond Portfolio	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	2,030,991.0000	99.24%
Mortgage- and Asset- Backed Portfolio	BANK OF AMERICA NA, TRUSTEE ATTN BETTY BARLEY/ FUNDS ACCOUNTING 1201 MAIN STREET 10TH FL DALLAS TX 75202-3908	3,673,814.0810	86.12%

Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States, 101 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28255. Bank of America Corporation, a publicly-traded financial services corporation, is the ultimate parent company of Bank of America, N.A.

FIM Funding, Inc. is a non-depository credit institution organized under the laws of the United States, 401 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202. Bank of America Corporation is the ultimate parent company of FIM Funding, Inc.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated is a registered broker-dealer organized under the laws of the United States, One Bryant Park, New York, New York 10036. Bank of America Corporation is the ultimate parent company of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated.

236

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In June 2004, an action captioned John E. Gallus et al. v. American Express Financial Corp. and American Express Financial Advisors Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege that they are investors in several American Express Company (now known as RiverSource) mutual funds and they purport to bring the action derivatively on behalf of those funds under the 1940 Act. The plaintiffs allege that fees allegedly paid to the defendants by the funds for investment advisory and administrative services are excessive. The plaintiffs seek remedies including restitution and rescission of investment advisory and distribution agreements. The plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the District Court). In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, the District Court dismissed one of plaintiffs’ four claims and granted plaintiffs limited discovery. Defendants moved for summary judgment in April 2007. Summary judgment was granted in the defendants’ favor on July 9, 2007. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Eighth Circuit) on August 8, 2007. On April 8, 2009, the Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 6, 2009, defendants filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court), asking the Supreme Court to stay the District Court proceedings while the Supreme Court considered and ruled in a case captioned Jones v. Harris Associates, which involved issues of law similar to those presented in the Gallus case. On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Jones v. Harris Associates, and on April 5, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s decision in the Gallus case and remanded the case to the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Harris Associates. On June 4, 2010, the Eighth Circuit remanded the Gallus case to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Harris Associates.

In December 2005, without admitting or denying the allegations, American Express Financial Corporation (AEFC, which is now known as Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (Ameriprise Financial)), entered into settlement agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Minnesota Department of Commerce (MDOC) related to market timing activities. As a result, AEFC was censured and ordered to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of certain provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the 1940 Act, and various Minnesota laws. AEFC agreed to pay disgorgement of $10 million and civil money penalties of $7 million. AEFC also agreed to retain an independent distribution consultant to assist in developing a plan for distribution of all disgorgement and civil penalties ordered by the SEC in accordance with various undertakings detailed at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/ia-2451.pdf. Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates have cooperated with the SEC and the MDOC in these legal proceedings, and have made regular reports to the RiverSource, Seligman and Threadneedle funds’ Boards of Directors/Trustees.

Ameriprise Financial and certain of its affiliates have historically been involved in a number of legal, arbitration and regulatory proceedings, including routine litigation, class actions, and governmental actions, concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of their business activities. Ameriprise Financial believes that the Funds are not currently the subject of, and that neither Ameriprise Financial nor any of its affiliates are the subject of, any pending legal, arbitration or regulatory proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Funds or the ability of Ameriprise Financial or its affiliates to perform under their contracts with the Funds. Ameriprise Financial is required to make 10-Q, 10-K and, as necessary, 8-K filings with the SEC on legal and regulatory matters that relate to Ameriprise Financial and its affiliates. Copies of these filings may be obtained by accessing the SEC website at www.sec.gov.

There can be no assurance that these matters, or the adverse publicity associated with them, will not result in increased fund redemptions, reduced sale of fund shares or other adverse consequences to the Funds. Further, although we believe proceedings are not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Funds or the ability of Ameriprise Financial or its affiliates to perform under their contracts with the Funds, these proceedings are subject to uncertainties and, as such, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result. An adverse outcome in one or more of these proceedings could result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties or other relief that could have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations of Ameriprise Financial.

237

APPENDIX A — DESCRIPTIONS OF SECURITIES RATINGS

This Appendix summarizes the various descriptions of securities ratings applicable to securities purchased by the Columbia Funds. Please refer to a Fund’s prospectus and statement of additional information to determine whether that Fund may invest in securities that have ratings described in this Appendix.

STANDARD & POOR’S (S&P)

Bonds

The following summarizes the ratings used by S&P for bonds. The ratings AAA, AA, A and BBB denote investment grade securities.

AAA bonds have the highest rating assigned by S&P and are considered to have an extremely strong capacity to pay interest and repay principal.

AA bonds are considered to have a very strong capacity to pay interest and repay principal, and they differ from AAA only in small degree.

A bonds are considered to have a strong capacity to pay interest and repay principal, although they are somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than debt in higher rated categories.

BBB bonds are considered to have an adequate capacity to pay interest and repay principal. Whereas they normally exhibit adequate protection parameters, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity to pay interest and repay principal than for bonds in the A category.

BB, B, CCC, CC and C bonds are considered to have predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to capacity to pay interest and repay principal in accordance with the terms of the obligation. BB indicates the lowest degree of speculation and C the highest degree. While such debt will likely have some quality and protective characteristics, these are outweighed by large uncertainties or large exposures to adverse conditions.

BB bonds are considered to have less near-term vulnerability to default than other speculative issues. However, they face major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions which could lead to inadequate capacity to meet timely interest and principal payments. The BB rating category is also used for debt subordinated to senior debt that is assigned an actual or implied BBB – rating.

B bonds are considered to have a greater vulnerability to default but currently have the capacity to meet interest payments and principal repayments. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair capacity or willingness to pay interest and repay principal. The B rating category is also used for debt subordinated to senior debt that is assigned an actual or implied BB or BB – rating.

CCC bonds are considered to have a currently identifiable vulnerability to default, and are dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions to meet timely payment of interest and repayment of principal. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the bonds are not likely to have the capacity to pay interest and repay principal. The CCC rating category is also used for debt subordinated to senior debt that is assigned an actual or implied B or B – rating.

CC rating typically is applied to debt subordinated to senior debt that is assigned an actual or implied CCC rating.

A-1

C rating typically is applied to debt subordinated to senior debt that is assigned an actual or implied CCC – debt rating. The C rating may be used to cover a situation, for example, where a bankruptcy petition has been filed, but debt service payments are continued.

CI rating is reserved for income bonds on which no interest is being paid.

D bonds are in payment default. The D rating category is used when interest payments or principal payments are not made on the date due even if the applicable grace period has not expired, unless S&P believes that such payments will be made during such grace period. The D rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition if debt service payments are jeopardized.

Plus (+) or minus (-): The ratings from AA to CCC may be modified by the addition of a plus or minus sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories.

Municipal Notes

SP-1. Notes rated SP-1 are considered to have very strong or strong capacity to pay principal and interest. Those issues determined to possess overwhelming safety characteristics are designated as SP-1+.

SP-2. Notes rated SP-2 are considered to have satisfactory capacity to pay principal and interest.

Notes due in three years or less normally receive a note rating. Notes maturing beyond three years normally receive a bond rating, although the following criteria are used in making that assessment:

Amortization schedule (the larger the final maturity relative to other maturities, the more likely the issue will be rated as a note).

Source of payment (the more dependent the issue is on the market for its refinancing, the more likely it will be rated as a note).

Commercial Paper

A. Issues assigned this highest rating are regarded as having the greatest capacity for timely payment. Issues in this category are further refined with the designations 1, 2, and 3 to indicate the relative degree of safety.

A-1. Issues assigned to this rating are considered to have overwhelming or very strong capacity for timely payment. Those issues determined to possess overwhelming safety characteristics are designed A-1+.

MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. (MOODY’S)

Municipal Bonds

Aaa bonds are considered to be of the best quality. They are considered to have the smallest degree of investment risk and are generally referred to as “gilt edge”. Interest payments are protected by a large or by an exceptionally stable margin and principal is secure. While various protective elements are likely to change, such changes as can be visualized are most unlikely to impair a fundamentally strong position of such issues.

Aa bonds are considered to be of high quality by all standards. Together with Aaa bonds they comprise what are generally known as high-grade bonds. They are rated lower than the best bonds because margins of protection may not be as large in Aaa securities or fluctuation of protective elements may be of greater amplitude or there may be other elements present which make the long-term risks appear somewhat larger than in Aaa securities.

A-2

Those bonds in the Aa through B groups that Moody’s believes possess the strongest investment attributes are designated by the symbols Aa1, A1 or Baa1.

A bonds are considered to possess many favorable investment attributes and are to be considered to be upper-medium-grade obligations. Factors giving security to principal and interest are considered adequate, but elements may be present that suggest a susceptibility to impairment at some time in the future.

Baa bonds are considered to be medium grade obligations: they are neither highly protected nor poorly secured. Interest payments and principal security appear adequate for the present but certain protective elements may be lacking or may be characteristically unreliable over any great period of time. Such bonds lack outstanding investment characteristics and, in fact, have speculative characteristics as well.

Ba bonds are considered to have speculative elements: their future cannot be considered as well secured. Often, the protection of interest and principal payments may be very moderate and thereby not well safeguarded during both good and bad times in the future. Uncertainty of position characterizes bonds in this grade.

B bonds are considered generally to lack characteristics of a desirable investment. Assurance of interest and principal payments or of maintenance of other terms of the contract over any long period of time may be small.

Caa bonds are considered to be of poor standing. Such issues may be in default or there may be present elements of danger with respect to principal or interest.

Ca bonds are considered to represent obligations that are speculative in a high degree. Such issues are often in default or have other marked shortcomings.

C bonds are the lowest rated class of bonds and issues so rated are considered to have extremely poor prospects of ever attaining any real investment standing.

Conditional Ratings. Bonds for which the security depends upon the completion of some act or the fulfillment of some condition are rated conditionally. These are bonds secured by (a) earnings of projects under construction, (b) earnings of projects unseasoned in operating experience, (c) rentals which begin when facilities are completed, or (d) payments to which some other limiting conditions attach. Parenthetical rating denotes probable credit stature upon completion of construction or elimination of basis of condition.

Corporate Bonds

The description of the applicable rating symbols (Aaa, Aa, A, Baa, etc.) and their meanings is identical to that of the Municipal Bond ratings as set forth above, except for the numerical modifiers. Moody’s applies numerical modifiers 1, 2, and 3 in the Aa and A classifications of its corporate bond rating system. The modifier 1 indicates that the security ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a midrange ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates that the issuer ranks in the lower end of its generic rating category.

Municipal Notes

MIG 1. This designation denotes best quality. There is present strong protection by established cash flows, superior liquidity support or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing.

MIG 2. This designation denotes high quality. Margins of protection are ample although not so large as in the preceding group.

A-3

MIG 3. This designation denotes favorable quality. All security elements are accounted for, but there is lacking the undeniable strength of the preceding grades. Liquidity and cash flow protection may be narrow and market access for refinancing is likely to be less well established.

Commercial Paper

Moody’s employs the following three designations, all judged to be investment grade, to indicate the relative repayment capacity of rated issuers:

Prime-1 Highest Quality

Prime-2 Higher Quality

Prime-3 High Quality

If an issuer represents to Moody’s that its commercial paper obligations are supported by the credit of another entity or entities, Moody’s, in assigning ratings to such issuers, evaluates the financial strength of the indicated affiliated corporations, commercial banks, insurance companies, foreign governments, or other entities, but only as one factor in the total rating assessment.

FITCH, INC. (FITCH)

Long-Term Debt

Investment Grade Bond Ratings

AAA bonds are considered to be investment grade and of the highest credit quality. The obligor has an exceptionally strong ability to pay interest and/or dividends and repay principal, which is unlikely to be affected by reasonably foreseeable events.

AA bonds are considered to be investment grade and of very high credit quality. The obligor’s ability to pay interest and repay principal is very strong, although not quite as strong as bonds rated AAA. Because bonds rated in the AAA and AA categories are not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable future developments, short-term debt of these issuers is generally rated F-1+.

A bonds are considered to be investment grade and of high credit quality. The obligor’s ability to pay interest and repay principal is considered to be strong, but may be more vulnerable to adverse changes in economic conditions and circumstances than debt securities with higher ratings.

BBB bonds are considered to be investment grade and of satisfactory credit quality. The obligor’s ability to pay interest or dividends and repay principal is considered to be adequate. Adverse changes in economic conditions and circumstances, however, are more likely to have adverse impact on these securities and, therefore, impair timely payment. The likelihood that the ratings of these bonds will fall below investment grade is higher than for securities with higher ratings.

Speculative Grade Bond Ratings

BB bonds are considered speculative. The obligor’s ability to pay interest and repay principal may be affected over time by adverse economic changes. However, business and financial alternatives can be identified, which could assist the obligor in satisfying its debt service requirements.

B bonds are considered highly speculative. While securities in this class are currently meeting debt service requirements, the probability of continued timely payment of principal and interest reflects the obligor’s limited margin of safety and the need for reasonable business and economic activity throughout the life of the issue.

A-4

CCC bonds are considered to have certain identifiable characteristics that, if not remedied, may lead to default. The ability to meet obligations requires an advantageous business and economic environment.

CC bonds are considered to be minimally protected. Default in payment of interest and/or principal seems probable over time.

C bonds are in imminent default in payment of interest or principal.

DDD, DD, and D bonds are in default on interest and/or principal payments. Such securities are extremely speculative and should be valued on the basis of their ultimate recovery value in liquidation or reorganization of the obligor. DDD represents the highest potential for recovery on these securities and D represents the lowest potential for recovery.

Plus (+) or minus (-): Plus or minus signs are used to show relative standing within the major rating categories. Plus and minus signs, however, are not used in the DDD, DD, or D categories.

Short-Term Debt

Fitch’s short-term ratings apply to debt obligations that are payable on demand or have original maturities of up to three years, including commercial paper, certificates of deposit, medium-term notes, and investment notes.

F-1+ obligations have exceptionally strong credit quality and are considered to have the strongest degree of assurance for timely payment.

F-1 obligations are considered to reflect an assurance of timely payment only slightly less in degree than issues rated F-1+.

F-2 obligations are considered to have good credit quality. Securities in this class have a satisfactory degree of assurance for timely payment, but the margin of safety is not as great as for issues assigned F-1+ and F-1 ratings.

F-3 obligations are considered to have characteristics suggesting that the degree of assurance for timely payment is adequate; however, near-term adverse changes could cause these securities to be rated below investment grade.

F-S rating is assigned to obligations that are considered to have a minimal degree of assurance for timely payment and to be vulnerable to near-term adverse changes in financial and economic conditions.

B obligations are considered to have a minimal capacity for timely payment of financial commitments and a susceptibility to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions.

C rating is assigned to obligations that are considered to have a high default risk and whose capacity for meeting financial commitments is solely reliant upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment.

D obligations are in actual or imminent payment default.

A-5

APPENDIX B — PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

COLUMBIA MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT ADVISERS, LLC

PROXY VOTING POLICY FOR LEGACY COLUMBIA MANAGEMENT CLIENTS

EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 2010

Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (CMIA) has adopted the attached Proxy Voting Policy for purposes of voting proxies of securities held in certain client accounts¹ , with the following changes:

• References to Columbia Management Advisors, LLC and CMA are deemed to be references to Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC; and

• References to Bank of America Corporation and BAC are deemed to be references to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.

In addition, the text of footnote 1 in the Proxy Voting Policy is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

Ameriprise Financial, Inc., the corporate parent of Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, and all of its numerous affiliates own, operate and have interests in many lines of business that may create or give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest between Ameriprise Financial, Inc. or its affiliates and those of clients advised by Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC. For example, Ameriprise Financial, Inc. and its affiliates may have interests with respect to issuers of voting securities that could appear to or even actually conflict with Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC’s duty, in the proxy voting process, to act in the best economic interest of its clients.

¹ On April 30, 2010, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., the parent company of CMIA, acquired from Bank of America, N.A. a portion of the asset management business of Columbia Management Group, LLC, the parent company of Columbia Management Advisors, LLC (“CMA”). In connection with this transaction, CMIA became the investment adviser of certain client accounts previously advised by CMA. CMIA will apply CMA’s Proxy Voting Policy to certain of these and other client accounts.

B-1

Columbia Management Advisors, LLC (“CMA”) – Proxy Voting Policy

Last Review Date:	April 2010
Applicable Regulatory Authority:	Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Form N-PX ERISA Department of Labor Bulletin 08-2 Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (SEC No Action Letter dated September 15, 2004)

Explanation/Summary of Regulatory Requirements

An investment adviser that exercises voting authority over clients’ proxies must adopt written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that those proxies are voted in the best economic interests of clients. An adviser’s policies and procedures must address how the adviser resolves material conflicts of interest between its interests and those of its clients. An investment adviser must comply with certain record keeping and disclosure requirements with respect to its proxy voting responsibilities. In addition, an investment adviser to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) accounts has an affirmative obligation to vote proxies for an ERISA account, unless the client expressly retains proxy voting authority.

Policy Summary

Columbia Management Advisors, LLC (“CMA”) has adopted and implemented the following policy, which it believes is reasonably designed to: (1) ensure that proxies are voted in the best economic interest of clients; and (2) address material conflicts of interest that may arise. This policy applies primarily to the Global Wealth and Investment Management (“GWIM”) Investment Operations Group, the Investment groups (particularly, Equity and Chief Investment Officer’s Office), as well as to Compliance Risk Management (“CRM”) and Legal. CRM and Business groups to which this policy directly applies must adopt written procedures to implement this Policy.

Policy

All proxies regarding client securities for which CMA has authority to vote will, unless CMA determines in accordance with policies stated below to refrain from voting, be voted in a manner considered by CMA to be in the best interest of CMA’s clients without regard to any resulting benefit or detriment to CMA, its associates, or its affiliates. The best interest of clients is defined for this purpose as the interest of enhancing or protecting the economic value of client accounts, considered as a group rather than individually, as CMA determines in its sole and absolute discretion. In the event a client believes that its other interests require a different vote, CMA will vote as the client clearly instructs, provided CMA receives such instructions in time to act accordingly. Information regarding CMA’s proxy voting decisions is confidential. Therefore, the information may be shared on a need to know basis only, including within CMA and with CMA affiliates. Advisory clients, including mutual funds’ and other funds’ boards, may obtain information on how their proxies were voted by CMA. However, CMA will not selectively disclose its investment company clients’ proxy voting records to third parties. Rather, the investment company clients’ proxy records will be disclosed to shareholders by publicly-available annual filings for 12-month periods ending each year on June 30^th on Form N-PX.

CMA endeavors to vote, in accordance with this Policy, all proxies of which it becomes aware prior to the vote deadline date, subject to certain general exceptions described below.

CMA seeks to avoid the occurrence of actual or apparent material conflicts of interest in the proxy voting process by voting in accordance with predetermined voting guidelines and observing other procedures that are intended to prevent where practicable and manage conflicts of interest (refer to Conflicts of Interest section below). CMA’s proxy voting policy and practices are summarized in its Form ADV. Additionally, CMA will provide clients with a copy of its policies, as they may be updated from time to time, upon request.

B-2

Means of Achieving Compliance

The Proxy Group within GWIM Investment Operations is primarily responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the proxy voting process. The Proxy Group’s monitoring will take into account the following elements: (1) periodic review of the proxy vendor’s votes to ensure that the proxy vendor is accurately voting consistent with CMA’s Voting Guidelines; and (2) review of the Columbia Funds’ fund website to ensure that annual proxy voting reports are posted in a timely and accurate manner. CMA has established a Proxy Committee which is responsible for overseeing the proxy voting process.

The specific responsibilities of the Proxy Committee and scope of its oversight are described in the Proxy Committee’s charter.

CMA’S INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Under CMA’s Voting Guidelines, certain matters must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In general, the Proxy Group within GWIM Investment Operations will refer these matters first to the relevant CMA research analyst after first confirming that the proxy matter does not present a potential conflict to CMA. If there is not a research analyst assigned to the particular security, the matter will be referred to the appropriate portfolio manager.

In considering a particular proxy matter, the research analyst or portfolio manager must vote in the clients’ best interest as defined above. Information regarding CMA’s proxy voting decisions is confidential information. Therefore, research analysts and portfolio managers generally must not discuss proxy votes with any person outside of CMA and within CMA except on a need to know basis only.

Research analysts and portfolio managers must discharge their responsibilities consistent with the obligations set forth below (refer to Management of Conflicts of Interest – Additional Procedures). A research analyst or portfolio manager must disclose in writing any inappropriate attempt to influence their recommendation or any other personal interest that they have with the issuer (see Appendix B – Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Certification Form). For each Proxy Referral (defined below), the research analyst or portfolio manager is responsible for memorializing their recommendation on the Proxy Voting Recommendation Form (see Appendix C) and communicating their recommendation to the Proxy Group.

Research analysts and portfolio managers should seek advice from CRM or Legal with respect to any questions that they have regarding personal conflicts of interests, communications regarding proxies, or other related matters.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

For purposes of this policy, a material conflict of interest is a relationship or activity engaged in by CMA, a CMA affiliate¹, or a CMA associate that creates an incentive (or appearance thereof) to favor the interests of CMA, the affiliate, or associate, rather than the clients’ interests. However, a material conflict of interest is not automatically created when there is a relationship or activity engaged in by a CMA affiliate, but there is a possibility that a CMA affiliate could cause a conflict. CMA may have a conflict of interest if either CMA has a significant business relationship with a company that is soliciting a proxy, or if a CMA associate involved in the proxy voting decision-making process has a significant personal or family relationship with the particular

¹ Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”), the ultimate corporate parent of CMA, Bank of America, N.A. and all of their numerous affiliates owns, operates and has interests in many lines of business that may create or give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest between BAC or its affiliates and those of CMA-advised clients. For example, the commercial and investment banking business lines may have interests with respect to issuers of voting securities that could appear to or even actually conflict with CMA’s duty, in the proxy voting process, to act in the best economic interest of its clients.

B-3

company. A conflict of interest is considered to be “material” to the extent that a reasonable person could expect the conflict to influence CMA’s decision on the particular vote at issue. In all cases where there is deemed to be a material conflict of interest, CMA will seek to resolve said conflict in the clients’ best interests.

For those proxy proposals that: (1) are not addressed by CMA’s proxy voting guidelines; (2) the guidelines specify the issue must be evaluated and determined on a case-by-case basis; or (3) a CMA investment associate believes that an exception to the guidelines may be in the best economic interest of CMA’s clients (collectively, “Proxy Referrals”), CMA may vote the proxy, subject to the conflicts of interest procedures set forth below.

In the case of Proxy Referrals, CRM identifies companies with which CMA has a significant business relationships and Proxy Referrals of such companies will be voted consistent with CMA’s conflicts management procedures described below. For Proxy Referrals that do not involve companies with which CMA has a significant business relationship the relevant CMA investment personnel (i.e. research analyst, portfolio manager, members of Proxy Committee) involved in the particular Proxy Referral must report any personal conflict of interest circumstances (e.g., relationships with nominees for directorship, members of an issuer’s or dissident’s management or otherwise, unusual communications with parties outside the investment organization concerning a proxy matter) to Columbia Management’s Conflicts of Interest Officer in writing (see Appendix B). In the event any member of the Proxy Committee has a conflict of interest regarding a given matter, he or she will similarly disclose the circumstance and abstain from participating in the Committee’s determination of whether and/or how to vote in the matter.

If the Proxy Committee, the Chairperson of the Proxy Committee, or the Conflicts Officer determines that a proxy matter presents a material conflict of interest, or a material conflict of interest is otherwise determined to exist through the application of this Policy, CMA will invoke one or more of the following conflict management procedures:

• Causing the proxies to be voted in accordance with the recommendations of an independent third party (which generally will be CMA’s proxy voting agent);

• Causing the proxies to be delegated to a qualified, independent third party, which may include CMA’s proxy voting agent; or

• In unusual cases, with the Client’s consent and upon ample notice, forwarding the proxies to CMA’s clients so that they may vote the proxies directly.

Affiliate Investment Companies and Public Companies

CMA considers (1) proxies solicited by open-end and closed-end investment companies for which CMA or an affiliate serves as an investment adviser or principal underwriter; and (2) proxies solicited by Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”) or other public companies within the BAC organization to present a material conflict of interest for CMA. Consequently, the proxies of such affiliates will be voted following one of the conflict management practices discussed above.

Management of Conflicts of Interest – Additional Procedures

In certain circumstances, CMA follows the proxy guidelines and uses other research services provided by the proxy vendor or another independent third party. CMA reviews its proxy vendor’s conflicts of interest procedures as part of its oversight of the proxy vendor’s services.

CMA and other BAC affiliates have adopted various other policies and procedures that help reinforce this Policy. Please see any associated documents.

Ownership Limits – Delegation of Proxy Voting to an Independent Third Party

From time to time, CMA may face regulatory or compliance limits on the types or amounts of voting securities that it may purchase or hold for client accounts. Among other limits, federal, state, foreign regulatory restrictions, or company-specific ownership limits may restrict the total percentage of an issuer’s voting securities that CMA can hold for clients (collectively, “Ownership Limits”).

B-4

The regulations or company-specific documents governing a number of these Ownership Limits often focus upon holdings in voting securities. As a result, in limited circumstances in order to comply with such Ownership Limits and/or internal policies designed to comply with such limits, CMA may delegate proxy voting in certain issuers to a qualified, independent third party, who may be CMA’s proxy voting agent.

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

A. CMA’s Proxy Voting Guidelines – General Practices.

The Proxy Committee has adopted the guidelines for voting proxies specified in Appendix A of this policy. CMA uses an independent, third-party proxy vendor to implement its proxy voting process as CMA’s proxy voting agent. In general, whenever a vote is solicited, the proxy vendor will execute the vote according to CMA’s Voting Guidelines.

B. Ability to Vote Proxies Other than as Provided by Voting Guidelines.

A Portfolio Manager or other party involved with a client’s account may conclude that the best interest of the firm’s client, as defined above, requires that a proxy be voted in a manner that differs from the predetermined proxy Voting Guidelines. In this situation, he or she will request in writing that the Proxy Committee consider voting the proxy other than according to such Guidelines and provide information as the Proxy Committee may request. The Proxy Committee may consider the matter, subject to the conflicts of interest procedures discussed above.

C. Other Proxy Matters

For the following categories, proxies will be voted as stated below:

1. New Proposals. For certain new proposals that are expected to be proposed to shareholders of multiple companies, the Proxy Committee may develop a Voting Guideline which will be incorporated into this Policy.

2. Accounts Adhering to Taft Hartley Principles. All proposals for accounts adhering to Taft Hartley principles will be voted according to the Taft Hartley Guidelines developed by the proxy vendor.

3. Accounts Adhering to Socially Responsible Principles. All proposals for accounts adhering to socially responsible principles will be voted according to the Socially Responsible Guidelines developed by the proxy vendor or as specified by the client.

4. Proxies of International Issuers. In general, CMA will refrain from voting securities in cases where international issuers impose share blocking restrictions. However, in the exceptional circumstances that CMA determines that it would be appropriate to vote such securities, all proposals for these securities will be voted only on the specific instruction of the Proxy Committee and to the extent practicable in accordance with the Voting Guidelines set forth in this Policy. Additionally, proxies will typically not be voted in markets where powers of attorney are required to be executed in order to vote shares.

5. Proxy Referrals for Passive Index Accounts. Proxy Referrals for a security that is held only within a passive index account managed by CMA’s Quantitative Strategies Group and not in any other account within CMA, shall be voted according to the guidelines developed by the proxy vendor or as specified by the client. However, if a security is held within a passive index account managed by CMA’s Quantitative Strategies Group and within another CMA-managed account (including without limitation an account actively managed by CMA’s Quantitative Strategies Group), all proposals, including Proxy Referrals, will be voted in accordance with the Voting Guidelines, subject to the other provisions of this Policy.

6. Proxy Voting for Securities on Loan. CMA generally votes in cases where shares have been loaned from actively managed Columbia Funds as long as the shares have been recalled in a timely manner. However, CMA generally does not vote shares that have been loaned from passively managed Columbia Index Funds. Other CMA clients may have their own stock loan programs and may or may not recall their shares for proxy voting.

B-5

Supervision

Managers and supervisory personnel are responsible for ensuring that their associates understand and follow this policy and any applicable procedures adopted by the business group to implement the policy. The Proxy Committee has ultimate responsibility for the implementation of this Policy.

Escalation

With the exception of conflicts of interest-related matters, issues arising under this policy should be escalated to the Proxy Committee. Issues involving potential or actual conflicts of interest should be promptly communicated to the Columbia Management Conflicts Officer.

Monitoring/Oversight

CRM and/or Corporate Internal Audit Group perform periodic reviews and assessments of various lines of businesses, including a review of Columbia Management’s compliance with the Proxy Voting Policy.

Recordkeeping

CMA will create and maintain records of each investment company’s proxy record for 12-month periods ended June 30^th. CMA will compile the following information for each matter relating to a portfolio security considered at any shareholder meeting during the period covered by the annual report and for which CMA was entitled to vote:

• The name of the issuer of the security;

• The exchange ticker symbol of the portfolio security (if symbol is available through reasonably practicable means);

• The Council on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures number for the portfolio security (if number is available through reasonably practicable means);

• The shareholder meeting date;

• A brief identification of the matter voted on;

• Whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a security holder;

• Whether the company cast its vote on the matter;

• How the company cast its vote (e.g., for or against proposal, or abstain; for or withhold regarding the election of directors); and

• Whether the company cast its vote for or against management.

Business groups and support partners are responsible for maintaining all records necessary to evidence compliance with this policy. The records must be properly maintained and readily accessible in order to evidence compliance with this policy.

B-6

These records include:

Document	Responsible Party
Proxy Committee Meeting Minutes and Related Materials	Proxy Group in GWIM Investment Operations
Proxy Vote Recommendation Form and Supporting Materials of Investment Management Personnel Concerning Proxy Decisions and Recommendations (or any other document created by CMA that was material to making a voting decision or that memorializes the basis for the voting decision)	Proxy Group in GWIM Investment Operations
Conflicts of Interest Review Documentation, including Conflicts of Interest Forms	Compliance Risk Management
Client Communications Regarding Proxy Matters	Client Service Group
Copy of Each Applicable Proxy Statement Unless it has been Filed with the SEC and may be Obtained from the SEC’s EDGAR System	Proxy Group in GWIM Investment Operations

Records should be retained for a period of not less than six years plus the current year. Records must be retained in an appropriate office of CM for the first three years.

B-7

APPENDIX A – CMA’s Proxy Voting Policy

CMA’S VOTING GUIDELINES

A. The Proxy Committee has adopted the following guidelines for voting proxies:

1. Matters Relating to the Board of Directors/Corporate Governance

CMA generally will vote FOR:

• Proposals for the election of directors or for an increase or decrease in the number of directors, provided that no more than one-third of the Board of Directors would, presently or at any time during the previous three-year period, be from management.

However, CMA generally will WITHHOLD votes from pertinent director nominees if:

(i) the board as proposed to be constituted would have more than one-third of its members from management;

(ii) the board does not have audit, nominating, and compensation committees composed solely of directors who qualify as being regarded as “independent,” i.e. having no material relationship, directly or indirectly, with the Company, as CMA’s proxy voting agent may determine (subject to the Proxy Committee’s contrary determination of independence or non-independence);

(iii) the nominee, as a member of the audit committee, permitted the company to incur excessive non-audit fees (as defined below regarding other business matters — ratification of the appointment of auditors);

(iv) a director serves on more than six public company boards;

(v) the CEO serves on more than two public company boards other than the company’s board; or

(vi) CMA generally will vote AGAINST Director nominee of a company who is chief executive officer of another company on whose board the company’s chief executive officer sits (i.e. interlocking executives).

One a CASE-BY-CASE basis, CMA may WITHHOLD votes for a director nominee who has failed to observe good corporate governance practices or, through specific corporate action or inaction (e.g. failing to implement policies for which a majority of shareholders has previously cast votes in favor; served voted for the adoption of a poison pill without approval of shareholders), has demonstrated a disregard for the interests of shareholders.

• Proposals requesting that the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committee be composed solely of independent directors. The Audit Committee must satisfy the independence and experience requirements established by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the New York Stock Exchange, or appropriate local requirements for foreign securities. At least one member of the Audit Committee must qualify as a “financial expert” in accordance with SEC rules.

• Proposals to declassify a board, absent special circumstances that would indicate that shareholder interests are better served by a classified board structure.

CMA generally will vote FOR:

• Proposals to separate the role of Chairman of the Board and CEO.

• Proposals that grant or restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.

• Proposals to permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

• Proposals that encourage directors to own a minimum amount of company stock.

• Proposals to provide or to restore shareholder appraisal rights.

• Proposals for the company to adopt confidential voting.

B-8

CMA will generally vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for majority voting thresholds for director elections unless the company has adopted formal corporate governance principles that present a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard and/or provides an adequate response to both new nominees as well as incumbent nominees who fail to receive a majority of votes cast.

CMA will generally vote FOR 162(m) bonus plans unless the Proxy Administrator recommends voting against a specific plan, in which case CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

CMA generally will vote AGAINST:

• Proposals to classify boards, absent special circumstances indicating that shareholder interests would be better served by a classified board structure.

• Proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

• Proposals that provide directors may be removed only by supermajority vote.

• Proposals which allow more than one vote per share in the election of directors.

• Proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

• Proposals that mandate a minimum amount of company stock that directors must own.

• Proposals to limit the tenure of non-management directors.

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

• In contested elections of directors. Proposals to adopt or eliminate cumulative voting.

• CMA generally will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis on board approved proposals relating to corporate governance. Such proposals include, but are not limited to:

• Reimbursement of proxy solicitation expenses taking into consideration whether or not CMA was in favor of the dissidents.

• Proxy contest advance notice. CMA generally will vote FOR proposals that allow shareholders to submit proposals as close to the meeting date as possible while allowing for sufficient time for Company response, SEC review, and analysis by other shareholders.

• CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis to indemnify directors and officers, and AGAINST proposals to indemnify external auditors.

• CMA will vote FOR the indemnification of internal auditors, unless the costs associated with the approval are not disclosed.

2. Compensation

CMA generally will vote FOR:

• CMA generally will vote FOR management sponsored compensation plans (such as bonus plans, incentive plans, stock option plans, pension and retirement benefits, stock purchase plans or thrift plans) if they are consistent with industry and country standards.

• Proposals requiring that executive severance arrangements be submitted for shareholder ratification.

• Proposals asking a company to expense stock options.

• Proposals to put option repricings to a shareholder vote.

• Employee stock purchase plans that have the following features: (i) the shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value, (ii) the offering period under the plan is 27 months or less, and (iii) dilution is 10% or less.

B-9

• Shareholder proposals to adopt a non-binding advisory vote on Executive Compensation (“Say on Pay”).

• CMA recognizes that individual compensation committees are in the best position to determine the optimal design of share based plans. However, CMA generally prefers a greater use of restricted stock in place of stock options due to the greater uncertainty involved with the valuation of stock options at the time of issue.

CMA generally will vote AGAINST:

• Stock option plans that permit issuance of options with an exercise price below the stock’s current market price, or that permit replacing or repricing of out-of-the money options.

• Proposals to authorize the replacement or repricing of out-of-the money options.

• Proposals requesting that plan administrators have advance authority to amend the terms of a plan without detailed disclosure of the specific amendments. When sufficient details are provided on the amendments permitted by the advance authority, CMA will recommend on such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

• CMA generally is opposed to compensation plans that substantially dilute ownership interest in a company, provide participants with excessive awards, or have objectionable structural features. Specifically, for equity-based plans, if the proposed number of shares authorized for option programs (excluding authorized shares for expired options) exceeds 5% of the average number of shares outstanding for the last 3 years, or exceeds 1% of the average number of shares outstanding for the last 3 years (for directors only), CMA will vote on such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. CMA requires that management provide substantial justification for the repricing of options.

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

• Proposals regarding approval of specific executive severance arrangements.

• -Management proposals regarding “Say on Pay” (i.e. non-binding advisory vote on pay).

• Proposals that involve awarding 50% or more of the equity shares of an equity-based compensation plan to the top five or fewer executives.

3. Capitalization

CMA generally will vote FOR:

• Proposals to increase the authorized shares for stock dividends, stock splits (and reverse stock splits) or general issuance, unless proposed as an anti-takeover measure or a general issuance proposal increases the authorization by more than 30% without a clear need presented by the company. Proposals for reverse stock splits should include an overall reduction in authorization.

For companies recognizing preemptive rights for existing shareholders, CMA generally will vote FOR general issuance proposals that increase the authorized shares by more than 30%. CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis all such proposals by companies that do not recognize preemptive rights for existing shareholders.

• Proposals for the elimination of authorized but unissued shares or retirement of those shares purchased for sinking fund or treasury stock.

• Proposals to institute/renew open market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

• Proposals to reduce or change the par value of common stock, provided the number of shares is also changed in order to keep the capital unchanged.

B-10

CMA will evaluate on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals regarding:

• Management proposals that allow listed companies to de-list and terminate the registration of their common stock. CMA will determine whether the transaction enhances shareholder value by giving consideration to:

• Whether the company has attained benefits from being publicly traded.

• Cash-out value

• Balanced interests of continuing vs. cashed-out shareholders

• Market reaction to public announcement of transaction

4. Mergers, Restructurings and Other Transactions

CMA will review, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, business transactions such as mergers, acquisitions, reorganizations, liquidations, spinoffs, buyouts and sale of all or substantially all of a company’s assets.

5. Anti-Takeover Measures

CMA generally will vote AGAINST proposals intended largely to avoid acquisition prior to the occurrence of an actual event or to discourage acquisition by creating a cost constraint. With respect to the following measures, CMA generally will vote as follows:

Poison Pills

• CMA votes FOR shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

• CMA generally votes FOR shareholder proposals to eliminate a poison pill.

• CMA generally votes AGAINST management proposals to ratify a poison pill.

Greenmail

• CMA will vote FOR proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or to otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

Supermajority vote

• CMA will vote AGAINST board-approved proposals to adopt anti-takeover measures such as supermajority voting provisions, issuance of blank check preferred stock, the creation of a separate class of stock with disparate voting rights and charter amendments adopting control share acquisition provisions.

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

• CMA will vote FOR proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes.

6. Other Business Matters

CMA generally will vote FOR:

• Bylaw amendments giving holders of at least 25% of outstanding common stock the ability to call a special meeting of stockholders.

• Board governance document amendments or other proposals which give the lead independent director the authority to call special meetings of the independent directors at any time.

B-11

CMA generally will vote FOR:

• Proposals to approve routine business matters such as changing the company’s name and procedural matters relating to the shareholder meeting such as approving the minutes of a prior meeting.

• Proposals to ratify the appointment of auditors, unless any of the following apply in which case CMA will generally vote AGAINST the proposal:

• Credible reason exists to question:

• The auditor’s independence, as determined by applicable regulatory requirements.

• The accuracy or reliability of the auditor’s opinion as to the company’s financial position.

• Fees paid to the auditor or its affiliates for “non-audit” services exceeds 25% of the total fees paid for “audit,” “audit-related” and “tax compliance” and/or “tax return preparation” services, as disclosed in the company’s proxy materials.

• Bylaw or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (e.g., updates or corrections).

• Proposals to approve the annual reports and accounts provided the certifications required by the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 have been provided.

CMA generally will vote AGAINST:

• Proposals to eliminate the right of shareholders to act by written consent or call special meetings.

• Proposals providing management with authority to adjourn an annual or special shareholder meeting absent compelling reasons, or to adopt, amend or repeal bylaws without shareholder approval, or to vote unmarked proxies in favor of management.

• Shareholder proposals to change the date, time or location of the company’s annual meeting of shareholders.

CMA will vote AGAINST:

• Authorization to transact other unidentified substantive (as opposed to procedural) business at a meeting.

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

• Proposals to change the location of the company’s state of incorporation. CMA considers whether financial benefits (e.g., reduced fees or taxes) likely to accrue to the company as a result of a reincorporation or other change of domicile outweigh any accompanying material diminution of shareholder rights.

• Proposals on whether and how to vote on “bundled” or otherwise conditioned proposals, depending on the overall economic effects upon shareholders.

CMA generally will ABSTAIN from voting on shareholder proposals predominantly involving social, socio-economic, environmental, political or other similar matters on the basis that their impact on share value can rarely be anticipated with any high degree of confidence. CMA may, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, vote:

• FOR proposals seeking inquiry and reporting with respect to, rather than cessation or affirmative implementation of, specific policies where the pertinent issue warrants separate communication to shareholders; and

• FOR or AGAINST the latter sort of proposal in light of the relative benefits and detriments (e.g. distraction, costs, other burdens) to share value which may be expected to flow from passage of the proposal.

B-12

7. Other Matters Relating to Foreign Issues

CMA generally will vote FOR:

• Most stock (scrip) dividend proposals. CMA votes AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.

• Proposals to capitalize the company’s reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase the par value of shares.

• Proposals to approve control and profit transfer agreements between a parent and its subsidiaries.

• Management proposals seeking the discharge of management and supervisory board members, unless there is concern about the past actions of the company’s auditors/directors and/or legal action is being taken against the board by other shareholders.

• Management proposals concerning allocation of income and the distribution of dividends, unless the proxy vendor would vote against such proposal in accordance with its guidelines, in which case CMA will evaluate the proposal on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

• Proposals for the adoption of financing plans if they are in the best economic interests of shareholders.

CMA will generally vote FOR proposals to approve Directors’ Fees, unless the proxy vendor would vote against such proposal in accordance with its guidelines, in which case CMA will evaluate the proposal on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

CMA will evaluate management proposals to approve protective preference shares for Netherlands located company-friendly foundations proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis and will only support resolutions if:

• The supervisory board needs to approve an issuance of shares while the supervisory board is independent within the meaning of CMA’s categorization rules and the Dutch Corporate Governance Code.

• No call/put option agreement exists between the company and the foundation.

• There is a qualifying offer clause or there are annual management and supervisory board elections.

• The issuance authority is for a maximum of 18 months.

• The board of the company-friendly foundation is independent.

• The company has disclosed under what circumstances it expects to make use of the possibility to issue preference shares.

• There are no priority shares or other egregious protective or entrenchment tools.

• The company releases its proxy circular, with details of the poison pill proposal, at least three weeks prior to the meeting.

• Art 2:359c Civil Code of the legislative proposal has been implemented.

8. Investment Company Matters

Election of Directors:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals for the election of directors, considering the following factors:

• Board structure

• Attendance at board and committee meetings.

B-13

CMA will WITHHOLD votes from directors who:

• Attend less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings without a valid excuse for the absences. Valid reasons include illness or absence due to company business. Participation via telephone is acceptable. In addition, if the director missed only one meeting or one day’s meetings, votes should not be withheld even if such absence dropped the director’s attendance below 75 percent.

• Ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a majority of shares outstanding;

• Ignore a shareholder proposal this is approved by a majority of the votes cast for two consecutive years;

• Are interested directors and sit on the audit or nominating committee; or

• Are interested directors and the full board serves as the audit or nominating committee or the company does not have one of these committees.

Proxy Contests:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals for 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 pertinent issues (e.g., closed-end fund share market value discount to NAV)

• Past shareholder activism, board activity and votes on related proposals

• Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents

• Independence of incumbent directors; director nominees

• Experience and skills of director nominees

• Governance profile of the company

• Evidence of management entrenchment

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund:

CMA will vote conversion proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, 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

• Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals.

Investment Advisory Agreements:

CMA will vote investment advisory agreements on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, 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 adviser undergoes a change of control)

B-14

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares:

CMA will vote FOR the establishment of new classes or series of shares.

Preferred Stock Proposals:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals for the authorization for or increase in the preferred shares, considering the following factors:

• Stated specific financing purpose

• Possible dilution for common shares

• Whether the shares can be used for anti-takeover purposes

Policies Addressed by the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”):

CMA will vote proposals regarding adoption or changes of policies addressed by the 1940 Act on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, considering the following factors:

• Potential competitiveness

• Regulatory developments

• Current and potential returns

• Current and potential risk

CMA generally will vote FOR these amendments as long as the proposed changes do not fundamentally alter the investment focus of the fund and do comply with current SEC interpretations.

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Non-fundamental Restriction:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to change a fundamental restriction to a non-fundamental restriction, considering the following factors:

• Fund’s target investments

• Reasons given by the fund for the change

• Projected impact of the change on the portfolio

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Non-fundamental:

CMA will vote AGAINST proposals to change a fund’s investment objective from fundamental to non-fundamental unless management acknowledges meaningful limitations upon its future requested ability to change the objective

Name Change Proposals:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to change a fund’s name, considering the following factors:

• Political/economic changes in the target market

• Consolidation in the target market

• Current asset composition

B-15

Change in Fund’s Subclassification:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to change a fund’s subclassification, considering the following factors:

• Potential competitiveness

• Current and potential returns

• Risk of concentration

• Consolidation in target industry

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis these proposals, considering the following factors:

• Strategies employed to salvage the company

• Past performance of the fund

• Terms of the liquidation

Changes to the Charter Document:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to change the charter document, considering the following factors:

• The degree of change implied by the proposal

• The efficiencies that could result

• The state of incorporation; net effect on shareholder rights

• Regulatory standards and implications

CMA will vote FOR:

• Proposals allowing the Board to impose, without shareholder approval, fees payable upon redemption of fund shares, provided imposition of such fees is likely to benefit long-term fund investors (e.g., by deterring market timing activity by other fund investors)

• Proposals enabling the Board to amend, without shareholder approval, the fund’s management agreement(s) with its investment adviser(s) or sub-advisers, provided the amendment is not required by applicable law (including the Investment Company Act of 1940) or interpretations thereunder to require such approval

CMA will vote AGAINST:

• Proposals enabling the Board to:

• Change, without shareholder approval the domicile of the fund

• Adopt, without shareholder approval, material amendments of the fund’s declaration of trust or other organizational document

Changing the Domicile of a Fund:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to reincorporate, considering the following factors:

• Regulations of both states

• Required fundamental policies of both states

• The increased flexibility available

B-16

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisors Without Shareholder Approval:

CMA will vote FOR proposals to enable the Board or Investment Adviser to hire and terminate sub-advisers, without shareholder approval, in accordance with applicable rules or exemptive orders under the Investment Company Act of 1940

Distribution Agreements:

CMA will vote these proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, 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

• Terms of the agreement

Master-Feeder Structure:

CMA will vote FOR the establishment of a master-feeder structure.

Mergers:

CMA will vote merger proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, 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 to Establish Director Ownership Requirement:

CMA will 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. While CMA favors stockownership on the part of directors, the company should determine the appropriate ownership requirement.

Shareholder Proposals to Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.

Shareholder Proposals to Terminate the Investment Adviser:

CMA will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to terminate the investment adviser, considering the following factors:

• Performance of the fund’s NAV

• The fund’s history of shareholder relations

• The performance of other funds under the adviser’s management

B-17

APPENDIX B

Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Certification Form

Conflict Review Questionnaire for Proxy Voting Working Group Members and Other Individuals

Participating in the Proxy Voting Decision-Making Process.

Instructions: Please complete each of the questions. Please provide an explanation for any affirmative responses. Return the completed questionnaire to Columbia Management Conflicts of Interest Officer.

Issuer and Proxy Matter: 

1. Do you or any member of your immediate family have an existing (or potential) business, financial, personal or other relationship with any management personnel of the issuer¹?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

2. Do you or any member of your immediate family have an existing (or potential) business, financial, personal or other relationship with any person participating, supporting, opposing or otherwise connected with the particular proxy proposal (e.g., principals of the issuer; director nominees of issuer company; shareholder activists)?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

3. Have you discussed this particular proxy proposal with anyone outside of Columbia Management’s investment group²?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

4. Are you aware of any other potential personal conflicts of interest not described above? Please detail below.

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

Name: 

Signed: 

Date: 

¹ Personal investing in the issuer by you or a member of your immediate family does not require an affirmative response to this item.

² Communications with issuer or solicitors in the regular course of business would not have to be disclosed on this form.

B-18

APPENDIX C

CMA Proxy Vote Recommendation/Proxy Committee Request Form

Name of Investment Associate: 

Company Name: 

Overview of Proxy Vote and Meeting Date: 

Proxy Agenda Item(s)

Description of Item: 

(The above information will be pre-populated by the Proxy Department.)

Recommendation (FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN) including brief rationale: 

Please attach any supporting information other than analysis or reports provided by the Proxy Department.

Signed

By signing, I am certifying that I either have no conflicts of interest-related information to report or have sent a completed “Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Certification Form” to Compliance Risk Management (Conflicts Officer).

Send Completed Forms to:

GWIM Investment Operations – Proxy Department

        or

In the case of Proxy Votes to be referred to the Proxy Committee, submit this form and materials to the Chair of the Proxy Committee

B-19

MacKay Shields Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures

MacKay Shields LLC

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

1. Introduction

MacKay Shields LLC (“MacKay Shields” or the “Firm”), has adopted these “Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures” (the “Policy”) to ensure the Firm’s compliance with Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and other applicable fiduciary obligations. The Policy applies to proxies relating to securities held by clients of MacKay Shields who have delegated the responsibility of voting proxies to the Firm. The Policy is designed to assist Firm employees in meeting their specific responsibilities in this area and to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of the Firm’s clients.

2. Statement of Policy

2.1 It is the policy of MacKay Shields that where the Firm has voting authority, all proxies are to be voted in the best interest of the client without regard to the interests of MacKay Shields or other related parties. Specifically, MacKay Shields shall not subordinate the interests of clients to unrelated objectives. MacKay Shields shall act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. For purposes of the Policy, the “best interests of clients” shall mean, unless otherwise specified by the client, the clients’ best economic interests over the long term — that is, the common interest that all MacKay Shields clients share in seeing the value of a common investment increase over time. It is further the policy of the Firm that complete and accurate disclosure concerning its proxy voting policies and procedures and proxy voting records as required by the Advisers Act, be made available to its clients.

2.2 When proxies with respect to securities held by clients of MacKay Shields have not been received by MacKay Shields or its proxy voting service provider, MacKay Shields will make reasonable efforts to obtain missing proxies. MacKay Shields is not responsible for voting proxies it or its proxy voting service provider does not receive.

2.3 MacKay Shields may choose not to vote proxies under the following circumstances:

• If the effect on the client’s economic interests or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant;

• If the cost of voting the proxy outweighs the possible benefit; or

• If a jurisdiction imposes share blocking restrictions which prevent the Firm from trading shares.

3. Use of Third Party Proxy Voting Service Provider

To discharge its responsibility, MacKay Shields has examined third-party services that assist in the researching and voting of proxies and the development of voting guidelines. After such review, the Firm has selected RiskMetrics Group (“RM”), to assist it in researching voting proposals, analyzing the financial implications of voting proposals and voting proxies. MacKay Shields utilizes the research and analytical services, operational implementation, administration, record-keeping and reporting services provided by RM.

4. Proxy Voting Guidelines

4.1 MacKay Shields has determined that, except as set forth in Sections 6 and 7, proxies for non-union clients who so specify will be voted in accordance with the voting recommendations contained in the applicable

B-20

RM non-union domestic or global proxy voting guidelines, as in effect from time to time (“Non-Union Guidelines”). A summary of the current Non-Union Guidelines is attached as Exhibit A.

4.2 MacKay Shields has determined that, except as set forth in Sections 6 and 7, proxies for union or Taft-Hartley clients who so specify will be voted in accordance with the voting recommendations contained in the applicable RM Taft-Hartley domestic or global proxy voting guidelines, as in effect from time to time (“Union Guidelines”). A summary of the current Union Guidelines is attached as Exhibit B.

4.3 For purposes of the Policy, the Non-Union and Union Guidelines are collectively referred to as the Standard Guidelines.

4.4 A client may choose to use proxy voting guidelines different from the Standard Guidelines (“Custom Guidelines”). Any Custom Guidelines must be furnished by the client to MacKay Shields in writing.

4.5 In the event the Standard Guidelines or any client’s Custom Guidelines do not address how a proxy should be voted or state that the vote is to be determined on a “case-by-case” basis, the proxy will be voted in accordance with RM recommendations, subject to Section 6. In the event that RM has not made a recommendation, MacKay Shields will follow the procedure set forth in Section 7.

4.6 Notwithstanding the foregoing, MacKay Shields will vote a proxy with respect to a particular security held by a client in accordance with such client’s specific request even if it is in a manner inconsistent with the Standard Guidelines or the client’s Custom Guidelines, as the case may be. Any such specific requests must be furnished to MacKay Shields by the client in writing and must be received by MacKay on a timely basis for instructing RM how to cast the vote.

4.7 In order to avoid possible conflicts of interest, MacKay Shields votes proxies based on the Standard Guidelines or a client’s Custom Guidelines, as the case may be. However, it is recognized that the Firm’s portfolio management team has the ultimate responsibility for proxy voting.

4.8 For clients using the Standard Guidelines, the Firm will instruct RM to cast votes in accordance with the Standard Guidelines. For clients using Custom Guidelines, the Firm will provide RM with a copy of such Custom Guidelines and will instruct RM to cast votes in accordance with such Custom Guidelines. RM will cast votes in accordance with the Standard Guidelines or Custom Guidelines, as the case may be, unless instructed otherwise by MacKay Shields as set forth in Sections 6 and 7. Upon receipt of a specific request from a client pursuant to Section 4.6, the Firm will instruct RM to cast such client’s proxy in accordance with such request.

5. Client Account Set-up and Review

5.1 Initially, MacKay Shields must determine whether the client seeks to retain the responsibility of voting proxies, or seeks to delegate that responsibility to the Firm. The marketing or client service person responsible for setting up the account, in conjunction with MacKay’s Legal/Compliance Department, will have primary responsibility for making that determination. In its sole discretion, the Firm may decline to accept authority to vote a client’s proxies. Any such refusal shall be in writing.

5.2 If MacKay Shields has authority to vote a client’s proxies, the marketing or client service person responsible for setting up the account will ask the client to specify in writing (which may be by e-mail) whether the Firm should vote proxies in accordance with the Non-Union Guidelines, Union Guidelines or Custom Guidelines.

5.3 In most cases, the delegation of voting authority to MacKay Shields, and the Firm’s use of a third-party proxy voting service provider shall be memorialized in the client’s investment management agreement.

B-21

5.4 MacKay Shields shall notify RM of new client accounts using such form as RM shall specify from time to time. Designated personnel within the Firm will be responsible for ensuring that each new client’s account for which the Firm has proxy voting authority is established on the appropriate systems and that each such account is properly coded for voting under the appropriate Non-Union Guidelines, Union Guidelines or Custom Guidelines, as the case may be.

6. Overriding Guidelines

A portfolio manager may propose that a particular proxy vote be cast in a manner different from the Standard Guidelines or a RM voting recommendation, or may propose an abstention from voting, if he/she believes that to do so, based on all facts and circumstances, is in the best interest of the Firm’s clients as a whole. Any portfolio manager who proposes to override the Standard Guidelines or a RM voting recommendation on a particular vote or to abstain from voting must complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form, which is set forth in Schedule C.

7. Referral of Voting Decision by RM to MacKay Shields

7.1 In the event that the Standard Guidelines or a client’s Custom Guidelines do not address how a proxy should be voted on a specific proposal for an issuer and RM has not made a recommendation as to how such proxy should be voted, RM will so advise MacKay Shields. In that event, the Legal/Compliance Department will request that the appropriate portfolio manager make a voting recommendation and complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form.

7.2 In the event that the Standard Guidelines or a client’s Custom Guidelines require a “case-by-case” determination on a particular proxy vote and RM has not made a recommendation as to how such proxy should be voted, RM will so advise MacKay Shields. In that event, the Legal/Compliance Department will request that the appropriate portfolio manager make a voting recommendation and complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form.

7.3 In the event that RM determines that a conflict of interest exists as a result of which RM is precluded from making a recommendation as to how a proxy should be voted on a specific proposal for an issuer, RM will so advise MacKay Shields. In that event, the Legal/Compliance Department will request that the appropriate portfolio manager make a voting recommendation and complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form.

8. Conflicts of Interest

8.1 The Firm’s portfolio managers may make proxy voting decisions in connection with (i) overriding the Standard Guidelines or an RM voting recommendation pursuant to Section 6, or (ii) deciding on a vote pursuant to Section 7. In such event, the portfolio managers have an affirmative duty to disclose any potential conflict of interest known to them that exists between the Firm and the client on whose behalf the proxy is to be voted (“Conflict”).

8.2. By way of example, Conflicts may exist in situations where the Firm is called to vote on a proxy involving an issuer or proponent of a proxy proposal regarding the issuer where MacKay Shields or an affiliated person of the Firm also:

• Manages the issuer’s or proponent’s pension plan;

• Administers the issuer’s or proponent’s employee benefit plan;

• Provided brokerage, underwriting, insurance or banking services to the issuer or proponent; or

• Manages money for an employee group.

B-22

Additional Conflicts may exist, among others, if an executive of the Firm or its control affiliates is a close relative of, or has a personal or business relationship with:

• An executive of the issuer or proponent;

• A director of the issuer or proponent;

• A person who is a candidate to be a director of the issuer;

• A participant in the proxy contest; or

• A proponent of a proxy proposal.

8.3 Whether a relationship creates a Conflict will depend on the facts and circumstances. Even if these parties do not attempt to influence the Firm with respect to voting, the value of the relationship to MacKay Shields or an affiliate can create a Conflict.

8.4 After a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form is completed pursuant to Sections 6 or 7, such Form, which elicits information as to whether a potential Conflict exists, must be submitted to the Legal/Compliance Department for review. If the Firm’s General Counsel (“GC”) or Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) determines that there is no potential Conflict, the GC or CCO or their designee may instruct RM to vote the proxy issue as set forth in the completed Form.

8.5 If the GC or CCO determines that there exists or may exist a Conflict, he or she will refer the issue to the Compliance Committee for consideration by convening (in person or via telephone) an emergency meeting of the Compliance Committee. For purposes of this Policy, a majority vote of those members present shall resolve any Conflict. The Compliance Committee will consider the facts and circumstances of the pending proxy vote and the potential or actual Conflict and make a determination as to how to vote the proxy — i.e., whether to permit or deny the recommendation of the portfolio manager, or whether to take other action, such as delegating the proxy vote to an independent third party or obtaining voting instructions from clients.

8.6 In considering the proxy vote and potential Conflict, the Compliance Committee may review the following factors, including but not limited to:

• The percentage of outstanding securities of the issuer held on behalf of clients by the Firm.

• The nature of the relationship of the issuer with the Firm, its affiliates or its executive officers.

• Whether there has been any attempt to directly or indirectly influence the portfolio manager’s decision.

• Whether the direction (for or against) of the proposed vote would appear to benefit the Firm or a related party.

• Whether an objective decision to vote in a certain way will still create a strong appearance of a Conflict.

MacKay Shields may not abstain from voting any such proxy for the purpose of avoiding Conflict.

9. Securities Lending

MacKay Shields portfolio managers will monitor upcoming meetings and MacKay Shields will request that clients call back securities loans, if applicable, in anticipation of an important vote to be taken among holders of the securities or of the giving or withholding of their consent on a material matter affecting the investment. In determining whether to request that clients call back securities loans, the relevant portfolio manager(s) shall consider whether the benefit to the client in voting the matter outweighs the benefit to the client in keeping the security on loan.

B-23

10. Reporting

Upon request, MacKay Shields shall report annually (or more frequently if specifically requested) to its clients on proxy votes cast on their behalf. MacKay Shields will provide any client who makes a written or verbal request with a copy of a report disclosing how MacKay Shields voted securities held in that client’s portfolio. The report will generally contain the following information:

• The name of the issuer of the security;

• The security’s exchange ticker symbol;

• The security’s CUSIP number;

• The shareholder meeting date;

• A brief identification of the matter voted on;

• Whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a security holder;

• Whether MacKay Shields cast its vote on the matter;

• How MacKay Shields voted; and

• Whether MacKay Shields voted for or against management.

11. Record-Keeping

Either MacKay Shields or RM as indicated below will maintain the following records:

• A copy of the Policy and MacKay’s Standard Guidelines;

• A copy of each proxy statement received by MacKay Shields or forwarded to RM by the client’s custodian regarding client securities;

• A record of each vote cast by MacKay Shields on behalf of a client;

• A copy of all documents created by MacKay Shields that were material to making a decision on the proxy voting (or abstaining from voting) of client securities or that memorialize the basis for that decision including the resolution of any Conflict, a copy of all guideline override requests and all supporting documents; and

• A copy of each written request by a client for information on how MacKay Shields voted proxies on behalf of the client, as well as a copy of any written response by MacKay Shields to any request by a client for information on how MacKay Shields voted proxies on behalf of the client; records of oral requests for information or oral responses will not be kept.

Such records must be maintained for at least eight years.

12. Review of Voting and Guidelines

As part of its periodic reviews, MacKay Shields’ Legal/Compliance Department will conduct an annual review of the prior year’s proxy voting as well as the guidelines established for proxy voting. Documentation shall be maintained of this review and a report setting forth the results of the review will be presented annually to the Compliance Committee.

B-24

13. How to Request Information On How the Firm Voted Proxies

Clients may, at anytime, request and receive information from MacKay Shields as to how the Firm voted proxies for securities held in their account. Any such proxy information request should be in writing and mailed or faxed [(212)-754-9205] to MacKay Shields Client Services Department at:

MacKay Shields LLC

9 West 57^th Street

New York, NY 10019

ATTN: Client Services

Attachments:

Exhibit A—	Summary of Standard Guidelines for non-union clients
Exhibit B—	Summary of Standard Guidelines for union clients (Taft-Hartley)
Schedule C—	Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form

Effective February 12, 2010

B-25

2010 U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines Summary

January 8, 2010

Copyright ^© 2009-2010 by RiskMetrics Group.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission to make copies of any part of this work should be sent to: RiskMetrics Group Marketing Department, One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 44th Floor, New York, NY 10005. RiskMetrics Group is a trademark used herein under license.

Risk Management  |  RiskMetrics Labs  |  ISS Governance Services  |  Financial Research & Analysis

www.riskmetrics.com

RiskMetrics Group

2010 U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines Summary

Effective for Meetings on or after Feb. 1, 2010

Published December 31, 2009

Updated Jan. 8, 2010

The following is a condensed version of the proxy voting recommendations contained in the RiskMetrics’ (RMG) U.S. Proxy Voting Manual.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS	B-27
1. ROUTINE/MISCELLANEOUS	B-32
Adjourn Meeting	B-32
Amend Quorum Requirements	B-32
Amend Minor Bylaws	B-32
Change Company Name	B-32
Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting	B-32
Other Business	B-32
Audit-Related	B-32
Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability	B-32
Auditor Ratification	B-33
Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services	B-33
Shareholder Proposals on Audit Firm Rotation	B-33
2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS:	B-34
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections	B-34
Board Accountability	B-34
Problematic Takeover Defenses	B-34
Problematic Audit-Related Practices	B-35
Problematic Compensation Practices	B-35
Other Problematic Governance Practices	B-36
Board Responsiveness	B-36
Director Independence	B-37
Director Competence	B-37
2010 RMG Categorization of Directors	B-37
Board-Related Management Proposals	B-40
Age Limits	B-40
Board Size	B-40
Classification/Declassification of the Board	B-40
Cumulative Voting	B-40
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection	B-40
Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications	B-41
Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors	B-41
Majority Vote Threshold for Director Elections	B-41
Term Limits	B-41
Board-Related Shareholder Proposals/Initiatives	B-41
Age Limits	B-41
Annual Election (Declassification) of the Board	B-41

B-27

Cumulative Voting	B-42
Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications	B-42
Establishment of Board Committees Shareholder Proposals	B-42
Establishment of Board Policy on Shareholder Engagement	B-42
Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors	B-43
Independent Chair (Separate Chair/CEO)	B-43
Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees	B-44
Majority Vote Shareholder Proposals	B-44
Open Access (Proxy Access)	B-44
Proxy Contests- Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections	B-45
Require More Nominees than Open Seats	B-45
Term Limits	B-45
Vote No Campaigns	B-45
3. SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS & DEFENSES	B-45
Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations	B-45
Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent	B-46
Confidential Voting	B-46
Control Share Acquisition Provisions	B-46
Control Share Cash-Out Provisions	B-46
Disgorgement Provisions	B-47
Fair Price Provisions	B-47
Freeze-Out Provisions	B-47
Greenmail	B-47
Net Operating Loss (NOL) Protective Amendments	B-47
Poison Pills- Shareholder Proposals to put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy	B-48
Poison Pills- Management Proposals to Ratify Poison Pill	B-48
Poison Pills- Management Proposals to ratify a Pill to preserve Net Operating Losses (NOLs)	B-49
Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses	B-49
Reincorporation Proposals	B-49
Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent	B-50
Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings	B-50
Stakeholder Provisions	B-50
State Antitakeover Statutes	B-50
Supermajority Vote Requirements	B-51
4. CAPITAL/RESTRUCTURING	B-51
Capital	B-51
Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock	B-51
Common Stock Authorization	B-51
Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan	B-51
Preemptive Rights	B-52
Preferred Stock	B-52
Recapitalization	B-52
Reverse Stock Splits	B-52
Share Repurchase Programs	B-53
Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends	B-53
Tracking Stock	B-53
Restructuring	B-53
Appraisal Rights	B-53
Asset Purchases	B-53
Asset Sales	B-54

B-28

Bundled Proposals	B-54
Conversion of Securities	B-54
Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans	B-54
Formation of Holding Company	B-55
Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)	B-55
Joint Ventures	B-56
Liquidations	B-56
Mergers and Acquisitions	B-56
Plans of Reorganization (Bankruptcy)	B-57
Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures	B-57
Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)	B-58
Spinoffs	B-59
Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals	B-59
5. COMPENSATION	B-60
Executive Pay Evaluation	B-60
Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation- Management Proposals (Management Say-on-Pay)	B-60
Pay for Performance	B-61
Problematic Pay Practices	B-62
Non-Performance based Compensation Elements	B-62
Incentives that may Motivate Excessive Risk-Taking	B-62
Options Backdating	B-63
Board Communications and Responsiveness	B-63
Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans	B-64
Cost of Equity Plans	B-64
Repricing Provisions	B-64
Three-Year Burn Rate/Burn Rate Commitment	B-65
Burn Rate Table for 2010	B-65
Pay-for-Performance- Impact on Equity Plans	B-66
Liberal Definition of Change-in-Control	B-66
Problematic Pay Practices	B-66
Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations:	B-66
Dividend Equivalent Rights	B-66
Liberal Share Recycling Provisions	B-66
Operating Partnership (OP) units in Equity Plan analysis of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)	B-67
Option Overhang Cost	B-67
Other Compensation Plans	B-68
401(k) Employee Benefit Plans	B-68
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)	B-68
Employee Stock Purchase Plans — Qualified Plans	B-68
Employee Stock Purchase Plans — Non-Qualified Plans	B-68
Incentive Bonus Plans and Tax Deductibility Proposals (OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals)	B-68
Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options	B-69
Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash	B-69
Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs	B-70
Director Compensation	B-70
Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors	B-70
Director Retirement Plans	B-71

B-29

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation	B-71
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay)	B-71
Compensation Consultants- Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization	B-71
Disclosure/Setting Levels or Types of Compensation for Executives and Directors	B-71
Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits	B-72
Pay for Superior Performance	B-72
Performance-Based Awards	B-73
Pension Plan Income Accounting	B-73
Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)	B-73
Recoup Bonuses	B-73
Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes	B-74
Share Buyback Holding Periods	B-74
Stock Ownership or Holding Period Guidelines	B-74
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)	B-75
Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment and Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity	B-75
Tax Gross-Up Proposals	B-75
6. SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES	B-76
Overall Approach	B-76
Animal Welfare	B-76
Animal Testing	B-76
Animal Welfare Policies	B-76
Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK)	B-77
Consumer Issues	B-77
Genetically Modified Ingredients	B-77
Consumer Lending	B-77
Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, and Product Reimportation	B-78
Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials	B-78
Tobacco	B-79
Diversity	B-79
Board Diversity	B-79
Equality of Opportunity	B-80
Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits	B-80
Climate Change and the Environment	B-80
Climate Change	B-80
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)	B-80
Energy Efficiency	B-81
Facility and Operational Safety/Security	B-81
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions	B-81
Operations in Protected Areas	B-82
Recycling	B-82
Renewable Energy	B-82
General Corporate Issues	B-82
Charitable Contributions	B-82
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Compensation-Related Proposals	B-83
Health Pandemics	B-83
Lobbying Expenditures/Initiatives	B-83
Political Contributions and Trade Associations Spending	B-84

B-30

International Issues, Labor Issues, and Human Rights	B-84
Community Social and Environmental Impact Assessments	B-84
Foreign Military Sales/Offsets	B-85
Internet Privacy and Censorship	B-85
Labor and Human Rights Standards	B-85
MacBride Principles	B-86
Nuclear and Depleted Uranium Weapons	B-86
Operations in High Risk Markets	B-86
Outsourcing/Offshoring	B-86
Sustainability	B-87
Sustainability Reporting	B-87
7. MUTUAL FUND PROXIES	B-87
Election of Directors	B-87
Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund	B-87
Proxy Contests	B-87
Investment Advisory Agreements	B-88
Approving New Classes or Series of Shares	B-88
Preferred Stock Proposals	B-88
1940 Act Policies	B-88
Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction	B-89
Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental	B-89
Name Change Proposals	B-89
Change in Fund’s Subclassification	B-89
Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation	B-89
Changes to the Charter Document	B-90
Changing the Domicile of a Fund	B-90
Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisors Without Shareholder Approval	B-90
Distribution Agreements	B-90
Master-Feeder Structure	B-91
Mergers	B-91
Shareholder Proposals for Mutual Funds	B-91
Establish Director Ownership Requirement	B-91
Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred	B-91
Terminate the Investment Advisor	B-91

B-31

1. Routine/Miscellaneous

Adjourn Meeting

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

Vote AGAINST proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding unless there are compelling reasons to support the proposal.

— — — — —

Amend Minor Bylaws

Vote FOR bylaw or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (updates or corrections).

— — — — —

Change Company Name

Vote FOR proposals to change the corporate name.

— — — — —

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

Vote FOR management proposals to change the date, time, and/or location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable.

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to change the date, time, and/or location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable.

— — — — —

Other Business

Vote AGAINST proposals to approve other business when it appears as voting item.

— — — — —

Audit-Related

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

Consider the issue of auditor indemnification and limitation of liability on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. 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;

B-32

• Motivation and rationale for establishing the agreements;

• Quality of disclosure; and

• Historical practices in the audit area.

WITHHOLD or vote AGAINST 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

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 which 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, refund claims and tax payment planning. All other services in the tax category, such as tax advice, planning or consulting should be added “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: initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs; and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees which 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

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

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;

B-33

• 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.

— — — — —

2. Board of Directors:

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Votes on director nominees should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Four fundamental principles apply when determining votes on director nominees:

• Board Accountability: Practices that promote accountability include: transparency into a company’s governance practices; annual board elections; and providing shareholders the ability to remove problematic directors and to vote on takeover defenses or other charter/bylaw amendments. These practices help reduce the opportunity for management entrenchment.

• Board Responsiveness: Directors should be responsive to shareholders, particularly in regard to shareholder proposals that receive a majority vote and to tender offers where a majority of shares are tendered. Furthermore, shareholders should expect directors to devote sufficient time and resources to oversight of the company.

• Director Independence: Without independence from management, the board may be unwilling or unable to effectively set company strategy and scrutinize performance or executive compensation.

• Director Competence: 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. While directors should not be constrained by arbitrary limits such as age or term limits, directors who are unable to attend board and committee meetings and/or who are overextended (i.e. serving on too many boards) raise concern on the director’s ability to effectively serve in shareholders’ best interests.

Board Accountability

Problematic Takeover Defenses

VOTE WITHHOLD/AGAINST¹ the entire board of directors (except new nominees², who should be considered on a CASE-by-CASE basis), if:

• 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 — any or all appropriate nominees (except new) may be held accountable;

• The company’s poison pill has a “dead-hand” or “modified dead-hand feature. Vote withhold/against every year until this feature is removed;

¹ In general, companies with a plurality vote standard use “withhold” as the valid 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.

² A “new nominee” is any current nominee who has not already been elected by shareholders and who joined the board after the problematic action in question transpired. If RMG cannot determine whether the nominee joined the board before or after the problematic action transpired, the nominee will be considered a “new nominee” if he or she joined the board within the 12 months prior to the upcoming shareholder meeting.

B-34

• The board adopts a poison pill with -term aterm pill”), of existing pill, including any “short-term” pill (12 months or less), commitment or policy that puts a newly-adopted pill to a binding shareholder vote may potentially offset an adverse vote recommendation. Review such companies with classified boards every year, and such companies with annually-elected boards at least once every three years, and vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from all nominees if the company still maintains a non-shareholder-approved poison pill. This policy applies to all companies adopting or renewing pills after the announcement of this policy (Nov 19, 2009);

• The board makes a material adverse change to an existing poison pill without shareholder approval.

Vote CASE-By-CASE on all nominees if the board adopts a poison pill with a term of 12 months or less (“short-term pill”) without shareholder approval, taking into account the following factors:

• The date of the pill’s adoption relative to the date of the next meeting of shareholders- i.e. whether the company had time to put the pill on ballot for shareholder ratification given the circumstances;

• The issuer’s rationale;

• The issuer’s governance structure and practices; and

• The issuer’s track record of accountability to shareholders.

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/or 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 the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether WITHHOLD/AGAINST votes are warranted.

Problematic Compensation Practices

VOTE WITHHOLD/AGAINST the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:

• There is a negative correlation between chief executive pay and company performance (see Pay for Performance Policy);

• The company reprices underwater options for stock, cash, or other consideration without prior shareholder approval, even if allowed in the firm’s equity plan;

• The company fails to submit one-time transfers of stock options to a shareholder vote;

• The company fails to fulfill the terms of a burn rate commitment made to shareholders;

• The company has problematic pay practices. Problematic pay practices may warrant withholding votes from the CEO and potentially the entire board as well.

B-35

Other Problematic Governance Practices

VOTE WITHHOLD/AGAINST the entire board of directors (except new nominees, who should be considered on a CASE-by-CASE basis), if:

• The company’s proxy indicates that not all directors attended 75 percent of the aggregate board and committee meetings, but fails to provide the required disclosure of the names of the director(s) involved. If this information cannot be obtained, withhold from all incumbent directors;

• The board lacks accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers. Sustained poor performance is measured by one- and three-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 five-year total shareholder return and five-year operational metrics. Problematic provisions include but are not limited to:

— A classified board structure;

— A supermajority vote requirement;

— Majority vote standard for director elections with no carve out for contested elections;

— The inability for shareholders to call special meetings;

— The inability for shareholders to act by written consent;

— A dual-class structure; and/or

— A non-shareholder approved poison pill.

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

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

• Failure to replace management as appropriate; or

• Egregious actions related to the 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.

Board Responsiveness

Vote WITHHOLD/AGAINST the entire board of directors (except new nominees, who should be considered on a CASE-by-CASE basis), if:

• The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received approval by a majority of the shares outstanding the previous year (a management proposal with other than a FOR recommendation by management will not be considered as sufficient action taken);

• The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received approval of the majority of shares cast for the previous two consecutive years (a management proposal with other than a FOR recommendation by management will not be considered as sufficient action taken);

• The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of the shareholders tendered their shares; or

• 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.

B-36

Director Independence

Vote WITHHOLD/AGAINST Inside Directors and Affiliated Outside Directors (per the Categorization of Directors) when:

• The inside or affiliated outside director serves on any of the three key committees: audit, compensation, or nominating;

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

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

• The full board is less than majority independent.

Director Competence

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from individual directors who:

• Attend less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings without a valid excuse, such as illness, service to the nation, work on behalf of the company, or funeral obligations. If the company provides meaningful public or private disclosure explaining the director’s absences, evaluate the information on a CASE-BY-CASE basis taking into account the following factors:

— Degree to which absences were due to an unavoidable conflict;

— Pattern of absenteeism; and

— Other extraordinary circumstances underlying the director’s absence;

• Sit on more than six public company boards;

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

— — — — —

2010 RMG Categorization of Directors

1. Inside Director (I)

1.1. Employee of the company or one of its affiliatesⁱ.

1.2. Among the five most highly paid individuals (excluding interim CEO).

1.3. Listed as an officer as defined under Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“section 16 officer”)ⁱⁱ.

1.4. Current interim CEO.

1.5. 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 defined group).

2. Affiliated Outside Director (AO)

Board Attestation

2.1. Board attestation that an outside director is not independent.

Former CEO

2.2. Former CEO of the company^iii,iv.

2.3. Former CEO of an acquired company within the past five years^iv.

B-37

2.4. Former interim CEO if the service was longer than 18 months. If the service was between twelve and eighteen months an assessment of the interim CEO’s employment agreement will be made^v.

Non-CEO Executives

2.5. Former Section 16 officerⁱⁱ of the company, an affiliateⁱ or an acquired firm within the past five years.

2.6. Section 16 officerⁱⁱ of a former parent or predecessor firm at the time the company was sold or split off from the parent/predecessor within the past five years.

2.7. Section 16 officerⁱⁱ, former Section 16 officer, or general or limited partner of a joint venture or partnership with the company.

Family Members

2.8. Immediate family member^vi of a current or former Section 16 officerⁱⁱ of the company or its affiliatesⁱ within the last five years.

2.9. Immediate family member^vi of a current employee of company or its affiliatesⁱ 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).

Transactional, Professional, Financial, and Charitable Relationships

2.10. Currently provides (or an immediate family member^vi provides) professional services^vii to the company, to an affiliateⁱ of the company or an individual officer of the company or one of its affiliates in excess of $10,000 per year.

2.11. Is (or an immediate family member^vi is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an employee of, an organization which provides professional services^vii to the company, to an affiliateⁱ of the company, or an individual officer of the company or one of its affiliates in excess of $10,000 per year.

2.12. Has (or an immediate family member^vi has) any material transactional relationship^viii with the company or its affiliatesⁱ (excluding investments in the company through a private placement).

2.13. Is (or an immediate family member^vi is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an executive officer of, an organization which has any material transactional relationship^viii with the company or its affiliatesⁱ (excluding investments in the company through a private placement).

2.14. Is (or an immediate family member^vi is) a trustee, director, or employee of a charitable or non-profit organization that receives material grants or endowments^viii from the company or its affiliates ⁱ.

Other Relationships

2.15. Party to a voting agreement^ix to vote in line with management on proposals being brought to shareholder vote.

2.16. Has (or an immediate family member^vi has) an interlocking relationship as defined by the SEC involving members of the board of directors or its Compensation Committee^x.

2.17. Founder^xi of the company but not currently an employee.

2.18. Any material^xii relationship with the company.

3. Independent Outside Director (IO)

3.1. No material^xii connection to the company other than a board seat.

Footnotes:

ⁱ “Affiliate” includes a subsidiary, sibling company, or the parent company. RMG uses 50 percent control ownership by the parent company as the standard for applying its affiliate designation.

B-38

ⁱⁱ “Section 16 officer” (officers subject to Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) 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). A non-employee director serving as an officer due to statutory requirements (e.g. corporate secretary) will be classified as an Affiliated Outsider. 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.

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

^iv When there is a former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) serving on the board of an acquired company, RMG 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.

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

^vi “Immediate family member” follows the SEC’s definition of such and cover 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.

^vii 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.

^viii 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/Amex listing standards. In the case of a company which follows neither of the preceding standards, RMG will apply the NASDAQ-based materiality test. (The recipient is the party receiving the financial proceeds from the transaction).

^ix Dissident directors who are parties to a voting agreement pursuant to a settlement arrangement, will generally be classified as independent unless determined otherwise taking into account the following factors: 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.

^x 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).

B-39

^xi The operating involvement of the founder with the company will be considered. Little to no operating involvement may cause RMG to deem the founder as an independent outsider.

^xii For purposes of RMG’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.

— — — — —

Board-Related Management Proposals

Age Limits

Vote AGAINST management proposal to limit the tenure of outside directors through mandatory retirement ages.

— — — — —

Board Size

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

Vote AGAINST proposals to classify (stagger) the board.

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

— — — — —

Cumulative Voting

Generally vote AGAINST proposals to eliminate cumulative voting.

— — — — —

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals on director and officer indemnification and liability protection using Delaware law as the standard.

Vote AGAINST proposals to eliminate entirely directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care.

Vote AGAINST indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to liability for acts, such as negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere carelessness.

Vote AGAINST proposals that would 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.

B-40

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 director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he 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

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Votes should be based on how reasonable the criteria are and to what degree they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.

— — — — —

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

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.

— — — — —

Majority Vote Threshold for Director Elections

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 plurality in contested elections is included.

— — — — —

Term Limits

Vote AGAINST management proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors through term limits. However, scrutinize boards where the average tenure of all directors exceeds 15 years for independence from management and for sufficient turnover to ensure that new perspectives are being added to the board.

— — — — —

Board-Related Shareholder Proposals/Initiatives

Age Limits

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors through mandatory retirement ages.

— — — — —

Annual Election (Declassification) of the Board

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to repeal classified (staggered) boards and to elect all directors annually.

— — — — —

B-41

Cumulative Voting

Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting unless:

• The company has proxy access or a similar structure³ to allow 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%).

— — — — —

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Votes should be based on the reasonableness of the criteria and to what degree they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder resolutions seeking a director nominee candidate 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 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.

— — — — —

Establishment of Board Committees Shareholder Proposals

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/or

• The scope and structure of the proposal.

— — — — —

Establishment of Board Policy on Shareholder Engagement

Generally vote FOR shareholders 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;

³ Similar structure” would be a structure that allows shareholders to nominate candidates who the company will include on the management ballot IN ADDITION TO management’s nominees, and their bios are included in management’s proxy.

B-42

• 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 chairman or a lead director, according to RMG’s definition. This individual must be made available for periodic consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.

— — — — —

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

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 Chair (Separate Chair/CEO)

Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring that the chairman’s position be filled by an independent director, unless the company satisfies all of the following criteria:

The company maintains the following counterbalancing governance structure:

• Designated lead director, elected by and from the independent board members with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties. (The role may alternatively reside with a presiding director, vice chairman, or rotating lead director; however the director must serve a minimum of one year in order to qualify as a lead director.) The duties should include, but are not limited to, the following:

— presides at all meetings of the board at which the chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors;

— serves as liaison between the chairman and the independent directors;

— approves information sent to the board;

— approves meeting agendas for the board;

— approves meeting schedules to assure that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items;

— has the authority to call meetings of the independent directors;

— if requested by major shareholders, ensures that he is available for consultation and direct communication;

• Two-thirds independent board;

• All independent key committees;

• Established governance guidelines;

• A company in the Russell 3000 universe must not have exhibited sustained poor total shareholder return (TSR) performance, defined as one- and three-year TSR in the bottom half of the company’s

B-43

four-digit GICS industry group (using Russell 3000 companies only), unless there has been a change in the Chairman/CEO position within that time. For companies not in the Russell 3000 universe, the company must not have underperformed both its peers and index on the basis of both one-year and three-year total shareholder returns, unless there has been a change in the Chairman/CEO position within that time;

• The company does not have any problematic governance or management issues, examples of which include, but are not limited to:

— Egregious compensation practices;

— Multiple related-party transactions or other issues putting director independence at risk;

— Corporate and/or management scandals;

— Excessive problematic corporate governance provisions; or

— Flagrant actions by management or the board with potential or realized negative impacts on shareholders.

— — — — —

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

Vote FOR shareholder proposals asking that a majority or more of directors be independent unless the board composition already meets the proposed threshold by RMG’s definition of independent outsider. (See Categorization of Directors.)

Vote FOR shareholder proposals asking that board audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees be composed exclusively of independent directors if they currently do not meet that standard.

— — — — —

Majority Vote Shareholder Proposals

Generally vote FOR precatory and binding 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 know as a director resignation policy) that will provide guidelines so that the company will promptly address the situation of a holdover director.

— — — — —

Open Access (Proxy Access)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals asking for open or proxy access, taking into account:

• The ownership threshold proposed in the resolution;

• The proponent’s rationale for the proposal at the targeted company in terms of board and director conduct.

— — — — —

B-44

Proxy Contests- Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following factors:

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

• Management’s track record;

• Background to the proxy contest;

• Qualifications of director nominees (both slates);

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

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

• Stock ownership positions.

— — — — —

Require More Nominees than Open Seats

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

— — — — —

Term Limits

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors through term limits. However, scrutinize boards where the average tenure of all directors exceeds 15 years for independence from management and for sufficient turnover to ensure that new perspectives are being added to the board.

— — — — —

Vote No Campaigns

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.

— — — — —

3. Shareholder Rights & Defenses

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

Vote CASE-BY-CASE basis 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 not be more than 60 days prior to the meeting, with a submittal window of at least 30 days prior to the deadline. The submittal window is the period under which a shareholder must file his proposal/nominations prior to the deadline.

B-45

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

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.

— — — — —

Confidential Voting

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that corporations adopt confidential voting, use independent vote tabulators, and use independent inspectors of election, as long as the proposal includes a provision for proxy contests as follows: In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents will not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived.

Vote FOR management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

— — — — —

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.

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.

Vote FOR proposals to opt out of control share cash-out statutes.

— — — — —

B-46

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.

Vote FOR proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions.

— — — — —

Fair Price Provisions

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

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.

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.

— — — — —

Net Operating Loss (NOL) Protective Amendments

For management proposals to adopt a protective amendment for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (“NOLs”), the following factors should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

• 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 five-percent holder);

• The value of the NOLs;

B-47

• 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 Proposals to put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

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.

— — — — —

Poison Pills- Management Proposals to Ratify Poison Pill

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.

— — — — —

B-48

Poison Pills- Management Proposals to ratify a Pill to preserve Net Operating Losses (NOLs)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals for poison pill ratification. For management proposals to adopt a poison pill for the stated purpose of preserving a company’s net operating losses (“NOLs”), the following factors are considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

• The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL pills generally have a trigger slightly below 5%);

• The value of the NOLs;

• The term;

• 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.

— — — — —

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

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

Management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, 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.

— — — — —

B-49

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

Vote AGAINST management and shareholder proposals to restrict of prohibit shareholders’ 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;

• Consent threshold;

• The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;

• Investor ownership structure; and

• Shareholder support of and management’s response to previous shareholder proposals.

— — — — —

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

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

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

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freeze-out provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).

— — — — —

B-50

Supermajority Vote Requirements

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

• Supermajority vote requirements.

— — — — —

4. CAPITAL/RESTRUCTURING

Capital

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

Vote FOR management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

— — — — —

Common Stock Authorization

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance. Take into account company-specific factors which include, at a minimum, the following:

• Past Board Performance:

• The company’s use of authorized shares during the last three years;

• One- and three-year total shareholder return; and

• The board’s governance structure and practices;

• The Current Request:

• Disclosure in the proxy statement of the specific reasons for the proposed increase;

• The dilutive impact of the request as determined through an allowable cap generated by

• RiskMetrics’ quantitative model, which examines the company’s need for shares and its three-year total shareholder return; and

• Risks to shareholders of not approving the request.

Vote AGAINST proposals at companies with more than one class of common stock to increase the number of authorized shares of the class that has superior voting rights.

— — — — —

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

Vote AGAINST proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a non-shareholder approved shareholder rights plan (poison pill).

— — — — —

B-51

Preemptive Rights

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights, taking into consideration: the size of a company, the characteristics of its shareholder base, and the liquidity of the stock.

— — — — —

Preferred Stock

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase the number of shares of preferred stock authorized for issuance. Take into account company-specific factors that include, at a minimum, the following:

• Past Board Performance:

• The company’s use of authorized preferred shares during the last three years;

• One- and three-year total shareholder return; and

• The board’s governance structure and practices;

• The Current Request:

• Disclosure in the proxy statement of specific reasons for the proposed increase;

• In cases where the company has existing authorized preferred stock, the dilutive impact of the request as determined through an allowable cap generated by RiskMetrics’ quantitative model, which examines the company’s need for shares and three-year total shareholder return;

• Whether the shares requested are blank check preferred shares, and whether they are declawed.

Vote AGAINST proposals at companies with more than one class or series of preferred stock to increase the number of authorized shares of the class or series that has superior voting rights.

— — — — —

Recapitalization

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

Vote FOR management proposals to implement a reverse stock split when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced.

Vote FOR management proposals to implement a reverse stock split to avoid delisting.

B-52

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to implement a reverse stock split that do not proportionately reduce the number of shares authorized for issue based on the allowable increased calculated using the Capital Structure model.

— — — — —

Share Repurchase Programs

Vote FOR management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

— — — — —

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

Vote FOR management proposals to increase the common share authorization for a stock split or share dividend, provided that the increase in authorized shares would not result in an excessive number of shares available for issuance as determined using a model developed by RMG.

— — — — —

Tracking Stock

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

Vote FOR proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with rights of appraisal.

— — — — —

Asset Purchases

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on asset purchase proposals, considering the following factors:

• Purchase price;

• Fairness opinion;

• Financial and strategic benefits;

B-53

• How the deal was negotiated;

• Conflicts of interest; Other alternatives for the business;

• Non-completion risk.

— — — — —

Asset Sales

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

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. In the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

— — — — —

Conversion of Securities

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

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan, taking into consideration the following:

• Dilution to existing shareholders’ position;

• Terms of the offer;

• Financial issues;

B-54

• Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

• Control issues;

• Conflicts of interest.

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

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;

• Changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the company.

Absent compelling financial reasons to recommend 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 Structure”);

• Adverse changes in shareholder rights.

— — — — —

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

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?

B-55

— 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

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;

• Noncompletion risk.

— — — — —

Liquidations

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

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

B-56

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. The CIC figure presented in the “RMG 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.

— — — — —

Plans of Reorganization (Bankruptcy)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE basis 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.

— — — — —

Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals regarding private placements taking into consideration:

1. 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.

2. 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 issues.

— When evaluating the magnitude of a private placement discount or premium, RiskMetrics will consider whether it is affected by liquidity, due diligence, control and monitoring issues, capital scarcity, information asymmetry and anticipation of future performance.

B-57

3. Financial issues include but are not limited to examining the following:

— Company’s financial situation;

— 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; and

— Going concern viability and the state of the capital and credit markets.

4. 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.

5. Control issues:

— Change in management;

— Change in control,

— Guaranteed board and committee seats;

— Standstill provisions;

— Voting agreements;

— Veto power over certain corporate actions.

Minority versus majority ownership and corresponding minority discount or majority control premium

6. 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?

7. 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 if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

— — — — —

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis 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.

B-58

• 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?

— — — — —

Spinoffs

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

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;

• Strategic plan in place for improving value;

B-59

• Likelihood of receiving reasonable value in a sale or dissolution; and

• Whether company is actively exploring its strategic options, including retaining a financial advisor.

— — — — —

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)

Evaluate executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST management say on pay (MSOP) proposals, AGAINST/WITHHOLD on compensation committee members (or, in rare cases where the full board is deemed responsible, all directors including the CEO), and/or AGAINST an equity-based incentive plan proposal if:

• There is a misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

• The company maintains problematic pay practices;

• The board exhibits poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Voting Alternatives

In general, the management say on pay (MSOP) ballot item is the primary focus of voting on executive pay practices — dissatisfaction with compensation practices can be expressed by voting against MSOP rather than

B-60

withholding or voting against the compensation committee. However, if there is no MSOP on the ballot, then the negative vote will apply to members of the compensation committee. In addition, in egregious cases, or if the board fails to respond to concerns raised by a prior MSOP proposal, then vote withhold or against compensation committee members (or, if the full board is deemed accountable, all directors). If the negative factors involve equity-based compensation, then vote AGAINST an equity-based plan proposal presented for shareholder approval.

Additional CASE-BY-CASE considerations for the management say on pay (MSOP) proposals:

• Evaluation of performance metrics in short-term and long-term plans, as discussed and explained in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A). Consider the measures, goals, and target awards reported by the company for executives’ short- and long-term incentive awards: disclosure, explanation of their alignment with the company’s business strategy, and whether goals appear to be sufficiently challenging in relation to resulting payouts;

• Evaluation of peer group benchmarking used to set target pay or award opportunities. Consider the rationale stated by the company for constituents in its pay benchmarking peer group, as well as the benchmark targets it uses to set or validate executives’ pay ( e.g., median, 75^th percentile, etc.,) to ascertain whether the benchmarking process is sound or may result in pay “ratcheting” due to inappropriate peer group constituents (e.g., much larger companies) or targeting (e.g., above median); and

• Balance of performance-based versus non-performance-based pay. Consider the ratio of performance-based (not including plain vanilla stock options) vs. non-performance-based pay elements reported for the CEO’s latest reported fiscal year compensation, especially in conjuction with concerns about other factors such as performance metrics/goals, benchmarking practices, and pay-for-performance disconnects.

Primary Evaluation Factors for Executive Pay

Pay for Performance

Evaluate the alignment of the CEO’s pay with performance over time, focusing particularly on companies that have underperformed their peers over a sustained period. From a shareholders’ perspective, performance is predominantly gauged by the company’s stock performance over time. Even when financial or operational measures are utilized in incentive awards, the achievement related to these measures should ultimately translate into superior shareholder returns in the long-term.

Focus on companies with sustained underperformance relative to peers, considering the following key factors:

• Whether a company’s one-year and three-year total shareholder returns (“TSR”) are in the bottom half of its industry group (i.e., four-digit GICS – Global Industry Classification Group); and

• Whether the total compensation of a CEO who has served at least two consecutive fiscal years is aligned with the company’s total shareholder return over time, including both recent and long-term periods.

If a company falls in the bottom half of its four-digit GICS, further analysis of the CD&A is required to better understand the various pay elements and whether they create or reinforce shareholder alignment. Also assess the CEO’s pay relative to the company’s TSR over a time horizon of at least five years. The most recent year-over-year increase or decrease in pay remains a key consideration, but there will be additional emphasis on the long term trend of CEO total compensation relative to shareholder return. Also consider the mix of performance-based compensation relative to total compensation. In general, standard stock options or time-vested restricted stock are not considered to be performance-based. If a company provides performance-based

B-61

incentives to its executives, the company is highly encouraged to provide the complete disclosure of the performance measure and goals (hurdle rate) so that shareholders can assess the rigor of the performance program. The use of non-GAAP financial metrics also makes it very challenging for shareholders to ascertain the rigor of the program as shareholders often cannot tell the type of adjustments being made and if the adjustments were made consistently. Complete and transparent disclosure helps shareholders to better understand the company’s pay for performance linkage.

Problematic Pay Practices

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; and

• Options Backdating.

Non-Performance based Compensation Elements

Companies adopt a variety of pay arrangements that may be acceptable in their particular industries, or unique for a particular situation, and all companies are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. However, there are certain adverse practices that are particularly contrary to a performance-based pay philosophy, including guaranteed pay and excessive or inappropriate non-performance-based pay elements.

While not exhaustive, this is the list of practices that carry greatest weight in this consideration and may result in negative vote recommendations on a stand-alone basis. For more details, please refer to RMG’s Compensation FAQ document: http://www.riskmetrics.com/policy/2010_compensation_FAQ:

• Multi-year guarantees for salary increases, non-performance based bonuses, and equity compensation;

• Including additional years of unworked service that result in significant additional benefits, without sufficient justification, or including long-term equity awards in the pension calculation;

• Perquisites for former and/or retired executives, and extraordinary relocation benefits (including home buyouts) for current executives;

• Change-in-control payments exceeding 3 times base salary and target bonus; change-in-control payments without job loss or substantial diminution of duties (“Single Triggers”); new or materially amended agreements that provide for “modified single triggers” (under which an executive may voluntarily leave for any reason and still receive the change-in-control severance package); new or materially amended agreements that provide for an excise tax gross-up (including “modified gross-ups”) ;

• Tax Reimbursements related to executive perquisites or other payments such as personal use of corporate aircraft, executive life insurance, bonus, etc; (see also excise tax gross-ups above)

• Dividends or dividend equivalents paid on unvested performance shares or units;

• Executives using company stock in hedging activities, such as “cashless” collars, forward sales, equity swaps or other similar arrangements; or

• Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/stock appreciation rights without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender/subsequent regrant of underwater options).

Incentives that may Motivate Excessive Risk-Taking

Assess company policies and disclosure related to compensation that could incentivize excessive risk-taking, for example:

• Guaranteed bonuses;

B-62

• A single performance metric used for short- and long-term plans;

• Lucrative severance packages;

• High pay opportunities relative to industry peers;

• Disproportionate supplemental pensions; or

• Mega annual equity grants that provide unlimited upside with no downside risk.

Factors that potentially mitigate the impact of risky incentives include rigorous claw-back provisions and robust stock ownership/holding guidelines.

Options Backdating

Vote CASE-by-CASE on options backdating issues. Generally, when a company has recently practiced options backdating, WITHHOLD from or vote AGAINST the compensation committee, depending on the severity of the practices and the subsequent corrective actions on the part of the board. When deciding on votes on compensation committee members who oversaw questionable options grant practices or current compensation committee members who fail to respond to the issue proactively, consider several factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

• 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.

A CASE-by-CASE analysis approach allows distinctions to be made between companies that had “sloppy” plan administration versus those that acted deliberately and/or committed fraud, as well as those companies that subsequently took corrective action. Cases where companies have committed fraud are considered most egregious.

Board Communications and Responsiveness

Consider the following factors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when evaluating ballot items related to executive pay:

• Poor disclosure practices, including:

— Unclear explanation of how the CEO is involved in the pay setting process;

— Retrospective performance targets and methodology not discussed;

— Methodology for benchmarking practices and/or peer group not disclosed and explained.

• Board’s responsiveness to investor input and engagement on compensation issues, for example:

— Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or

— Failure to respond to concerns raised in connection with significant opposition to MSOP proposals.

— — — — —

B-63

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on equity-based compensation plans. Vote AGAINST the equity plan if any of the following factors apply:

• The total cost of the company’s equity plans is unreasonable;

• The plan expressly permits the repricing of stock options/stock appreciate rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval;

• The CEO is a participant in the proposed equity-based compensation plan and there is a disconnect between CEO pay and the company’s performance where over 50 percent of the year-over-year increase is attributed to equity awards (see Pay-for-Performance);

• The company’s three year burn rate exceeds the greater of 2% or the mean plus one standard deviation of its industry group;

• Liberal Change of Control Definition: The plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur (e.g., upon shareholder approval of a transaction or the announcement of a tender offer); or

• The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices.

Each of these factors is described below:

Cost of Equity Plans

Generally, vote AGAINST equity plans if the cost is unreasonable. For non-employee director plans, vote FOR the plan if certain factors are met (see Director Compensation section).

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. 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. See discussion of specific types of awards.

The Shareholder Value Transfer is reasonable if it falls below the company-specific allowable cap. The allowable cap 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 allowable cap.

Repricing Provisions

Vote AGAINST plans that expressly permit the repricing or exchange of underwater stock options without prior shareholder approval, even if the cost of the plan is reasonable. Also, vote AGAINST OR WITHHOLD from members of the Compensation Committee who approved and/or implemented a repricing or an option exchange program, by buying out underwater options for stock, cash or other consideration or canceling underwater options and regranting options with a lower exercise price, without prior shareholder approval, even if such repricings are allowed in their equity plan.

Vote AGAINST plans if the company has a history of repricing options without shareholder approval, and the applicable listing standards would not preclude them from doing so.

— — — — —

B-64

Three-Year Burn Rate/Burn Rate Commitment

Generally vote AGAINST equity plans for companies whose average three-year burn rates exceeds the greater of: (1) the mean plus one standard deviation of the company’s GICS group segmented by Russell 3000 index and non-Russell 3000 index (per the following Burn Rate Table); or (2) two percent of weighted common shares outstanding. The three-year burn rate policy does not apply to non-employee director plans unless outside directors receive a significant portion of shares each year.

The annual burn rate is calculated as follows:

Annual Burn rate = (# of options granted + # of full value shares awarded * Multiplier) / Weighted Average common shares outstanding)

However, vote FOR equity plans if the company fails this burn rate test but the company commits in a public filing to a three-year average burn rate equal to its GICS group burn rate mean plus one standard deviation (or 2%, whichever is greater), assuming all other conditions for voting FOR the plan have been met.

If a company fails to fulfill its burn rate commitment, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the compensation committee.

For the Dec. 1, 2009 and future quarterly data downloads, RMG will use the 200-day volatility for the shareholder value transfer and burn rate policies. We will also use the 200-day average stock price for the shareholder value transfer policy.

Burn Rate Table for 2010

		Russell 3000						Non-Russell 3000
GICS	Description	Mean		Standard Deviation		Mean+ STDEV		Mean		Standard Deviation		Mean+ STDEV
1010	Energy	1.07	%	1.08	%	2.14	%	2.04	%	2.26	%	4.30	%
1510	Materials	0.94	%	0.68	%	1.63	%	1.97	%	2.57	%	4.54	%
2010	Capital Goods	1.10	%	0.85	%	1.95	%	2.07	%	2.62	%	4.69	%
2020	Commercial Services & Supplies	1.67	%	1.23	%	2.89	%	1.82	%	1.71	%	3.53	%
2030	Transportation	1.20	%	0.93	%	2.13	%	1.36	%	0.95	%	2.31	%
2510	Automobiles & Components	1.36	%	1.63	%	2.99	%	1.36	%	1.63	%	2.99	%
2520	Consumer Durables & Apparel	1.76	%	1.21	%	2.97	%	1.56	%	1.81	%	3.37	%
2530	Hotels Restaurants & Leisure	1.69	%	1.11	%	2.80	%	1.52	%	1.65	%	3.17	%
2540	Media	1.36	%	0.93	%	2.28	%	2.14	%	1.88	%	4.03	%
2550	Retailing	1.69	%	1.41	%	3.10	%	2.19	%	1.82	%	4.01	%
3010, 3020, 3030	Food & Staples Retailing	1.25	%	1.67	%	2.92	%	1.52	%	1.65	%	3.17	%
3510	Health Care Equipment & Services	2.19	%	1.46	%	3.65	%	3.77	%	4.16	%	7.92	%
3520	Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology	3.19	%	1.97	%	5.16	%	4.52	%	4.05	%	8.58	%
4010	Banks	1.02	%	1.04	%	2.05	%	0.81	%	1.31	%	2.12	%
4020	Diversified Financials	2.21	%	2.94	%	5.15	%	4.25	%	4.05	%	8.30	%
4030	Insurance	1.07	%	0.94	%	2.02	%	1.03	%	1.28	%	2.31	%
4040	Real Estate	0.56	%	0.49	%	1.04	%	0.99	%	2.14	%	3.13	%
4510	Software & Services	3.15	%	2.32	%	5.47	%	4.32	%	3.26	%	7.58	%
4520	Technology Hardware & Equipment	2.60	%	2.18	%	4.79	%	3.32	%	3.76	%	7.08	%
4530	Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment	2.94	%	1.88	%	4.82	%	4.33	%	2.98	%	7.31	%
5010	Telecommunication Services	1.30	%	1.20	%	2.50	%	2.63	%	2.45	%	5.08	%
5510	Utilities	0.41	%	0.39	%	0.80	%	0.76	%	0.88	%	1.64	%

B-65

For companies that grant both full value awards and stock options to their participants, apply a premium on full value awards for the past three fiscal years. The guideline for applying the premium is as follows:

Stock Price Volatility	Multiplier
54.6% and higher	1 full-value award will count as 1.5 option shares
36.1% or higher and less than 54.6%	1 full-value award will count as 2.0 option shares
24.9% or higher and less than 36.1%	1 full-value award will count as 2.5 option shares
16.5% or higher and less than 24.9%	1 full-value award will count as 3.0 option shares
7.9% or higher and less than 16.5%	1 full-value award will count as 3.5 option shares
Less than 7.9%	1 full-value award will count as 4.0 option shares

— — — — —

Pay-for-Performance- Impact on Equity Plans

If a significant portion of the CEO’s misaligned pay is attributed to equity awards, and there is an equity plan on the ballot, vote AGAINST the equity plan, taking in to consideration:

• Magnitude of pay increase/decrease in the last fiscal year;

• Source of pay increase (cash or equity); and

• Proportion of equity awards granted in the last fiscal year concentrated at the named executive officer level.

See Pay-for-Performance discussion under Executive Pay Evaluation for further details.

Liberal Definition of Change-in-Control

Generally vote AGAINST equity plans if the plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur. Examples of such a definition could 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.

Problematic Pay Practices

If the equity plan on the ballot is a vehicle for problematic pay practices, vote AGAINST the plan.

— — — — —

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.

— — — — —

Liberal Share Recycling Provisions

Under net share counting provisions, shares tendered by an option holder to pay for the exercise of an option, shares withheld for taxes or shares repurchased by the company on the open market can be recycled back

B-66

into the equity plan for awarding again. All awards with such provisions should be valued as full-value awards. Stock-settled stock appreciation rights (SSARs) will also be considered as full-value awards if a company counts only the net shares issued to employees towards their plan reserve.

— — — — —

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.

— — — — —

Option Overhang Cost

Companies with sustained positive stock performance and high overhang cost attributable to in-the-money options outstanding in excess of six years may warrant a carve-out of these options from the overhang as long as the dilution attributable to the new share request is reasonable and the company exhibits sound compensation practices. Consider, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, a carve-out of a portion of cost attributable to overhang, considering the following criteria:

• Performance: Companies with sustained positive stock performance will merit greater scrutiny. Five-year total shareholder return (TSR), year-over-year performance, and peer performance could play a significant role in this determination.

• Overhang Disclosure: Assess whether optionees have held in-the-money options for a prolonged period (thus reflecting their confidence in the prospects of the company). Note that this assessment would require additional disclosure regarding a company’s overhang. Specifically, the following disclosure would be required:

— The number of in-the-money options outstanding in excess of six or more years with a corresponding weighted average exercise price and weighted average contractual remaining term;

— The number of all options outstanding less than six years and underwater options outstanding in excess of six years with a corresponding weighted average exercise price and weighted average contractual remaining term;

— The general vesting provisions of option grants; and

— The distribution of outstanding option grants with respect to the named executive officers;

• Dilution: Calculate the expected duration of the new share request in addition to all shares currently available for grant under the equity compensation program, based on the company’s three-year average burn rate (or a burn-rate commitment that the company makes for future years). The expected duration will be calculated by multiplying the company’s unadjusted (options and full-value awards accounted on a one-for-one basis) three-year average burn rate by the most recent fiscal year’s weighted average shares outstanding (as used in the company’s calculation of basic EPS) and divide the sum of the new share request and all available shares under the company’s equity compensation program by the product. For example, an expected duration in excess of five years could be considered problematic; and

• Compensation Practices: An evaluation of overall practices could include: (1) stock option repricing provisions, (2) high concentration ratios (of grants to top executives), or (3) additional practices outlined in the Poor Pay Practices policy.

— — — — —

B-67

Other Compensation Plans

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

Vote FOR proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

— — — — —

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

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

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 ten 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

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 since 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 exceeds 25 percent of employee’s contribution, evaluate the cost of the plan against its allowable cap.

— — — — —

Incentive Bonus Plans and Tax Deductibility Proposals (OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals)

Vote FOR proposals that simply amend shareholder-approved compensation plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

B-68

Vote FOR proposals to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) unless they are clearly inappropriate.

Votes to amend existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) are considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis using a proprietary, quantitative model developed by RMG.

Generally vote FOR cash or cash and stock bonus plans that are submitted to shareholders for the purpose of exempting compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) if no increase in shares is requested.

Vote AGAINST proposals if the compensation committee does not fully consist of independent outsiders, as defined in RMG’s classification of director independence.

— — — — —

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

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?

• 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 should 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. Repricing after a recent decline in stock price triggers additional scrutiny and a potential AGAINST vote on the proposal. At a minimum, the decline should not have happened within the past year. 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

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.

B-69

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, RMG will not make any adjustments to carve out the in-lieu-of cash compensation.

— — — — —

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

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.

— — — — —

Director Compensation

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on compensation plans for non-employee directors, based on the cost of the plans against the company’s allowable cap.

B-70

On occasion, director stock plans that set aside a relatively small number of shares when combined with employee or executive stock compensation plans will exceed the allowable cap. Vote for the plan if ALL of the following qualitative factors in the board’s compensation are met and disclosed in the proxy statement:

• Director stock ownership guidelines with a minimum of three times the annual cash retainer.

• Vesting schedule or mandatory holding/deferral period:

— A minimum vesting of three years for stock options or restricted stock; or

— Deferred stock payable at the end of a three-year deferral period.

• Mix between cash and equity:

— A balanced mix of cash and equity, for example 40% cash/60% equity or 50% cash/50% equity; or

— If the mix is heavier on the equity component, the vesting schedule or deferral period should be more stringent, with the lesser of five years or the term of directorship.

• No retirement/benefits and perquisites provided to non-employee directors; and

• Detailed disclosure provided on cash and equity compensation delivered to each non-employee director for the most recent fiscal year in a table. The column headers for the table may include the following: name of each non-employee director, annual retainer, board meeting fees, committee retainer, committee-meeting fees, and equity grants.

— — — — —

Director Retirement Plans

Vote AGAINST retirement plans for non-employee directors.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to eliminate retirement plans for non-employee directors.

— — — — —

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay)

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that call for non-binding shareholder ratification of the compensation of the Named Executive Officers and the accompanying narrative disclosure of material factors provided to understand the Summary Compensation Table.

— — — — —

Compensation Consultants- Disclosure of Board or Company’s utilization

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

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.

B-71

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to set absolute levels on compensation or otherwise dictate the amount or form of compensation.

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring director fees be paid in stock only.

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

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 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.

— — — — —

Pay for Superior Performance

Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals based on a case-by-case analysis that requests the board establish a pay-for-superior performance standard in the company’s executive compensation plan for senior executives. The proposal has the following principles:

• Sets compensation targets for the Plan’s annual and long-term for incentive the pay components at or below the peer group median;

• Delivers a majority of the Plan’s target long-term compensation through performance-vested, not simply time-vested, equity awards;

• Provides 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;

• Establishes performance targets for each plan financial metric relative to the performance of the company’s peer companies;

• Limits 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?

— — — — —

B-72

Performance-Based Awards

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposal 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 premium of at least 25 percent and higher 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.

— — — — —

Pension Plan Income Accounting

Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals to exclude pension plan income in the calculation of earnings used in determining executive bonuses/compensation.

— — — — —

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

Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for certain principles regarding the use of prearranged trading plans (10b5-1 plans) for executives. These principles include:

• Adoption, amendment, or termination of a 10b5-1 Plan must be disclosed within two business days in a Form 8-K;

• Amendment or early termination of a 10b5-1 Plan is allowed only under extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the board;

• Ninety days 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.

— — — — —

Recoup Bonuses

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to recoup unearned incentive bonuses or other incentive payments made to senior executives if it is later determined that the figures upon which incentive compensation is earned

B-73

later turn out to have been in error. This is line with the clawback provision in the Trouble Asset Relief Program. Many companies have adopted policies that permit recoupment in cases where fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation. RMG will take into consideration:

• If the company has adopted a formal recoupment bonus policy;

• If the company has chronic restatement history or material financial problems; or

• If the company’s policy substantially addresses the concerns raised by the proponent.

— — — — —

Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes

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 on a CASE-BY-CASE basis 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 Holding Periods

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.

— — — — —

Stock Ownership or Holding Period Guidelines

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. While RMG favors stock ownership on the part of directors, the company should determine the appropriate ownership requirement.

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals asking companies to adopt policies requiring Named Executive Officers to retain 75% of the shares acquired through compensation plans while employed and/or for two years following the termination of their employment, and to report to shareholders regarding this policy. The following factors will be taken into account:

• Whether the company has any holding period, retention ratio, or officer ownership requirements in place. These should consist of:

— Rigorous stock ownership guidelines, or

B-74

— A holding period requirement coupled with a significant long-term ownership requirement, or

— A meaningful retention ratio,

• Actual officer stock ownership and the degree to which it meets or exceed the proponent’s suggested holding period/retention ratio or the company’s own stock ownership or retention requirements.

• Problematic pay practices, current and past, which may promote a short-term versus a long-term focus.

A rigorous stock ownership guideline should be at least 10x base salary for the CEO, with the multiple declining for other executives. A meaningful retention ratio should constitute at least 50 percent of the stock received from equity awards (on a net proceeds basis) held on a long-term basis, such as the executive’s tenure with the company or even a few years past the executive’s termination with the company.

— — — — —

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

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 and excluding of all incentive or bonus pay from the plan’s definition of covered compensation used to establish such benefits.

— — — — —

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

Vote on a CASE-by-CASE on shareholder proposals seeking a policy requiring termination of employment prior to severance payment, and eliminating accelerated vesting of unvested equity. Change-in-control payouts without loss of job or substantial diminution of job duties (single-triggered) are consider a poor pay practice under RMG policy, and may even result in withheld votes from compensation committee members. The second component of this proposal – related to the elimination of accelerated vesting — requires more careful consideration. The following factors will be taken into regarding this policy.

• The company’s current treatment of equity in change-of-control situations of (i. e. is it double triggered, does it allow for the assumption of equity by acquiring company, the treatment of performance shares.

• Current employment agreements, including potential poor pay practices such as gross-ups embedded in those agreements.

— — — — —

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

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.

— — — — —

B-75

6. Social/Environmental Issues

Overall Approach

When evaluating social and environmental shareholder proposals, RMG considers the following factors:

• Whether adoption of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value;

• Whether the information requested concerns business issues that relate to a meaningful percentage of the company’s business as measured by sales, assets, and earnings;

• 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;

• Whether the issues presented are more appropriately/effectively dealt with through governmental or company-specific action;

• Whether the company has already responded in some appropriate manner to the request embodied in the proposal;

• Whether the company’s analysis and voting recommendation to shareholders are persuasive;

• What other companies have done in response to the issue addressed in the proposal;

• Whether the proposal itself is well framed and the cost of preparing the report is reasonable;

• Whether implementation of the proposal’s request would achieve the proposal’s objectives;

• Whether the subject of the proposal is best left to the discretion of the board;

• Whether the requested information is available to shareholders either from the company or from a publicly available source; and

• Whether providing this information would reveal proprietary or confidential information that would place the company at a competitive disadvantage.

— — — — —

Animal Welfare

Animal Testing

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 at industry peers; or

• There are recent, significant fines or litigation related to the company’s treatment of animals.

— — — — —

Animal Welfare Policies

Generally vote FOR proposals seeking a report on the company’s animal welfare standards unless:

• The company has already published a set of animal welfare standards and monitors compliance;

• The company’s standards are comparable to industry peer; and

• There are no recent, significant fines or litigation related to the company’s treatment of animals.

— — — — —

B-76

Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK)

Generally vote AGAINST proposals requesting the implementation of 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

Generally vote AGAINST proposals asking suppliers, genetic research companies, restaurants and food retail companies to voluntarily label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in their products and/or eliminate GE ingredients. The cost of labeling and/or phasing out the use of GE ingredients may not be commensurate with the benefits to shareholders and is an issue better left to regulators.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals asking for a report on the feasibility of labeling products containing GE ingredients taking into account:

• The company’s business and the proportion of it affected by the resolution;

• 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 including feasibility or GE product labeling, including information on the related costs.

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 completely phase out 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 resolutions presuppose that there are proven health risks to GE ingredients (an issue better left to regulators) that may outweigh the economic benefits derived from biotechnology.

— — — — —

Consumer Lending

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;

• Peer companies’ policies to prevent abusive lending practices.

— — — — —

B-77

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, and Product Reimportation

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.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting that the company evaluate report on their product pricing policies or their access to medicine policies, considering:

• The nature of the company’s business and the potential for reputational and market risk exposure;

• The existing disclosure of relevant policies;

• Deviation from established industry norms;

• The company’s existing, relevant initiatives to provide research and/or products to disadvantaged consumers;

• Whether the proposal focuses on specific products or geographic regions; and

• The potential cost and scope of the requested report.

Generally vote FOR proposals requesting that companies report on the financial and legal impact of their 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

Generally vote FOR proposals requesting the company to 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, significant 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.

— — — — —

B-78

Tobacco

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;

• 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;

• 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.

— — — — —

Diversity

Board Diversity

Generally vote FOR requests for reports on the 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 the 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;

• The company uses an outside search firm to identify potential director nominees; and

B-79

• Whether the company has had recent controversies, fines, or litigation regarding equal employment practices.

— — — — —

Equality of Opportunity

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 its comprehensive equal opportunity policies and initiatives;

• 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 cost and administration burden on the company.

— — — — —

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

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 result in excessive costs for the company.

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.

— — — — —

Climate Change and the Environment

Climate Change

Generally vote FOR resolutions requesting that a company disclose information on the impact of climate change on the company’s operations and investments considering:

• The company already provides current, publicly-available information on the impacts 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 disclosure level of disclosure is at least of comparable to that of industry peers; and

• There are no significant, controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s environmental performance.

— — — — —

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

Generally vote FOR resolutions requesting companies report to shareholders on the risks and liabilities associated with CAFOs unless:

• The company has publicly disclosed its environmental management policies for its corporate and contract farming operations, including compliance monitoring; and The company publicly discloses company and supplier farm environmental performance data; or

B-80

• The company does not have company-owned CAFOs and does not directly source from contract farm CAFOs.

— — — — —

Energy Efficiency

Generally vote FOR on proposals requesting a company report on its comprehensive 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.

— — — — —

Facility and Operational Safety/Security

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on resolutions requesting that companies report on safety and/or security risks associated with their 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.

— — — — —

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Generally vote FOR proposals requesting a report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from company operations and/or products and operations, unless:

• The company already provides 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:

• Overly prescriptive requests for the reduction in GHG emissions by specific amounts or within a specific time frame;

• Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers;

• Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions;

• The feasibility of reduction of GHGs given the company’s product line and current technology and;

B-81

• Whether the company already provides meaningful disclosure on GHG emissions from its products and operations.

— — — — —

Operations in Protected Areas

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

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to adopt a comprehensive recycling strategy, taking into account:

• The nature of the company’s business;

• The extent that peer companies are recycling;

• The timetable prescribed by the proposal and the costs and methods of implementation;

• Whether the company has a poor environmental track record, such as violations of applicable regulations.

— — — — —

Renewable Energy

Generally vote FOR requests for reports on the feasibility of developing renewable energy resources unless the report is duplicative of existing disclosure or irrelevant to the company’s line of business.

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.

— — — — —

General Corporate Issues

Charitable Contributions

Vote AGAINST proposals restricting the 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.

— — — — —

B-82

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Compensation-Related Proposals

Generally vote AGAINST 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) as the practice of linking executive compensation and such criteria is currently the exception rather than the norm and there appears to be a lack of widely-accepted standards regarding the implementation of effective linkages between executive compensation and corporate non-financial performance. However, the following factors will be considered:

• Whether the company has significant and persistent controversies or violations regarding social and/or environmental issues;

• Whether the company has management systems and oversight mechanisms in place regarding its social and environmental performance;

• The degree to which industry peers have incorporated similar non-financial performance criteria in their executive compensation practices; and

• The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its environmental and social performance.

Generally vote AGAINST proposals calling for an analysis of the pay disparity between corporate executives and other non-executive employees. The value of the information sought by such proposals is unclear.

— — — — —

Health Pandemics

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.

— — — — —

Lobbying Expenditures/Initiatives

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting information on a company’s lobbying initiatives, considering:

• Significant controversies, fines, or litigation surrounding a company’s public policy activities,

• The company’s current level of disclosure on lobbying strategy, and

• The impact that the policy issue may have on the company’s business operations.

— — — — —

B-83

Political Contributions and Trade Associations Spending

Generally vote AGAINST proposals asking the 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 prohibits coercion.

Vote AGAINST proposals to publish in newspapers and public media the company’s political contributions. Such publications could present significant cost to the company without providing commensurate value to shareholders.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to improve the disclosure of a company’s political contributions and trade association spending considering:

• Recent significant controversy or litigation related to the company’s political contributions or governmental affairs; and

• The public availability of a company policy on political contributions and trade association spending including information on the types of organizations supported, the business rationale for supporting these organizations, and the oversight and compliance procedures related to such expenditures of corporate assets.

Vote AGAINST proposals barring the company from making political contributions. Businesses are affected by legislation at the federal, state, and local level and barring political contributions can put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

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.

— — — — —

International Issues, Labor Issues, and Human Rights

Community Social and Environmental Impact Assessments

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on 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.

— — — — —

B-84

Foreign Military Sales/Offsets

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.

— — — — —

Internet Privacy and Censorship

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on resolutions requesting the disclosure and implementation of Internet privacy and censorship policies and procedures considering:

• The level of disclosure of company policies and procedures relating to privacy, freedom of speech, Internet censorship, and government monitoring of the Internet;

• Engagement in dialogue with governments and/or relevant groups with respect to the Internet and the free flow of information;

• The scope of business involvement and of investment in markets that maintain government censorship or monitoring of the Internet;

• The market-specific laws or regulations applicable to Internet censorship or monitoring that may be imposed on the company; and,

• The level of controversy or litigation related to the company’s international human rights policies and procedures.

— — — — —

Labor and Human Rights Standards

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.

— — — — —

B-85

MacBride Principles

Generally vote AGAINST proposals to endorse or increase activity on the MacBride Principles, unless:

• The company has formally been found to be out of compliance with relevant Northern Ireland fair employment laws and regulations;

• Failure to implement the MacBride Principles would put the company in an inconsistent position and/or at a competitive disadvantage compared with industry peers;

• Failure to implement the MacBride Principles would subject the company to excessively negative financial impacts due to laws that some municipalities have passed regarding their contracting operations and companies that have not implemented the MacBride Principles; or

• The company has had recent, significant controversies, fines or litigation regarding religious-based employment discrimination in Northern Ireland.

— — — — —

Nuclear and Depleted Uranium Weapons

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.

— —  — — —

Operations in High Risk Markets

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for a report on a company’s potential financial 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

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;

B-86

• 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.

— —  — — —

Sustainability

Sustainability Reporting

Generally vote FOR proposals requesting the company to 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

— —  — — —

7. Mutual Fund Proxies

Election of Directors

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.

— —  — — —

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

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

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;

B-87

• Independence of directors;

• Experience and skills of director candidates;

• Governance profile of the company;

• Evidence of management entrenchment.

— —  — — —

Investment Advisory Agreements

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

Vote FOR the establishment of new classes or series of shares.

— —  — — —

Preferred Stock Proposals

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

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.

— —  — — —

B-88

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

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

Vote AGAINST proposals to change a fund’s fundamental investment objective to non-fundamental.

— —  — — —

Name Change Proposals

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

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.

— —  — — —

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

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.

— —  — — —

B-89

Changes to the Charter Document

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

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 Subadvisors Without Shareholder Approval

Vote AGAINST proposals authorizing the board to hire/terminate subadvisors without shareholder approval.

— —  — — —

Distribution Agreements

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.

— —  — — —

B-90

Master-Feeder Structure

Vote FOR the establishment of a master-feeder structure.

— —  — — —

Mergers

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

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

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

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.

— —  — — —

B-91

[LOGO] 

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

RMG Governance Services

December 31, 2009

Copyright ^© 2009 by RiskMetrics Group. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission to make copies of any part of this work should be sent to: RiskMetrics Group Marketing Department, One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 44th Floor, New York, NY 10005. RiskMetrics Group is a trademark used herein under license.

General Policies

Financial Results/Director and Auditor Reports	B-94
Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Compensation	B-95
Appointment of Internal Statutory Auditors	B-96
Allocation of Income	B-97
Amendments to Articles of Association	B-99
Change in Company Fiscal Term	B-100
Lower Disclosure Threshold for Stock Ownership	B-101
Amend Quorum Requirements	B-102
Transact Other Business	B-103
International Classification of Directors	B-107
Director Compensation	B-109
Director, Officer, and Auditor Indemnification and Liability Provisions	B-112
Board Structure	B-113
Capital Systems	B-115
Reduction of Capital	B-119
Capital Structures	B-121
Preferred Stock	B-122
Debt Issuance Requests	B-124
Pledging of Assets for Debt	B-125
Increase in Borrowing Powers	B-126
Reissuance of Shares Repurchased	B-128
Capitalization of Reserves for Bonus Issues/Increase In Par Value	B-129
Reorganizations/Restructurings	B-130
Mergers and Acquisitions	B-131
Mandatory Takeover Bid Waivers	B-133
Reincorporation Proposals	B-134
Expansion of Business Activities	B-135
Related-Party Transactions	B-136
Antitakeover Mechanisms	B-145
Shareholder Proposals	B-146
Compensation Systems — Europe
Election of Former CEO as Chairman of the Board — Europe

B-93

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Financial Results/Director and Auditor Reports

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR approval of financial statements and director and auditor reports, unless:

• There are concerns about the accounts presented or audit procedures used; or

• The company is not responsive to shareholder questions about specific items that should be publicly disclosed.

Discussion

Most companies around the world submit these reports to shareholders for approval, and this is one of the first items on most agendas. The official financial statements and director and auditor reports are valuable documents when evaluating a company’s annual performance. The director report usually includes a review of the company’s performance during the year, justification of dividend levels and profits or losses, special events such as acquisitions or disposals, and future plans for the company.

The auditor report discloses any irregularities or problems with the company’s finances. While a qualified report by itself is not sufficient reason to oppose this resolution, it raises cautionary flags of which shareholders should be aware. Most auditor reports are unqualified, meaning that in the auditor’s opinion, the company’s financial statements are made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

When evaluating a company’s financial statements, RMG looks at debt/equity levels on the balance sheet, historical sales and earnings performance, dividend history and payout ratios, and the company’s performance within its own country and relative to similar companies in its industry. Unless there are major concerns about the accuracy of the financial statements or the director or auditor reports, RMG recommends approval of this item.

B-94

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Compensation

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR the reelection of auditors and proposals authorizing the board to fix auditor fees, unless:

• There are serious concerns about the accounts presented or the audit procedures used;

• The auditors are being changed without explanation; or

• Non-audit-related fees are substantial or are routinely in excess of standard annual audit-related fees.

Vote AGAINST the appointment of external auditors if they have previously served the company in an executive capacity or can otherwise be considered affiliated with the company.

Discussion

Most major companies around the world use one of the major international auditing firms to conduct their audits. As such, concerns about the quality and objectivity of the audit are minimal, and the reappointment of the auditor is usually a routine matter. Audit fees tend to be highly competitive and vary little between companies. However, if a company proposes a new auditor or an auditor resigns and does not seek reelection, companies should offer an explanation to shareholders. If shareholders request an explanation for a change in auditor and the company or retiring auditor fails to provide one, RMG recommends a vote against the election of a new auditor. If an explanation is otherwise unavailable, RMG recommends that shareholders abstain on this item.

Many countries also require the appointment of censors, or special auditors who ensure that the board and management are in compliance with the company’s articles. The censors’ role is purely advisory in nature. Proposals to appoint censors are routine, as the censors usually act as a secondary auditor for special audit requirements.

The practice of auditors providing non-audit services to companies is problematic. While large auditors may have effective internal barriers to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest, an auditor’s ability to remain objective becomes questionable when fees paid to the auditor for non-audit services such as management consulting, general bookkeeping, and special situation audits exceed the standard annual audit fees. While some compensation for non-audit services is customary, the importance of maintaining the independence of the auditor is paramount. If fees from non-audit services become significant without any clear safeguards against conflicts of interest, RMG recommends opposing the auditor’s reappointment.

B-95

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Appointment of Internal Statutory Auditors

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR the appointment or reelection of statutory auditors, unless:

• There are serious concerns about the statutory reports presented or the audit procedures used;

• Questions exist concerning any of the statutory auditors being appointed; or

• The auditors have previously served the company in an executive capacity or can otherwise be considered affiliated with the company.

Discussion

The appointment of internal statutory auditors is a routine request for companies in Latin America, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Korea, and Russia. The statutory auditing board is usually composed of three to five members, including a group chairman and two alternate members, all of whom are expected to be independent. In addition to the regular duty of verifying corporate accounts, the auditor board is responsible for supervising management and ensuring compliance with the law and articles of association. The auditors must perform an audit of the accounts every three months and present to shareholders a report on the balance sheet at the AGM. For most countries, the auditors are elected annually and may seek reelection. RMG recommends supporting the appointment of statutory auditors unless there are serious concerns about the reports presented or questions about an auditor’s qualifications.

B-96

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Allocation of Income

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR approval of the allocation of income, unless:

• The dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation; or

• The payout is excessive given the company’s financial position.

Discussion

Many countries require shareholders to approve the allocation of income generated during the year. These proposals usually, but not always, contain an allocation to dividends. When determining the acceptability of this proposal, RMG focuses primarily on the payout ratio. Payouts of less than 30 percent or more than 100 percent are a trigger for further analysis. The minimum level of 30 percent is based on a review of international practice. Payouts of more than 100 percent are a signal that the company is dipping into reserves to make the payment.

Further analysis of payout ratios should include the following: an examination of historical payouts to determine if there is a long-term pattern of low payouts, exceptional events that may have artificially modified earnings for the year, the condition of a company’s balance sheet, comparisons with similar companies both domestically and internationally, and the classification of the company as growth or mature.

Justifications for extreme payouts must be reviewed carefully. If the company has an adequate explanation for a certain payout, RMG supports the income allocation as proposed. However, if a company has a pattern of low payouts, fails to adequately justify the retention of capital, and is not experiencing above-average growth, RMG recommends opposing the proposal. A vote against the payout is also recommended if a company appears to be maintaining an excessive payout that may affect its long-term health.

B-97

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternative

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR most stock (scrip) dividend proposals.

Vote AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.

Discussion

Stock (scrip) dividend alternatives, whereby shareholders are offered the option of receiving their dividend payment in the form of fully paid ordinary shares, are common proposals worldwide. While dividend payments in the form of shares in lieu of cash do not immediately add to shareholder value, they allow companies to retain cash and to strengthen the position and commitment of long-term shareholders. RMG opposes stock dividend proposals that do not allow a cash option unless management shows that the cash outflow is detrimental to the company’s health and to long-term shareholder value.

B-98

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Amendments to Articles of Association

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote amendments to the articles of association on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Requests to amend a company’s articles of association are usually motivated by changes in the company’s legal and regulatory environment, although evolution of general business practice can also prompt amendments to articles. Such proposals are especially common whenever stock exchange listing rules are revised, new legislation is passed, or a court case exposes the need to close loopholes.

Amendments to articles range from minor spelling changes to the adoption of an entirely new set of articles. While the majority of such requests are of a technical and administrative nature, minor changes in wording can have a significant impact on corporate governance. As such, RMG carefully scrutinizes any changes to a company’s articles.

From a company’s perspective, it is often more efficient to adopt a new set of articles than to introduce numerous amendments. However, bundling changes that treat different provisions of the articles into one voting item prevents shareholders from separating items of concern from routine changes. By leaving a shareholder with an all-or-nothing choice, bundling allows companies to include negative provisions along with positive or neutral changes.

When reviewing new or revised articles, RMG classifies each change according to its potential impact on shareholder value and then weighs the package as a whole. The presence of one strongly negative change may warrant a recommendation against the resolution. In assigning these classifications, RMG is not concerned with the nature of the article being amended, but rather focuses on whether the proposed change improves or worsens the existing provision.

The final criterion on which RMG bases its decision is whether failure to pass a resolution would cause an immediate loss of shareholder value. In such cases, RMG supports even a bundled resolution that includes negative changes.

B-99

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Change in Company Fiscal Term

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR resolutions to change a company’s fiscal term unless a company’s motivation for the change is to postpone its AGM.

Discussion

Companies routinely seek shareholder approval to change their fiscal year end. This is a decision best left to management. RMG opposes this resolution only if the company is changing its year end to postpone its AGM. Most countries require companies to hold their AGM within a certain period of time after the close of the fiscal year. If a company is embroiled in a controversy, it might seek approval to amend its fiscal year end at an EGM to avoid controversial issues at an AGM. RMG opposes the change in year end in these cases.

B-100

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Lower Disclosure Threshold for Stock Ownership

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote AGAINST resolutions to lower the stock ownership disclosure threshold below 5 percent unless specific reasons exist to implement a lower threshold.

Discussion

RMG’s recommended level for ownership disclosure is 5 percent. A level below that does not add substantially to shareholders’ interests and is often only a pretext for an antitakeover defense. A lower level also requires a greater number of shareholders to disclose their ownership, causing a greater burden to shareholders and to the company. Positions of more than 5 percent are significant, however, and this is the standard that the U.S. SEC uses.

In certain cases, shareholders may want to know of smaller positions — at a troubled company likely to be put in play, for example. RMG examines these companies to determine if these lower thresholds would benefit shareholders.

B-101

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Amend Quorum Requirements

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote proposals to amend quorum requirements for shareholder meetings on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Quorum requirements differ widely by market. In the United States, for instance, a quorum of a majority of the outstanding shares is the norm. In many global markets, however, the percentage of shares represented at meetings is not as high as in the United States. Indeed, many companies incorporated in markets outside the United States have difficulty attaining a quorum.

Proposals to amend the quorum requirement are evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on market norms, the company’s reasons for the change, and the company’s ownership structure. With respect to the latter, companies that have a substantial shareholder or shareholder group should set their quorum requirement well above the percentage of shares owned by such shareholder or shareholder group. Quorum requirements are intended to ensure that a broad range of shareholders are represented at meetings. Setting a quorum requirement that is too low, whether in absolute terms or relative to the holdings of a large shareholder, undermines this purpose. A low quorum requirement is of particular concern in markets where resolutions are decided on the basis of either shares present and entitled to vote at a meeting or votes cast at the meeting; in such cases, once a quorum is attained the shares present, regardless of whether they are representative of the entire body of shareholders, will be able to decide the matters under consideration at the meeting.

B-102

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Transact Other Business

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote AGAINST other business when it appears as a voting item.

Discussion

This item provides a forum for questions and any other resolutions that may be brought up at the meeting. In most countries the item is a formality and does not require a shareholder vote, but companies in certain countries include other business as a voting item. Because shareholders who vote by proxy cannot know what issues will be raised under this item, RMG cannot recommend that shareholders approve this request when asked for a vote. While RMG recognizes that in most cases this item is a formality or includes discussion that will have no impact on shareholders, shareholders cannot risk the negative consequences of voting in advance on an item for which information has not been disclosed.

B-103

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Director Elections

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR management nominees in the election of directors, unless:

• Adequate disclosure has not been provided in a timely manner;

• There are clear concerns over questionable finances or restatements;

• There have been questionable transactions with conflicts of interest;

• There are any records of abuses against minority shareholder interests; and

• The board fails to meet minimum corporate governance standards.

Vote FOR individual nominees unless there are specific concerns about the individual, such as criminal wrongdoing or breach of fiduciary responsibilities.

Vote AGAINST individual directors if repeated absences at board meetings have not been explained (in countries where this information is disclosed).

Vote FOR employee and/or labor representatives if they sit on either the audit or compensation committee and are required by law to be on those committees. Vote AGAINST employee and/or labor representatives if they sit on either the audit or compensation committee, if they are not required to be on those committees.

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis for contested elections of directors, e.g. the election of shareholder nominees or the dismissal of incumbent directors, determining which directors are best suited to add value for shareholders.

Please see the International Classification of Directors here.

Discussion

RMG considers director elections to be one of the most important voting decisions that shareholders make, especially because shareholders are only given the opportunity to review their companies’ operations once a year at the AGM. Thus, if detailed information on boards or nominees is available, analysis to the highest degree possible is warranted. Directors function as the representatives of shareholders throughout the year and are therefore a crucial avenue of ongoing influence on management.

Levels of disclosure regarding directors vary widely. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, companies publish detailed information such as director biographies, share ownership, and related information that aids shareholders in determining the level of director independence. In many other countries, the only information available on directors is their names, while still other countries disclose no information at all. In cases where detailed information about directors is not available, it would be counterproductive to vote against directors on the basis of a lack of information. Opposition to specific nominees or boards should be supported by specific problems or concerns.

RMG will recommend against the routine election of directors taking into consideration the absence of adequate or timely disclosure, questionable finances or restatements, questionable transactions with conflicts of interest, any record of abuses against minority shareholder interests, bundling of director elections, and/or any other egregious corporate governance practices.

B-104

Boards in many countries are divided into two or more classes that are elected on a staggered basis. This system of classified boards is common across the world. Only Canadian companies routinely elect the entire board on an annual basis, but even in Canada companies may classify their board if an appropriate amendment is made to the articles. In certain countries, executive directors may be appointed for terms of up to five years, and a company’s articles may give executive directors protected board seats under which they are not subject to shareholder election. RMG opposes protected board seats and preferential treatment of executive directors.

When reviewing director election proposals, RMG examines board composition, company performance, and any negative views or information on either the company or individual directors. RMG determines the number of executive directors, independent non-executive directors, and non-independent non-executive directors on the board, the existence and composition of board committees, and the independence of the chairman. A non-independent non-executive director is defined as one who represents a major shareholder; has significant commercial contacts with the company as a legal counsel, auditor, or consultant; has held executive positions within the company in the past; or is related to the founding family, another board member, or a top executive. In cases where board composition is of concern, the company’s general health and its recent financial performance may play a part in the evaluation of directors. Individual director information is also considered, including share ownership among director nominees.

RMG also takes into account the attendance records of directors when such information is provided to shareholders, using a benchmark attendance rate of 75 percent of board meetings. If an individual director fails to attend at least 75 percent of board meetings for two or more consecutive years, RMG makes further inquiries to the company regarding the absences. RMG recommends withholding votes against the director unless the company has provided a reasonable explanation for the absences. International companies tend to have directors who reside in other countries on their boards, making attendance difficult. While RMG understands the difficulties imposed on such directors, failing to attend meetings prevents directors from fulfilling their fiduciary obligations and adequately representing shareholder interests. Other business obligations and conflicting travel schedules are not acceptable reasons for consistently poor attendance records. RMG supports the use of teleconferencing and videoconferencing to cope with the increasing time and travel demands faced by directors in global business.

Statements of corporate governance practices are also helpful in reviewing director election proposals, but only in a few countries are these routinely included as part of the annual report, usually as a listing requirement of the major stock exchange. These reports are required in Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

For shareholder nominees, RMG places the persuasive burden on the nominee or the proposing shareholder to prove that they are better suited to serve on the board than management’s nominees. Serious consideration of shareholder nominees will be given only if there are clear and compelling reasons for the nominee to join the board. These nominees must also demonstrate a clear ability to contribute positively to board deliberations; some nominees may have hidden or narrow agendas and may unnecessarily contribute to divisiveness among directors.

The major decision factors are:

• Company performance relative to its peers

• Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents

• Independence of directors/nominees

• Experience and skills of board candidates

• Governance profile of the company

B-105

• Evidence of management entrenchment

• Responsiveness to shareholders

• Whether a takeover offer has been rebuffed

When analyzing proxy contests/ shareholder nominees, RMG focuses on two central questions: (1) Have the dissidents proved that board change is warranted? and (2) if so, are the dissident board nominees likely to effect positive change (i.e., maximize long-term shareholder value)?

B-106

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

International Classification of Directors

Executive Director

• Employee or executive of the company;

• Any director who is classified as a non-executive, but receives salary, fees, bonus, and/or other benefits that are in line with the highest-paid executives of the company.

Non-Independent Non-Executive Director (NED)

• Any director who is attested by the board to be a non-independent NED;

• Any director specifically designated as a representative of a significant shareholder of the company;

• Any director who is also an employee or executive of a significant shareholder of the company;

• Beneficial owner (direct or indirect) of at least 10 percent of the company’s stock, either in economic terms or in voting rights (this may be aggregated if voting power is distributed among more than one member of a defined group, e.g., members of a family that beneficially own less than 10 percent individually, but collectively own more than 10 percent), unless market best practice dictates a lower ownership and/or disclosure threshold (and in other special market-specific circumstances);

• Government representative;

• Currently provides (or a relative¹ provides) professional services² to the company, to an affiliate of the company, or to an individual officer of the company or of one of its affiliates in excess of $10,000 per year;

• Represents customer, supplier, creditor, banker, or other entity with which company maintains transactional/commercial relationship (unless company discloses information to apply a materiality test³ );

• Any director who has conflicting or cross-directorships with executive directors or the chairman of the company;

• Relative¹ of current employee of the company or its affiliates;

• Relative¹ of former executive of the company or its affiliates;

• A new appointee elected other than by a formal process through the general meeting (such as a contractual appointment by a substantial shareholder);

• Founder/co-founder/member of founding family but not currently an employee;

• Former executive (five-year cooling off period);

• Years of service will NOT be a determining factor unless it is recommended best practice in a market:

• 9 years (from the date of election) in the United Kingdom and Ireland;

• 12 years in European markets;

• 7 years in Russia.

Independent NED

• No material⁴ connection, either direct or indirect, to the company other than a board seat.

B-107

Employee Representative

• Represents employees or employee shareholders of the company (classified as “employee representative” but considered a non-independent NED).

Footnotes:

¹ “Relative” follows the SEC’s proposed definition of “immediate family members” which 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.

² Professional services can be characterized as advisory in nature and generally include the following: investment banking/financial advisory services; commercial banking (beyond deposit services); investment services; insurance services; accounting/audit services; consulting services; marketing services; and legal services. The case of participation in a banking syndicate by a non-lead bank should be considered a transaction (and hence subject to the associated materiality test) rather than a professional relationship.

³ If the company makes or receives annual payments exceeding the greater of $200,000 or 5 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues. (The recipient is the party receiving the financial proceeds from the transaction.)

⁴ For purposes of RMG’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.

B-108

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Director Compensation

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors unless the amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

Vote non-executive director compensation proposals that include both cash and share-based components on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote proposals that bundle compensation for both non-executive and executive directors into a single resolution on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST proposals to introduce retirement benefits for non-executive directors.

Discussion

Proposals seeking shareholder approval for non-executive directors’ fees are not controversial in most countries. RMG generally supports resolutions regarding directors’ fees unless they are excessive relative to fees paid by other companies in the same country or industry. In evaluating such proposals, RMG focuses on the fees paid to each non-executive or, if such detailed information is not available, on the aggregate amount payable to all of the non-executives. Where available, RMG will also take into consideration evidence of past abuses, both by the company and those, if any, characteristic of the market.

Companies in many markets provide their non-executives an option to receive all or a portion of their cash fees in the form of company shares. We approve these measures as the exchange is on a “dollar-for-dollar” basis, that is, as long as a director receives shares having a cash value equal to that of the foregone fees, with the share price used for such calculation being determined on a reasonable date. While there is some dilution associated with such payments, such dilution is minimal, and in any event, increasing directors’ share ownership is likely to align the interests of the directors with those of shareholders.

However, RMG will not support such arrangements if the exchange is not dollar-for-dollar; such exchanges put shareholders at a disadvantage by providing directors the opportunity to receive shares at discount, and the interests of directors who have acquired shares at a discount are likely to be less closely aligned with those of other shareholders. Some companies provide their non-executive directors the opportunity to exchange all or a portion of their cash fees for stock options; we would evaluate such grants in accordance with our stock option guidelines.

As is already common in the United States, companies in some global markets have begun to provide their non-executives with stock options as a separate element of their remuneration. In such countries, proposals seeking approval for the remuneration of non-executive directors cannot be evaluated without detailed information regarding the proposed remuneration, which could include options, and in some cases, discounted options. Remuneration proposals that include option grants must be evaluated in accordance with the guidelines for stock options. Likewise, remuneration proposals that could include option grants — by virtue of their being proposed by a company in a market where option grants to non-employee directors are common — must also be evaluated in accordance with the guidelines for stock options.

Some countries require shareholder approval for the remuneration of executive as well as non-executive directors. Companies in such markets occasionally bundle non-executive and executive remuneration proposals into a single resolution. While RMG generally believes that executive compensation is the purview of the board,

B-109

when proposed executive compensation is gratuitous or otherwise excessive in light of market norms or there is past evidence of abuse, RMG will recommend a vote against such resolutions. In reviewing such proposals, our analysis focuses, among other things, on the amount of the proposed compensation relative to market norms but also relative to the company’s financial performance. For example, absent performance criteria and appropriate limits, it would be inappropriate to approve a resolution entitling an executive to a bonus equal to a substantial portion of a company’s profits.

Retirement benefits for non-executive directors are inappropriate, as they increase the directors’ financial reliance on the company and could call into question the objectivity of their decision-making. In addition, most directors have served as senior executives of other companies, and adequate retirement benefits should be provided through these companies. The only caveat to this policy would be for professional non-executive directors such as those found in the United Kingdom. However, requests for such benefits in the United Kingdom are rare, and the appropriateness of using shareholder funds in this manner is questionable.

B-110

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Discharge of Board and Management

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

RMG will generally recommend voting for the discharge of directors, including members of the management board and/or supervisory board, unless there is reliable information about significant and compelling controversies that the board is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties warranted on a case-by-case basis by:

• A lack of oversight or actions by board members which invoke shareholder distrust related to malfeasance or poor supervision, such as operating in private or company interest rather than in shareholder interest

• Any legal issues (e.g. civil/criminal) aiming to hold the board responsible for breach of trust in the past or related to currently alleged action yet to be confirmed (and not only in the fiscal year in question) such as price fixing, insider trading, bribery, fraud, and other illegal actions

• Other egregious governance issues where shareholders will bring legal action against the company or its directors

For markets which do not routinely request discharge resolutions (e.g. common law countries or markets where discharge is not mandatory), analysts may voice concern in other appropriate agenda items, such as approval of the annual accounts or other relevant resolutions, to enable shareholders to express discontent with the board.

Discussion

The annual formal discharge of board and management represents shareholder approval of actions taken during the year. Discharge is a tacit vote of confidence in the company’s management and policies. It does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of future shareholder action, although it does make such action more difficult to pursue. Meeting agendas normally list proposals to discharge both the board and management as one agenda item.

This is a routine item in many countries. Discharge is generally granted unless a shareholder states a specific reason for withholding discharge and plans to undertake legal action. Withholding discharge is a serious matter and is advisable only when a shareholder has concrete evidence of negligence or abuse on the part of the board or management, has plans to take legal action, or has knowledge of other shareholders’ plans to take legal action.

If evidence suggests that one or more board or management members are responsible for problems such as fraud or grave mismanagement, shareholders can withhold discharge from these individuals and pursue further legal action. Poor performance that can be directly linked to flagrant error or neglect on the part of the board or management, or board actions that are detrimental to shareholders’ interests, may also constitute grounds for voting against discharge.

If shareholders approve discharge of the board and management, they will face a greater challenge if they subsequently decide to pursue legal action against these parties. Shareholders would be required to prove that management or the board did not supply correct and complete information regarding the matter in question.

B-111

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Director, Officer, and Auditor Indemnification and Liability Provisions

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote proposals seeking indemnification and liability protection for directors and officers on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST proposals to indemnify auditors.

Discussion

The scope of directors’ and officers’ indemnification and liability provisions varies by market. Within reason, RMG seeks to respect the indemnification and liability protections applicable in each market, but some markets allow companies to provide indemnification and liability protection that we deem excessive. In general, RMG believes that officers and directors should only be eligible for indemnification and liability protection if they have acted in good faith on company business and were found innocent of any civil or criminal charges for duties performed on behalf of the company. Providing indemnification and liability protection beyond such levels would effectively absolve officers and directors of their duties to shareholders. RMG recognizes that limiting a company’s ability to provide liability and indemnification protection may limit its ability to attract and retain qualified directors and executives and that indemnification provisions afford directors and officers protection to take risks and maximize shareholder wealth. However, RMG also believes that providing liability and indemnification protection in excess of that outlined above could unfairly prejudice shareholders in holding officers and directors accountable and that the level of protection allowed under our guidelines represents a reasonable compromise.

When evaluating indemnification and liability provisions in more developed markets that enumerate the duty of loyalty and the duty of care, RMG also takes into account the liability and indemnification provisions contained in RMG’s U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines.

Although RMG supports indemnifying directors and officers, RMG opposes providing these protections to auditors. These payments call into question the objectivity of the auditor in carrying out the audit, as the fees paid on its behalf could be greater than the audit fees alone. Eliminating concerns about being sued for carelessness could also lead to a decrease in the quality of the audit. Given the substantial settlements against auditors in recent years for poor audit practices, the cost of such insurance to the company and its shareholders is unwarranted.

B-112

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Board Structure

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR proposals to fix board size.

Vote AGAINST the introduction of classified boards and mandatory retirement ages for directors.

Vote AGAINST proposals to alter board structure or size in the context of a fight for control of the company or the board.

Discussion

Resolutions relating to board structures range from fixing the number of directors or establishing a minimum or maximum number of directors to introducing classified boards and director term limits.

Board Size

Proposals to fix board size are common and are routinely approved. Proposals to establish a range of board size are also frequent; a range of two or three open slots relative to the existing board size is reasonable, as it gives the company some flexibility to attract potentially valuable board members during the year. Latitude beyond this range is inappropriate, however, because companies can use this freedom to hinder unwanted influence from potential acquirers or large shareholders.

Adopt Classified Board

RMG prefers that all directors stand for reelection every year. All directors should be accountable to shareholders on an annual basis, as the ability to elect directors is the single most important use of the shareholder franchise.

While classified boards are the norm in most countries, some companies have chosen to place their directors up for annual election. RMG supports initiatives to declassify boards and opposes proposals to classify previously unstaggered boards. Classifying the board makes it more difficult to effect a change of control through a proxy contest; because only a minority of the directors are elected each year, a dissident shareholder would be unable to win control of the board in a single election.

Introduction of Mandatory Age of Retirement

RMG believes that age should not be the sole factor in determining a director’s value to a company. Rather, each director’s performance should be evaluated on the basis of his or her individual contribution and experience.

Altering Board Size

Companies may attempt to increase board size in order to add related or like-minded directors to the board. Conversely, establishing a minimum number of directors could make it easier to remove independent directors from the board. RMG considers these proposals on a case-by-case basis.

All proposals to alter board size during a proxy fight or other possible contests for control should be opposed. Allowing directors to alter the terms of a contest while it is underway is not in shareholders’ interests, as this tactic could be used to thwart a takeover that is in shareholders’ interests.

B-113

Two-Tiered Boards

Companies in many countries have a two-tiered board structure, comprising a supervisory board of non-executive directors and a management board with executive directors. The supervisory board oversees the actions of the management board, while the management board is responsible for the company’s daily operations. At companies with two-tiered boards, shareholders elect members to the supervisory board only; the supervisory board appoints management board members. In Austria, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Peru, Poland, Portugal, and Russia, two-tiered boards are the norm. Company law in France and Spain also permits them.

B-114

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Capital Systems

Companies have one of two main types of capital systems: authorized and conditional. Both systems provide companies with the means to finance business activities, but they are considerably different in structure. Which system a company uses is determined by the economic and legal structure of the market in which it operates.

Authorized Capital System

The authorized capital system sets a limit in a company’s articles on the total number of shares that can be issued by the company’s board. The system allows companies to issue shares from this pre-approved limit, although in many markets shareholder approval must be obtained prior to an issuance. Companies also request shareholder approval for increases in authorization when the amount of shares contained in the articles is inadequate for issuance authorities. RMG reviews proposals for such increases based on the following criteria: the history of issuance requests; the size of the request; the purpose of the issuance (general or specific) associated with the increase in authorization; and the status of preemptive rights (see Share Issuance Requests).

Conditional Capital System

Under the conditional capital system, companies seek authorizations for pools of capital with fixed periods of availability. For example, if a company seeks to establish a pool of capital for general issuance purposes, it requests the creation of a certain number of shares with or without preemptive rights, issuable piecemeal at the discretion of the board for a fixed period of time. Shares unissued after the fixed time period lapse. This type of authority would be used to carry out a general rights issue or small issuances without preemptive rights.

Requests for a specific issuance authority are tied to a specific transaction or purpose, such as an acquisition or the servicing of convertible securities. Such authorities cannot be used for any purpose other than that specified in the authorization. In this case, a company requests the creation of a certain number of shares with or without preemptive rights, issuable as needed for the specific purpose requested. This pool of conditional capital also carries a fixed expiration date.

In reviewing these proposals, RMG takes into consideration the existence of pools of capital from previous years. Because most capital authorizations are for several years, new requests may be made on top of the existing pool of capital. While most requests contain a provision to eliminate earlier pools and replace them with the current request, this is not always the case. Thus, if existing pools of capital are being left in place, the aggregate potential dilution amount from all capital should be considered.

B-115

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Share Issuance Requests

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

General Issuances:

Vote FOR issuance requests with preemptive rights to a maximum of 100 percent over currently issued capital.

Vote FOR issuance requests without preemptive rights to a maximum of 20 percent of currently issued capital.

Specific Issuances:

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis on all requests, with or without preemptive rights.

General Issuances

General issuance requests under both authorized and conditional capital systems allow companies to issue shares to raise funds for general financing purposes. Approval of such requests gives companies sufficient flexibility to carry out ordinary business activities without having to bear the expense of calling shareholder meetings for every issuance.

Issuances can be carried out with or without preemptive rights. Preemptive rights permit shareholders to share proportionately in any new issuances of stock. These rights guarantee existing shareholders the first opportunity to purchase shares of new issuances of stock in the class they own in an amount equal to the percentage of the class they already own. Corporate law in many countries recognizes preemptive rights and requires shareholder approval to waive such rights.

RMG believes that the ability to double share capital through a rights issue (with preemptive rights) provides the company with sufficient financing to meet most contingencies. Rights issues for general capital needs of more than 100 percent of outstanding capital warrant shareholder approval. Issuance authorities of more than 100 percent can lead to excessive cash calls on shareholders, requiring them to provide the funds necessary to maintain their relative positions in the company or to accept substantial dilution.

In some cases, companies may need the ability to raise funds for routine business contingencies without the expense of carrying out a rights issue. Such contingencies could include the servicing of option plans, small acquisitions, or payment for services. When companies make issuance requests without preemptive rights, shareholders suffer dilution as a result of such issuances. Therefore, authorizations should be limited to a fixed number of shares or a percentage of capital at the time of issuance. While conventions regarding this type of authority vary widely among countries, RMG routinely approves issuance requests without preemptive rights for up to 20 percent of a company’s outstanding capital.

Stock exchange listing rules also play a factor in determining the acceptability of share issuance requests. In some markets, companies may ask for the authority to issue all of their authorized but unissued share capital, yet the country’s stock exchange prevents a company from issuing more than ten percent of the company’s share capital in any one year without seeking additional shareholder approval. Another example is global companies that are listed on NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Generally speaking, companies listed on NASDAQ and the NYSE must seek shareholder approval for any issuance of shares or of securities convertible into shares in excess of 20 percent of the company’s outstanding shares at the time of issuance. If stock exchange listing requirements include adequate safeguards with respect to share issuances, RMG will approve the request unless there are specific concerns with the company.

B-116

Specific Issuances

Specific issuance requests should be judged on their individual merits. For example, a company may request the issuance of shares for an acquisition in the form of a rights issue to raise funds for a cash payment, or else a company could request an issuance without preemptive rights for use in a share-based acquisition or issuance to a third party. Such a request could be of any size, and RMG recommends approval as long as the proposal is sound. A more routine request would be an authority to issue shares without preemptive rights for issuance as needed upon conversion of convertible securities or to service a share option plan. These shares can only be used for the purpose defined in the resolution.

B-117

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Increases in Authorized Capital

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR non-specific proposals to increase authorized capital up to 100 percent over the current authorization unless the increase would leave the company with less than 30 percent of its new authorization outstanding.

Vote FOR specific proposals to increase authorized capital to any amount, unless:

• The specific purpose of the increase (such as a share-based acquisition or merger) does not meet RMG guidelines for the purpose being proposed; or

• The increase would leave the company with less than 30 percent of its new authorization outstanding after adjusting for all proposed issuances.

Vote AGAINST proposals to adopt unlimited capital authorizations.

Discussion

Increases in authorized capital are requested both for general financing flexibility and to provide for a specific purpose. Companies need an adequate buffer of unissued capital in order to take advantage of opportunities during the year, thus they often request increases in authorized capital for no specific purpose other than to retain this flexibility. RMG believes that approving such requests is reasonable.

An increase of 100 percent over the existing authorization gives the company sufficient flexibility in any given year, but requiring that at least 30 percent of the new authorization be outstanding also limits the company’s ability to abuse this privilege. If a company wishes to issue shares for any unforeseen reason during the year that would double (or possibly triple) outstanding share capital, an EGM to seek shareholder approval is justified.

Another important consideration is the status of preemptive rights. Not all countries recognize shareholders’ preemptive rights, and excessive authorizations could lead to substantial dilution for existing shareholders. When preemptive rights are not guaranteed, companies do not need shareholder approval for share issuances as long as the issuance does not result in an increase above the authorized capital limit.

For specific requests, increases in capital up to any size may be justified if the purpose of the new authorization is in shareholders’ interests. Such increases may be needed to fund a variety of corporate activities, thus each proposal must be reviewed on its individual merits. However, the same concerns with dilution exist if the outstanding capital is still less than 30 percent of the new authorization after all issuances take place.

RMG recommends that shareholders vote against proposals seeking to increase authorized capital to an unlimited number of shares. RMG does not believe that companies need unlimited financial flexibility to transact ordinary business because such an arrangement precludes management from periodically consulting shareholders for new capital. Unlimited authorizations may also be used as antitakeover devices, and they have the potential for substantial voting and earnings dilution; they are not in shareholders’ interests.

B-118

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Reduction of Capital

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR proposals to reduce capital for routine accounting purposes unless the terms are unfavorable to shareholders.

Vote proposals to reduce capital in connection with corporate restructuring on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Proposals to reduce capital can cover a variety of corporate actions, ranging from routine accounting measures to reductions pertaining to a significant corporate restructuring in the face of bankruptcy. In addition, proposals to reduce capital can vary significantly from market to market as a result of local laws and accounting standards. Some examples of capital reduction proposals found overseas include:

Reduction in Stated Capital

One example of this type of proposal asks shareholders to allow the board to reduce the company’s deficit and create a contributed surplus by effecting a reduction in the state capital of the company’s common shares. A company may take this action if its net assets are in danger of falling below the aggregate of its liabilities and its stated capital. Should that situation occur, under some corporate law statutes the company would be prohibited from paying dividends on its shares. RMG usually supports such proposals as they are considered to be routine accounting measures. This type of proposal is seen often in Canada.

Reduction in Connection with Cancellation of Repurchased Shares

A company may also seek a reduction in capital corresponding to the cancellation of shares repurchased in connection with an earlier buyback authorization. The amount of equity that may be cancelled is usually limited to ten percent by national law. This type of proposal is seen most often in Scandinavia, Japan, Spain, and some Latin America markets and is considered a routine accounting measure.

Reduction in Connection with Dividend Payments

If a board determines growth in income to be insufficient to enable the payment of a dividend, it may propose to lower the par value of the company’s shares and pay the difference in par value back to the shareholders, effecting a corresponding reduction in capital. Such reduction is normally effected proportionately against all outstanding capital, and therefore does not involve any material change relative to shareholder value.

Thus, RMG generally recommends that shareholders vote for these proposals, which are most often seen in Switzerland, Spain, and some Latin American markets.

Reduction in Connection with Repayment and Cancellation of Deferred Shares and Preference Shares

Companies may also seek approval for the reduction of share capital pursuant to a repayment and cancellation of deferred shares or preference shares. Deferred shares may be created as bonus shares by a company capitalizing credit from a share premium account pursuant to a reorganization plan, for example, to return excess capital back to shareholders. The company then repurchases the bonus shares in exchange for cash equal to their nominal value and cancels them through a capital reduction. Companies that have preference shares outstanding may also request to cancel and repay these shares which may no longer be required for the carrying out of their financial objectives and may accrue administration costs which have become disproportionate to the

B-119

benefits of maintaining such shares. Preference shares also carry certain rights that restrict the flexibility of conducting certain corporate actions, in particular share repurchases, which is another reason why companies propose to cancel such shares. In either case, RMG supports such reductions as they simplify capital structure and save on administration costs and remove certain restrictions associated with preference shares. This type of proposal is commonly seen in the United Kingdom.

Reduction in Connection with Restructuring

As noted above, some proposals to reduce capital are made in connection with a significant corporate restructuring. RMG generally supports such proposals because opposition could lead to insolvency, which is not in shareholders’ interests. Evaluation of this type of proposal should take a realistic approach to the company’s situation and the future prospects for shareholders.

B-120

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Capital Structures

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR resolutions that seek to maintain or convert to a one-share, one-vote capital structure.

Vote AGAINST requests for the creation or continuation of dual-class capital structures or the creation of new or additional supervoting shares.

Discussion

A key decision for any business is determining its capital structure. When timed correctly, sophisticated capital management — finding the right mixes of equity, long-term debt, and short-term financing — can enhance shareholder returns. This process involves coordination of important issues, including dividend policy, tax and interest rates, types of assets, opportunities for growth, ability to finance new projects internally, and cost of obtaining additional capital.

These decisions are best left to a company’s board and senior management, who should be given the latitude to determine the company’s capital structure. However, shareholders should be aware that many financing decisions could have an adverse effect on shareholder returns. For example, additional equity financing may reduce an existing shareholder’s ownership interest and can dilute the value of the investment. Some capital requests can be used as takeover defenses; in response to this situation, company laws establish limits on management’s authority to issue new capital and often require shareholder approval for significant changes in management’s existing authorizations.

RMG supports a one-share, one-vote policy and opposes mechanisms that skew voting rights. Shareholders’ voting rights should accrue in accordance with their equity capital commitment to the company. Dual-class capital structures entrench certain shareholders and management, insulating them from possible takeovers or other external influence or action. The interests of parties with voting control may not be the same as those of shareholders constituting a majority of the company’s capital. Additionally, research and market experience have shown that companies with dual-class capital structures or other antitakeover mechanisms consistently trade at a discount to similar companies without such structures.

When companies with dual class capital structures seek shareholder approval for the creation of new shares, RMG opposes the creation of additional supervoting shares because this perpetuates the dual class structure. If companies are seeking to increase ordinary or subordinate share capital, RMG reviews such requests on a case-by-case basis. If the shares are needed for a specific purpose, RMG recommends approval as long as the proposal meets the issuance guidelines for specific requests. Refusing such requests could cause an immediate loss of shareholder value by not allowing the company to carry out its ordinary business. However, RMG opposes general share creation requests on the grounds that they would perpetuate unequal voting structures. If shareholders routinely approve the creation of ordinary or subordinate voting shares, the company has no incentive to reform its capital structure. By not approving such requests, shareholders can send a signal of dissatisfaction to management.

If a company submits a proposal, which in effect would narrow the gap between the number of votes attached to each share class but not necessarily eliminate the inequality, RMG may still consider supporting the proposal since it entails an improvement compared to the current situation.

B-121

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Preferred Stock

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR the creation of a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of preferred stock up to 50 percent of issued capital unless the terms of the preferred stock would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders.

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible preferred stock as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets RMG’s guidelines on equity issuance requests.

Vote AGAINST the creation of a new class of preference shares that would carry superior voting rights to the common shares.

Vote AGAINST the creation of blank check preferred stock unless the board clearly states that the authorization will not be used to thwart a takeover bid.

Vote proposals to increase blank check preferred authorizations on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Preferred stock is an equity security, but also has certain features that liken it to debt instruments, such as fixed dividend payments, seniority of claims relative to regular common stock, and (in most cases) no voting rights except on matters that affect the seniority of preferred stock as a class. Preferred stock usually ranks senior to a company’s ordinary shares with respect to dividends and the distribution of assets or winding up of the company. Preferred stock can be an effective means of raising capital without increasing debt levels, especially if a company has recently concluded a series of acquisitions.

In determining the acceptability of proposals relating to preferred stock, RMG examines the rights and terms of the proposed shares, including their designation, conditions, restrictions, and limitations. RMG prefers that the terms of preferred stock be set out at the time of the issuance or authorization request. Also important is the company’s justification for issuing or authorizing preferred stock. Whether or not the preferred shares carry voting rights is also considered, especially if the preferred stock will feature superior voting rights to the common shares. While RMG believes that preferred shares are a valid form of financing, we also believe that the creation or issuance of preference shares should be limited to 50 percent of a company’s share capital. RMG will also oppose cases where there has been evidence of management abuse of a past issuance authority.

Voting Preferred Stock

In some markets, preferred stock carries voting rights. Such preference shares may carry voting rights equal to the voting rights of the common shares or may carry multiple voting rights. In such cases, RMG’s guidelines on capital structure are applied. RMG supports a one share, one vote policy and opposes measures that seek to establish dual-class capital structures. However, if a company already has a preference share authorization with different voting rights than the common shares, RMG will approve additional issuances of the preference shares, as long as issuances of these preferred shares are limited and do not adversely affect the rights of common shareholders.

Convertible Preferred Stock

Companies may also seek approval for the creation or issuance of preferred stock that is convertible into common stock. If the shares are convertible into common shares, RMG evaluates the conversion ratio and

B-122

calculates the maximum number of shares that could be issued upon conversion to determine the potential amount of dilution that could result for common shareholders as a result of the proposal. RMG’s equity issuance guidelines are then applied to determine whether the level of dilution is in shareholder’s best interests.

Blank Check Preferred Stock

Companies may also seek shareholder approval for blank check preferred stock, which refers to blanket authorities to issue preferred stock under which the directors are allowed to set the size, terms, and recipient of such shares at the time of issuance. Blank check preferred stock can be used for legitimate corporate purposes such as raising capital or making acquisitions. By not establishing the terms of preferred stock at the time the class of stock is created, companies maintain the flexibility to tailor their preferred stock offerings to prevailing market conditions. However, blank check preferred stock can also be used as an entrenchment device. The ability to issue a block of preferred stock with multiple voting or conversion rights to a friendly investor is a powerful takeover defense.

RMG supports blank check preferred stock proposals as long as the proposal states that the shares will not be issued as a takeover defense. RMG also considers, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to increase authorizations of blank check preferred stock when shareholders have already approved the class of stock and the company has a history of issuing such stock for legitimate financing purposes. Theoretically, companies with authorized blank check preferred stock can use these shares for antitakeover purposes as long as there are a few shares remaining, as they are free to set voting or conversion terms with each issue. Therefore, an increase in authorization may have little effect on the usage of this stock. In cases where a company has issued preferred stock from its authorization for legitimate financing purposes, there is no reason to object to an increase.

B-123

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Debt Issuance Requests

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote non-convertible debt issuance requests on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with or without preemptive rights.

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible debt instruments as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets RMG’s guidelines on equity issuance requests.

Vote FOR proposals to restructure existing debt arrangements unless the terms of the restructuring would adversely affect the rights of shareholders.

Discussion

Debt issuance is a popular financing strategy in world markets. Companies routinely issue bonds directly to shareholders in order to raise funds while enjoying low borrowing costs, although bonds are also often issued without preemptive rights. The issuance of unsecured debt can often include warrants, which are detached at the time of bond issuance. Warrants are usually attached to a debt issuance in order to enhance the marketability of the accompanying fixed income security. Debt instruments are often issued with the right to convert into equity securities. Convertible bonds give holders the choice of becoming shareholders, thereby increasing the shareholder base and liquidity of the company’s stock, or selling their newly converted shares on the open market. In addition, many companies issue debt denominated in currencies other than that of their home market.

When evaluating a debt issuance request, RMG determines the type of debt instrument being issued, the characteristics of the instrument (including whether or not it is convertible into common stock), the intended recipient of the issuance, and the company’s justification for the issuance.

In the case of convertible debt, RMG evaluates the conversion ratio and calculates the maximum number of shares that could be issued upon conversion to determine the potential amount of dilution that could result from the proposal. RMG’s equity issuance guidelines are then applied to determine whether the level of dilution is in shareholders’ best interests.

In the case of non-convertible debt, RMG takes into account the size and purpose of the increase, and the board’s use of past authorizations including examining whether there has been a history of abuse of the authorities. RMG looks at the company’s current financial situation, specifically examining its current debt-to-equity ratio, or gearing level. A high gearing level may incline markets and financial analysts to downgrade the company’s bond rating, increasing its investment risk factor in the process. RMG also considers other factors such as the company’s growth over the past five years relative to earnings or market capitalization, recent corporate events that might affect the company’s bottom line (such as the acquisition of a major competitor or the release of a revolutionary product), and the normal debt levels in the company’s industry and country of origin. Although all of these considerations are factored into RMG’s analysis of debt issuance proposals, RMG generally believes that such financing concerns are best decided by management. RMG will, however, issue vote recommendations against such proposals in cases where there has been evidence of management abuse of an authority, where the proposal is not in line with market practices, or extreme cases where shareholders’ rights could be negatively affected.

Companies may also seek shareholder approval to restructure existing debt arrangements. RMG generally supports restructuring proposals, particularly if the company is in danger of default. However, RMG will oppose restructuring proposals in which common shareholders are being treated unfairly.

B-124

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Pledging of Assets for Debt

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote proposals to approve the pledging of assets for debt on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

In certain countries, shareholder approval is required when a company needs to secure a debt issuance with its assets. In many cases, this is a routine request and is a formality under the relevant law. When reviewing such proposals, RMG takes into account the terms of the proposed debt issuance and the company’s overall debt level. If both of these factors are acceptable, RMG recommends supporting these requests.

B-125

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Increase in Borrowing Powers

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote proposals to approve increases in a company’s borrowing powers on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

In some countries, companies are required to seek shareholder approval for increases in their aggregate borrowing power authorities. The aggregate limit on the board’s ability to borrow money is often fixed in a company’s articles, and shareholder approval to change this limit is therefore legally required. RMG believes that a company’s financing needs are best determined by the board, and modest increases in borrowing powers are necessary to allow the company to take advantage of new acquisition opportunities or to complete development and restructuring projects. RMG’s analysis of borrowing power increase requests takes into account management’s stated need for the increase, the size of the increase, and the company’s current gearing level. Large increases in borrowing powers can sometimes result in dangerously high debt-to-equity ratios that could harm shareholder value. If an increase is excessive without sufficient justification and if a company already has exceptionally high gearing compared to its industry, RMG recommends opposing the request.

B-126

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Share Repurchase Plans

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Generally vote FOR share repurchase programs/market repurchase authorities, provided that the proposal meets the following parameters:

• Maximum volume: 10 percent for market repurchase within any single authority and 10 percent of outstanding shares to be kept in treasury (“on the shelf”)

• Duration does not exceed 18 months.

RMG will recommend AGAINST any proposal where:

• The repurchase can be used for takeover defense;

• There is clear evidence of abuse;

• There is no safeguard against selective buybacks;

• Pricing provisions and safeguards are deemed to be unreasonable in light of market practice

RMG may support share repurchase plans in excess of 10 percent volume under exceptional circumstances, such as one-off company specific events (e.g. capital restructuring). Such proposals will be assessed CASE-BY-CASE based on merits, which should be clearly disclosed in the annual report, provided that following conditions are met:

• The overall balance of the proposed plan seems to be clearly in shareholders’ interests;

• The plan still respects the 10 percent maximum of shares to be kept in treasury.

Discussion

Proposals regarding share repurchase plans are routine in most countries, and such plans are usually sufficiently regulated by local laws or listing requirements to protect shareholder interests.

RMG looks for the following conditions in share repurchase plans: limitations on a company’s ability to use the plan to repurchase shares from third parties at a premium; limitations on the exercise of the authority to thwart takeover threats; and a requirement that repurchases be made at arm’s length through independent third parties and that selective repurchases require shareholder approval.

Share repurchase programs often involve positive financial consequences to shareholders, as they generally increase the level of earnings per share and bring greater liquidity to the share. Therefore we are generally supportive of share buybacks.

For markets that either generally do not specify the maximum duration of the authority or seek a duration beyond 18 months that is allowable under market specific legislation, RMG will assess the company’s historic practice. If there is evidence that a company has sought shareholder approval for the authority to repurchase shares on an annual basis, RMG will support the proposed authority. In Greece, the legal framework allows share repurchase authorizations to last a maximum of 24 months, although they are typically renewed on a yearly basis. Greek companies typically request shareholders to approve share repurchase schemes in line with provisions in the Company Act. Rarely does a company specify the exact duration of the authorization. Therefore, it is assumed that the duration could be up to 24 months, as foreseen in the legal framework. Around half of Austrian companies restrict share repurchase plans to a limit of 18 months, the majority of Austrian companies either ask for a maximum of 30 months or do not disclose the duration at all.

B-127

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Reissuance of Shares Repurchased

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR requests to reissue any repurchased shares unless there is clear evidence of abuse of this authority in the past.

Discussion

RMG generally believes that properly timed repurchases of company shares can enhance shareholder value and improve general shareholder returns. With good timing and proper safeguards, the same returns and improvements in shareholder value can be generated through the reissuance of the shares repurchased. In most countries, the text of this general mandate provides sufficient shareholder protection to make this item routine. When reviewing such proposals, RMG takes into account the country’s legal framework for such reissuances and the company’s history of reissuing shares under the authority.

B-128

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Capitalization of Reserves for Bonus Issues/Increase In Par Value

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR requests to capitalize reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase par value.

Discussion

Companies routinely carry out bonus issues of shares or increases in par value to existing shareholders, usually through the capitalization of reserves from either the share premium reserve or the retained earnings account. Capitalization of these reserves — transferring them into the share capital account — usually requires shareholder approval. These issuances essentially function as dividends.

When companies increase par value or capitalize reserves and distribute new fully paid shares to shareholders free of charge through a bonus issue, there is no cost to shareholders to maintain their stakes and no risk of dilution. This procedure transfers wealth to shareholders and does not significantly impact share value. The only impact on shareholders is that by increasing the number of shares on issue, the company could increase liquidity, enhance marketability, and ultimately expand its shareholder base.

B-129

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Reorganizations/Restructurings

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote reorganizations and restructurings on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Requests to approve corporate reorganizations or restructurings range from the routine shuffling of subsidiaries within a group to major rescue programs for ailing companies. RMG usually approves such resolutions unless there are clear conflicts of interest among the various parties, shareholders’ rights are being negatively affected, or certain groups or shareholders appear to be getting a better deal at the expense of general shareholders.

In the case of routine reorganizations of assets or subsidiaries within a group, RMG’s primary focus with the proposed changes is to ensure that shareholder value is being preserved. This includes the effect of the reorganization on the control of group assets, the final ownership structure, the relative voting power of existing shareholders if the share capital is being adjusted, and the expected benefits arising from the changes.

In the case of a distress restructuring of a company or group, shareholders’ options are far more limited; often, they have no choice but to approve the restructuring or lose everything. In such cases, RMG first determines the company’s degree of distress by determining whether or not the company still has a positive net asset value — that is, if realizable assets are greater than liabilities. Although rare, liquidation should be considered an option in these situations.

In most cases, however, the company has a negative asset value, meaning that shareholders would have nothing left after a liquidation. RMG seeks to ensure that the degree of dilution proposed is consistent with the claims of outside parties and is commensurate with the relative commitments of other company stakeholders. Existing shareholders usually must accept the transfer of majority control over the company to outside secured creditors. Ultimately, ownership of a small percentage of something is worth more than majority ownership of nothing.

B-130

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Mergers and Acquisitions

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following:

For every M&A analysis, RMG reviews publicly available information as of the date of the report and evaluates 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, RMG places emphasis on the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale.

• Market reaction — How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction will cause RMG to scrutinize a deal more closely.

• 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.

• Conflicts of interest — Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? RMG will consider whether any special 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.

Vote AGAINST if the companies do not provide sufficient information upon request to make an informed voting decision.

Discussion

When evaluating the merits of a proposed acquisition, merger, or takeover offer, RMG focuses on the impact of the proposal on shareholder value, both in the immediate and long term. The primary concern is to determine whether or not the proposal is beneficial to shareholders’ existing and future earnings stream and to ensure that the impact on voting rights is not disproportionate to that benefit. Although RMG examines these proposals closely from a corporate governance perspective, a variety of other factors are considered, including the financial terms of the transaction and the strategic rationale for the proposal.

In the case of an acquisition, RMG examines the level of voting or earnings dilution and the logic of the proposed purchase if large share issuances are required. The method of financing is also important, as various methods can result in different valuations than originally perceived. RMG also checks for an independent valuation of the terms, particularly if the target of the acquisition is not a publicly traded entity or asset and precise market valuations are not readily available. RMG also considers the control premium in the transaction. Control premiums on acquisitions vary widely depending on the industry, the time period, and the country. For publicly traded entities or assets, RMG looks at the price of the acquisition relative to the average market price prior to any announcement, as well as the historical price trends for 60 days prior. For non-publicly traded entities or assets, an independent financial evaluation becomes even more important.

B-131

In the case of mergers, RMG examines whether or not the merger makes commercial or strategic sense for the company. RMG also considers the method of effecting the merger and the ultimate impact on shareholders of the proposed financial and corporate governance structure. While historical relative valuations based on market prices are useful in the financial evaluation process, the often-complicated financial details of such proposals make an independent fairness opinion of extreme importance. The proposed board structure, share capital structure, relative share ownership, and any takeover defenses of the new company are all important factors for consideration in this evaluation process.

Obviously, levels of disclosure regarding merger and acquisition proposals will vary greatly from market to market. In more developed markets, shareholders are often provided with detailed financial and governance information as well as an independent fairness opinion and in some cases, a formal valuation report. When evaluating proposals in these markets, RMG relies primarily on the documents and information provided by the company and its advisors. However, in many emerging markets, detailed information regarding mergers and acquisitions can be scarce. In these markets, RMG must rely more heavily on secondary sources, including local shareholder associations, market reaction to the proposed transaction, and news reports.

If the details of a given proposal are unclear or not available and a fairness opinion (in markets where they are regularly provided) is also not available, RMG recommends voting against the proposal. If a company is uncooperative in providing information about the proposal or is evasive when responding to questions, RMG recommends voting against the item in question.

B-132

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Mandatory Takeover Bid Waivers

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote proposals to waive mandatory takeover bid requirements on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Many countries impose a bid threshold that forces any shareholder whose stake exceeds the limit to tender a public bid to all the other owners to purchase the remaining shares. The thresholds are imposed either by national law, stock exchange rules, or a company’s articles of association. This mandatory takeover bid rule prohibits a shareholder from owning a large stake in the company and having a dominating voice in the decision-making without being required to purchase the remainder of the shares. Without such a requirement, the other shareholders, although potentially holding a substantial percentage of the company’s shares, would be left with relatively little say in decisions. Mandatory bid requirements also seek to prevent “creeping acquisitions” and to ensure that shareholders, other than the controlling shareholder, receive a control premium when control of the company shifts to the large shareholder.

RMG opposes proposals to exempt a large shareholder from the obligation to bid. The requirement that a takeover bid should be launched when a substantial amount of shares have been acquired prevents the entrenchment of the controlling shareholder and protects minority owners.

RMG does make an exception to the mandatory takeover bid rule when the event prompting the takeover bid is a repurchase by the company of its own shares. When a company repurchases its own shares, the relative stake of a large shareholder increases even though the number of shares held by the large shareholder has not changed. In certain markets, notably the United Kingdom and Ireland, the mandatory bid rules require a large shareholder to make a takeover bid if its stake in the company is increased on a relative basis as a result of a share repurchase by the company. Companies in these markets may seek a waiver from the takeover bid requirement applicable to their large shareholder. Under certain circumstances, RMG will support such a waiver, namely, if the share repurchase would not push the large shareholder’s stake in the company above 50 percent.

B-133

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Reincorporation Proposals

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote reincorporation proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Reincorporation proposals are most commonly seen in Canada, where companies may register under one of the provincial business statutes. However, companies in other countries may also seek shareholder approval to reincorporate in a U.S. state or another country. Many companies, including U.S. companies, choose to reincorporate in places such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, or the British Virgin Islands for tax purposes.

When examining a reincorporation proposal, RMG first examines the reasons for the move. Sometimes a reincorporation proposal is part of a restructuring effort or merger agreement that contributes significantly to a company’s growth, financial health, and competitive position more than the anticipated negative consequences of incorporating in another province or country. Some reincorporations allow firms to realize lower taxes or incorporation fees. In addition, there may be advantages to incorporating in the province in which the company conducts the bulk of its business.

Companies often adopt a new charter or bylaws with increased protection for management upon reincorporation. For instance, many reincorporation proposals are bundled with the ratification of a new charter that increases the company’s capital stock or imposes a classified board. When such changes to the charter include the addition of negative corporate governance provisions, the impact of these new provisions on shareholders must be balanced against the anticipated benefits of the reincorporation.

RMG believes that reincorporations to countries, states, or provinces with less stringent disclosure requirements or corporate governance provisions are often management attempts to lessen accountability to shareholders. In such cases, RMG recommends voting against the proposal. The expenses involved in a change of domicile relating to legal and administrative fees, plus the greater entrenchment such a reincorporation could provide management, would likely harm shareholders’ interests. In cases where companies propose to move to a more protective province or country and supply reasonable financial reasons for doing so, the benefits of the reincorporation must be weighed against the costs of possible management entrenchment.

B-134

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Expansion of Business Activities

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote FOR resolutions to expand business activities unless the new business takes the company into risky areas.

Discussion

Companies are usually required by law to include in their articles of association or memorandum of association specific business purposes in the form of an objects clause. Because most countries require shareholder approval before articles can be amended, any change to the company’s objects clause requires shareholder approval. Countries often seek shareholder approval to amend the objects clause to expand business lines.

Expanding business lines is a decision usually best left to management, but there are some instances where RMG withholds support for such changes. If a company has performed poorly for several years and seeks business expansion into a risky enterprise, RMG would require further clarification from management regarding the purpose of the expansion. If the company does not provide a satisfactory business plan, RMG recommends that shareholders vote against the proposal.

B-135

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Related-Party Transactions

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote related-party transactions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Shareholders are often asked to approve commercial transactions between related parties. A transaction between a parent company and its subsidiary, or a company’s dealings with entities that employ the company’s directors, are usually classified as related-party transactions and are subject to company law or stock exchange listing requirements that mandate shareholder approval. Shareholder approval of these transactions is meant to protect shareholders against insider trading abuses.

In most cases, both the rationale and terms of such transactions are reasonable. RMG looks for evidence of an evaluation of the transaction by an independent body, but this is not always available. Unless the agreement requests a strategic move outside the company’s charter or contains unfavorable terms, RMG recommends that shareholders support the proposal.

B-136

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Compensation Plans

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote compensation plans on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Disclosure on compensation in many markets is still not as extensive as U.S.-style disclosure. However, compensation plans are becoming more common on meeting agendas of non-U.S. companies, and the structures of these plans are of vital interest to shareholders. When given the opportunity to review these structures, RMG supports plans that motivate participants to focus on long-term shareholder value and returns, encourage employee stock ownership, and more closely align employee interests with those of shareholders.

For many years, RMG has employed a complex compensation model methodology for evaluating compensation proposals in the United States and Canada, but this has only been possible because of the extensive disclosure provided in these markets’ proxy circulars. This degree of disclosure is a reflection of strict regulatory requirements, investor concern and activity, and corporate governance sophistication.

Beyond the problems presented by limited disclosure, local conditions and traditions in particular countries also hinder the creation of a comprehensive compensation evaluation procedure. Standard market practice in one country may be illegal activity in another. Some countries establish numerical limits on the number of shares available under their plans, while others have percentage limits that apply over a specific length of time. Holding all global companies to the strict standards of the United States, for example, could result in recommendations against almost every compensation plan in many countries. Conversely, making too many allowances for local practices may only encourage poor governance standards over the long term.

RMG reviews three main types of compensation plans: stock option plans, incentive plans, and share purchase plans. Also included in this section are grants outside of plans. RMG analyzes plans by calculating the potential dilution under a company’s share plans and by analyzing plan features.

Stock Option Plans

Stock option plans grant participants an option to buy company shares at a set price (the exercise price). Shares are usually granted at market prices and may be exercised when the company’s share price reaches the exercise price. Participants may then purchase the promised shares at the strike price and may later sell the shares after their purchase (or after a defined holding period when the shares may not be sold).

When evaluating stock option plans, RMG’s first hurdle is obtaining information regarding the key terms of the plan. Ideally, we would like to see the full text of the plan, or a summary of the plan’s key terms, with information on the plan’s dilution, exercise price/presence of discounts, administration and participation, types of awards used, vesting provisions, and performance criteria. However, in many markets, especially where companies are only beginning to introduce stock-based compensation, information on key plan terms can be quite limited. RMG generally supports efforts to more closely align executive pay with shareholder interests, and generally encourages companies to improve their compensation disclosure practices. However, until disclosure standards improve in these markets, RMG believes that it would be counterproductive to oppose all plans in a given country on this basis. Still, some basic parameters are necessary in order for RMG to consider supporting a compensation plan. At a minimum, RMG requires information on the maximum potential dilution of a plan and information concerning the exercise price. If a plan meets our guidelines on these two points, RMG will support the plan. For markets where certain plan information is regularly disclosed, and a company has failed to provide this information to shareholders, RMG will vote against the plan on the basis of substandard disclosure.

B-137

Among the criteria that RMG examines in evaluating stock option plans are the following, generally organized from criteria of greater importance to criteria of lesser importance:

Shares Reserved for Issuance of Options Under the Plan

The maximum number of shares RMG approves under a plan depends on the classification of a company’s stage of development as growth or mature. Growth companies are usually smaller, in new industries requiring significant research and development, and have restricted cash flows. A company in an established industry but expanding rapidly, or a mature company that is experiencing an extended period of rapid expansion, may also be classified as growth. Mature companies are characterized by stable sales and revenue growth, production efficiencies resulting from volume gains, and strong cash flow resulting from developed products in the payoff stage.

For mature companies, shares available under stock option plans should be no more than 5 percent of the issued capital at the time of approval under all plans. For growth companies, shares available should be no more than 10 percent of the issued capital at the time of approval under all plans. However, RMG will support plans at mature companies with dilution levels of up to 10 percent if the plan includes other positive features, such as challenging performance criteria or premium-priced options. These features partially offset dilution concerns, as their inclusion reduces the likelihood that options will become exercisable unless there is a clear improvement in shareholder value.

For all companies, an absolute number of shares fixed at the time of approval is ideal, but many countries do not include such a limit. In these cases, revolving limits (a certain percentage of issued shares at any one time) of 5 percent or 10 percent are common. The practice of setting a percentage of shares issuable over a certain number of years before or after the plan is adopted appears to be a compromise between these first two methods. RMG prefers plans where the limits are sufficiently spread out, e.g., 5 percent in five years, 10 percent in ten years. Revolving limits of 10 percent in ten years should also include “flow-rate” restrictions that further limit the plan’s dilution, such as a cap of “3 percent in three years,” “2.5 percent in five years,” or “1 percent in one year.”

Exercise Price

RMG prefers that options be priced at not less than 100 percent of the shares’ fair market value on the date of grant. Usually this is taken as the closing price of the company’s shares on the day prior to the date of grant. Some countries determine fair market value as an average of the trading price for the five days prior to the date of grant. This is a common and acceptable practice. Some emerging market countries use a 30-day average or longer to determine fair market value; these resolutions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although provisions of longer than 30 days increase the possibility of discounted options.

Discounted Options, Restricted Stock, and Stock Grants

Many countries allow for options to be granted at a discount to market prices. RMG evaluates restricted stock, which is essentially a deeply discounted option often with mandatory vesting provisions, in the same manner as a discounted option. Restricted stock, which is generally offered at a 100-percent discount and vests in three to five years, is most often seen in the United States, but it is becoming increasingly popular in other jurisdictions. Stock grants are another type of discounted award in which company shares may be granted outright to recipients with no payment required for the receipt of shares. In the absence of performance criteria (see below), RMG opposes grants of discounted options, including restricted stock. Absent performance criteria or vesting provisions, holders of discounted options or restricted stock have an incentive to cash in their grants for an immediate return rather than hold on to their options for future gains, thereby reducing or eliminating the incentive value of such awards. RMG generally opposes stock grants as their incentive value is dubious.

B-138

In very rare cases, RMG may consider supporting a plan that includes discounted options, including restricted stock, if the company has attached challenging performance criteria to the options, including price hurdles. Performance-based vesting provisions require tangible improvements in the company’s financial performance or share price before the discounted options or restricted shares can be exercised. Performance criteria are evaluated by reference to both the company’s country of incorporation and industry. Recipients of discounted options and restricted shares are required to tender less consideration, if any, to exercise their awards than recipients of market-priced options are required to tender; as a result, the former type of awards are more costly to shareholders from an economic perspective. However, the higher performance threshold imposed by suitably challenging performance criteria may mitigate the higher economic costs.

In general, RMG does not believe that vesting provisions, however stringent, sufficiently mitigate the excessive cost of discounted awards, but with respect to the use of restricted stock in U.S.-style stock option plans seen in global markets, RMG recognizes that restricted stock is a common feature of these plans, that often these awards represent only a small portion (usually significantly below 1 percent) of a company’s outstanding share capital, and that performance criteria are not common in U.S.-style plans. As a result, RMG believes that it would be counterproductive to oppose all such plans solely on the inclusion of restricted stock. However, RMG would only approve of plans that set out strict limits on such grants, include stringent vesting provisions, sufficiently challenging performance criteria, and that meet our guidelines in all other aspects.

Plan Administration

RMG opposes allowing the administering committee to grant options to itself due to the potential for abuse and conflicts of interest. Administration of plans should be in the hands of directors who are unable to participate in the plan. Plans administered by the full board should not allow voting by executive directors; plans administered by remuneration committees should be composed entirely of independent directors. Plans that allow non-executive directors to participate should not give them any discretion on individual grants; instead, an automatic system of grants should be introduced with fixed annual grants at market prices on a fixed date. Alternatively, RMG approves of separate non-executive director option plans with independent administration if the number of shares reserved for such plans is limited. Shares reserved for director plans, when combined with shares reserved for all of the company’s stock option plans should not exceed RMG’s aggregate dilution limits. In addition, shares reserved over the life of such a plan should not exceed 1 percent of a company’s outstanding share capital for mature companies and 1.6 percent for growth-oriented companies for a five-year plan. Shares reserved for non-executive director option grants in any one year should not exceed 0.2 percent for mature companies and 0.3 percent for growth companies.

Eligibility and Participation

RMG prefers separate plans for employees, directors, and non-executive directors, but most plans include all or some combination of these categories of participants. Other global plans distinguish between full-time and part-time employees or establish a set length of service to the company (usually one year) before options may be granted. Most plans allow the administrating committee to select plan participants.

Performance Criteria and Vesting Provisions

Performance criteria and vesting provisions are important considerations when evaluating a compensation plan, and the existence of long vesting provisions and realistic performance criteria may compensate for minor shortcomings in a plan. If a plan falls just beyond one of the above guidelines but has both performance criteria and vesting provisions, support may be justified. RMG prefers a minimum three-year vesting period. The ultimate goal of share option plans is to tie executive and employee remuneration to company performance and to give key employees and executives incentive to stay with the firm. We favor the inclusion of performance targets and graduated vesting schedules because awards that are contingent upon sustained and measurable improvements are more likely to fulfill their purpose of truly providing incentive. However, if a plan meets all

B-139

other aspects of RMG’s guidelines, these two criteria are not mandatory, unless the inclusion of such provisions are standard in the company’s country of incorporation and a company has failed to include them.

Other Features Specific to Option Plans

Issue Terms

Some countries require optionees to pay a nominal fee (often equivalent to $0.01) for every option received. This is common and acceptable, although many companies that once enforced this provision are now deleting it from the rules of their plans.

Option Repricing

Some plans include specific provisions allowing for the repricing of options at the board’s discretion. RMG opposes plans that include option repricing when the exercise price is reduced in response to a dropping share price. Repricing outstanding options reduces the incentive that options provide to raise the share price for shareholders.

Financial Assistance

Some plans offer participants loans to pay the full exercise price on their options. If loans are part of a company’s option plan, RMG prefers that loans be made to employees as part of a broad-based, company-wide plan to encourage ownership rather than being given only to executive directors. RMG also prefers loans with interest set at market rates that must be paid back in full over a reasonable length of time. The absence of these features does not necessary warrant a recommendation against an option plan, but they are taken into consideration in RMG’s analysis of the plan.

Plans for International Employees

Many overseas companies introduce separate plans or delegate a special section of their option plan to deal with tax considerations raised by having a large number of employees working in other countries. Many of these plans contain provisions that deal directly with particular U.S. tax code provisions on stock options. RMG applies the same criteria to these plans as to country-specific plans.

Stock Appreciation Rights

Stock appreciation rights (SARs) allow participants to receive the difference between the exercise price and the market price at the date of exercise. Many companies use SARs in lieu of regular options. While SARs do not result in the dilution associated with large option exercises, there is little difference between a SAR and a regular option from a shareholder perspective because the financial cost to the company is the same. However, SARs do not encourage stock ownership by participants because they involve no purchase or sale of company stock. RMG reviews SARs in the context of the option plan under which they are issued.

Phantom Stock Option Plans

Phantom stock options offer participants cash bonuses based on the increase in share price during a set period of time. Phantom plans are distinct from SARs in that they often form their own separate plan. Some companies will create a phantom stock option plan to award employees who reside in countries that do not allow stock-based compensation. Participants are designated a set number of hypothetical (phantom) shares, on which the award is based. While RMG prefers compensation plans that encourage employee ownership, SARs and phantom options are an effective way to provide incentive.

B-140

Superoptions

Superoptions exceed the limits in a particular country for the value of options granted to any one individual, although they are usually tied to significantly more restrictive vesting provisions and performance criteria. U.K. superoptions, for example, exceed the Association of British Insurers’ recommended limit that options represent no more than one times a participant’s salary in any year, yet the stricter performance criteria and longer vesting periods usually mitigate excessive grants. Additionally, dilution resulting from superoptions has historically been fairly moderate. Superoptions appear most often in advanced markets with developed stock option plans.

Dividends Under Option and Dividend Equivalent Payment Provisions

Most holders of stock options do not receive dividend payments. However, some option plans allow participants to receive dividends or dividend equivalent payments prior to the exercise of options. RMG believes that any economic benefit derived from option plans should occur at the time of exercise.

Using Repurchased Shares in Share Compensation Plans

In many countries, companies purchase shares on the market for use in their compensation plans. In some cases, using repurchased shares is more efficient than issuing new shares to participants on exercise. RMG also recognizes the benefits to existing shareholders when repurchased shares are used to fund option grants, as dilution to their interests is minimized. However, although there is no cost to shareholders in terms of dilution of their voting interests (“voting dilution”), buybacks still represent a real cost to the company and shareholders (“economic dilution”). As a result, if a company wants to use repurchased shares in its compensation plans, RMG will include repurchased shares in its dilution calculation and apply the same dilution thresholds as for newly issued shares (see above under “Shares Reserved for Issuance of Options under the Plan”) .

RMG recommends that shareholders support a plan if it includes a specified limit on the total number of shares that could be used and if repurchased shares would count toward that limit, as long as it meets all other guidelines. However, RMG looks for an additional limitation, either an aggregate numerical limit, a percentage limit, or limitations on individual awards, when repurchased shares do not count toward the plan’s limit on newly issued shares, but rather operate as an additional pool of shares.

Incentive Plans

Share incentive plans tie key employees’ compensation more directly to company performance. Though most popular in the United Kingdom, incentive plans are becoming increasingly popular across the globe. Incentive plans provide participants with free grants of company shares (or, less frequently, cash grants) in proportion with prearranged performance criteria-often earnings per share measured against inflation or total shareholder return. These indicators are frequently compared with those of other firms in the company’s industry or stock market index, creating a benchmark and a further determinant of the number of shares granted to a particular participant. Proponents of incentive plans note that they offer shareholders the potential for less dilution and that they more directly encourage participants to focus on long-term company performance through strict performance criteria tied to more than just share price movements.

Most incentive plans are organized with strict vesting provisions, where participants may not receive the share awards until after a period of three years or more. Many plans also grant a percentage of the total amount reserved for each participant on a sliding scale measured against performance criteria. Performance criteria targets that have been satisfied only to a certain point may represent disbursement of 25 percent of the shares or cash to a participant, while 100-percent satisfaction may represent the full allotment of the grant. From a shareholder perspective, this graduated system of performance criteria is a major advance.

Evaluation of incentive plans is similar to that of option plans in that acceptable dilution and impartial administration and eligibility remain key factors for a positive recommendation. Insufficient performance criteria or abbreviated vesting provisions are deciding factors as well.

B-141

Employee Stock Purchase Plans and Savings-Related Share Option Schemes

Employee stock purchase plans and savings-related share option schemes (together, ESPPs) provide employees an opportunity to purchase stock in their company, often at a discount to market prices. Plans may operate via monthly deductions from employees’ paychecks, gathered and held for safekeeping by a trust or bank, and used to purchase company stock on behalf of the employee. ESPPs can lead to greater commitment from employees, provide performance incentives, and provide all employees the opportunity to share in the company’s growth.

ESPPs differ from stock option plans in that in an ESPP, all eligible participants have the option to participate in the plan and may choose how much they wish to contribute to the plan, whereas in a stock option plan, the administering committee chooses who actually participates in the plan, that is, receives options under the plan. RMG recommends approval for many of these plans because they encourage wide share ownership in the company among employees. When analyzing ESPPs for global companies, RMG considers the following factors:

Eligibility

This is an important factor when considering ESPPs proposed by global companies. For a plan to qualify as an ESPP, all full-time employees who have been with the company for a reasonable amount of time (some plans also allow for participation by part-time employees) must be eligible to participate in the plan, and more important, eligible participants must have the ability to determine whether they will participate and to what extent they will participate, subject to certain limits, as discussed below.

Dilution

Many markets, such as the United States, Canada, Ireland, and certain tax haven markets, differentiate between shares reserved for ESPPs and shares reserved for stock option plans. In these markets it is our practice to have separate dilution limits (a) for shares reserved for ESPPs, and (b) shares reserved for stock option plans. Other markets, notably the United Kingdom, do not reserve separate pools of shares for ESPPs and option plans, therefore we cannot make such distinctions.

For those markets that reserve a separate pool of shares for ESPPs, RMG policy is to exclude such shares from our dilution calculations for stock option plans. However, RMG policy provides that no more than 10 percent of a company’s shares may be reserved for ESPPs at any given time, with such 10 percent being over and above the company’s limit (either 5 or 10 percent) reserved for option plans, as long as discounts do not exceed 15 percent. Accordingly, a company could have up to 10 percent of its shares reserved for option plans and 10 percent of its shares reserved for ESPPs at any given time. If market practice dictates a larger discount under the ESPPs, the allowable dilution will be adjusted downward proportionately. For example, if a company is allowed to offer discounts of 30 percent, the allowable dilution will be 5 percent. Allowable dilution on discounts between 15 percent and 30 percent will be determined on a pro rata basis. Alternatively, RMG would consider a higher dilution limit for ESPPs if the company in question sufficiently limited dilution under its option plans.

For those markets that reserve a common pool of shares for ESPPs and stock option plans, RMG policy is to evaluate the dilution under the common pool of shares in accordance with the dilution limitations applicable to stock option plans.

Offering Period and Offering Price

The offering period, also known as the purchase period, is the time period over which a participant’s contributions are accumulated for the purchase of shares under the plan. The offering price is the company’s share price taken on a specific date, less the applicable discount, at which a participant’s accumulated payroll deductions are used to purchase shares. Both the offering period and the offering price are country- and

B-142

plan-specific. For example, ESPPs that are intended to comply with Section 423 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (Section 423 Plans) and therefore qualify for favorable tax treatment may not have an offering period in excess of 27 months. Section 423 Plans, however, almost always provide for an “either/or” offering price, which provides participants the right to purchase shares at the lesser of the fair market value of that company’s shares, less the applicable discount, as of either the first or last day of the offering period. In contrast, plans in the United Kingdom and Ireland generally have a three-, five-, or even seven-year offering period, and the offering price is the fair market value on the date an employee commences participation in the plan.

RMG’s assessment of a plan takes into account the length of the offering period and the date on which the offering price is determined. If the plan has an “either/or” feature, a shorter offering period is in the interests of shareholders because such provisions reduce the market risk associated with the plan. The maximum offering period for plans with such a feature is 27 months. In contrast, if the offering price is based on the price of the company’s shares on the date plan participation commences, then a longer offering period is generally in the interests of shareholders, as it should more effectively focus the efforts of plan participants on increasing shareholder value. In these cases, the minimum offering period is three years.

Discounts

These are generally country-specific, e.g. the maximum discount under a Section 423 Plan is 15 percent. In the United Kingdom the maximum discount is 20 percent, and in Ireland it is 25 percent. The amount of the discount is often obscured because some plans do not provide for a discount per se, but rather provide that participants will receive matching shares. This practice is common in Canada. For instance, a plan may stipulate that for every two shares a participant purchases under a plan, the company will provide one “matching share” to the participant; in effect the participant receives three shares for the price of two, which is mathematically equivalent to a 33-percent discount. If a plan employs matching shares, the analyst must simply calculate the imputed discount using the maximum match.

In reviewing discounts, RMG takes into consideration the offering period and offering price. Because plans with “either/or” provisions reduce the market risk associated with plan purchases, we believe the maximum discount available under such plans should be 15 percent. However, RMG guidelines allow for greater discounts, up to 25 percent, for plans in which the offering price is based on the company’s share price on the date participation commences.

Limits on the Number or Value of Shares Purchasable (Participation Limits)

ESPPs must specify a limit on the number or value of shares each participant is eligible to purchase, for Section 423 Plans it is US$25,000 per year, in the United Kingdom and Ireland it is GBP 3,000 and IRP 3,000, respectively. Because the shares are discounted, there must be some limit on the ability of eligible employees to participate to prevent excessive dilution. This also limits the ability of executives to buy, via the plan, large amounts of discounted shares. Ideally, there should be a plan feature prohibiting employees who are large shareholders (5 percent in Section 423 Plans) from participating.

Loan Terms

Some plans offer participants loans to pay for the shares. If loans are part of a share purchase plan, RMG prefers that loans be made to employees as part of a broad-based, company-wide plan to encourage ownership rather than being given only to executive directors. RMG also prefers loans with interest set at market rates that must be paid back in full over a reasonable length of time. The absence of these features does not necessarily warrant a recommendation against a share purchase plan, but they are taken into consideration in RMG’s analysis of the plan.

B-143

Grants Outside of Plans

Resolutions asking shareholders to approve specific grants of shares or cash outside of established plans are problematic. Some companies prefer not to adopt formal share plans, instead asking shareholders to approve yearly grants to specific employees. RMG prefers that companies make such grants in the context of an established plan.

RMG’s primary concern with grants outside of plans is the level of dilution they afford. The number of shares issued as part of the grants, when combined with the number of shares reserved for the company’s other share plans, must fall within acceptable dilution limits. Vesting provisions and performance criteria are also important and are evaluated on the same basis as if the grants were part of a formal plan.

B-144

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Antitakeover Mechanisms

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote AGAINST all antitakeover proposals unless they are structured in such a way that they give shareholders the ultimate decision on any proposal or offer.

Discussion

Common antitakeover mechanisms include staggered boards, supervoting shares, poison pills, unlimited authorized capital authorizations (including blank check preferred stock), and golden shares. Some of these restrictions are aimed solely at limiting share ownership by foreign or unwanted minority shareholders, and others are designed to preclude an unwanted takeover of the target company by any party. RMG opposes all forms of such mechanisms, as they limit shareholder value by eliminating the takeover or control premium for the company. As owners of the company, shareholders should be given the opportunity to decide on the merits of takeover offers.

Golden Shares

Recently privatized companies around the world often include in their share structure a golden share held by their respective governments. These shares often carry special voting rights or the power of automatic veto over specific proposals. Golden shares are most common among former state-owned companies or politically sensitive industries such as utilities, railways, and airlines. While the introduction of golden shares is not a desirable governance practice, RMG recognizes the political importance certain companies hold for governments and treats the introduction or amendment of government shares on a case-by-case basis.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Supermajority vote requirements violate the principle that a simple majority of voting shares should be all that is necessary to effect change regarding a company and its corporate governance provisions. Requiring more than this may permit management to entrench themselves by blocking provisions that are in the best interest of shareholders. However, in many world markets, supermajority vote requirements for special resolutions or EGMs are the norm, either two-thirds or three-fourths of shares voting at the meeting (either in person or by proxy). When reviewing proposals to introduce supermajority vote requirements, RMG takes into account market norms, the company’s reasons for the change, and the company’s ownership structure.

B-145

2010 International Voting-Policy Manual

Shareholder Proposals

RMG General Recommendation & Policy

Vote all shareholder proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote FOR proposals that would improve the company’s corporate governance or business profile at a reasonable cost.

Vote AGAINST proposals that limit the company’s business activities or capabilities or result in significant costs being incurred with little or no benefit.

Discussion

RMG reviews all shareholder proposals to ascertain whether the proposal is beneficial or detrimental to shareholder value. Most resolutions fall into three basic categories: corporate governance, social, and environmental. While shareholder proposals in most countries are not as prevalent as they are in the United States, they are becoming more common, and standards for reviewing the various types of proposals are necessary.

Corporate Governance Proposals

Corporate governance-related proposals must be evaluated carefully because any changes can dramatically affect shareholder value. Support for such proposals must be measured against the likely impact that approval would have on the company’s operations. If a measure would improve disclosure of company activities in non-strategic areas and at minimal costs, RMG supports the proposal. If a proposal seeks to improve the company’s corporate governance structure, such as adopting board committees, eliminating staggered board structures, or canceling antitakeover instruments, approval is also warranted. However, if acceptance of a proposal is likely to lead to a disruption in board or management operations and to cause the company to incur significant costs without clear benefit, RMG recommends opposing the proposal.

Social and Environmental Proposals

In evaluating social and environmental proposals, RMG first determines whether or not the issue in question should be addressed on a company-specific basis. Many social and environmental issues are beyond the scope of any one company and are more properly the province of government and broader regulatory action. If this is the case, RMG recommends voting against the proposal.

Most proposals of this type require shareholders to apply subjective criteria in making their voting decision. While broader issues are of concern to everyone, institutional shareholders acting as representatives of their beneficiaries are required to consider only the ultimate interests of their direct beneficiaries. Relating the interests of their beneficiaries to the greater good can be a difficult process and a matter for individual determination. For this reason, RMG focuses on the financial aspects of social and environmental proposals. If a proposal would have a negative impact on the company’s financial position or adversely affect important operations, RMG recommends opposing the resolution. Conversely, if a proposal would have a clear and beneficial impact on the company’s finances or operations, RMG recommends supporting the proposal.

B-146

2010 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines

January 2010

Copyright ^© 2010 by RiskMetrics Group.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission to make copies of any part of this work should be sent to: RiskMetrics Group Marketing Department, One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 44th Floor, New York, NY 10005. RiskMetrics Group is a trademark used herein under license.

Risk Management  |  RiskMetrics Labs  |  ISS Governance Services  |  Financial Research & Analysis

www.riskmetrics.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROXY VOTING POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES	B-151
DIRECTOR ELECTIONS	B-151
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections	B-152
Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections	B-153
Independent Directors	B-154
Non-Independent Chairman	B-154
Excessive Directorships	B-155
Performance/Governance Evaluation for Directors	B-155
Director Diversity	B-156
Stock Ownership Requirements	B-157
Classified Boards — Annual Elections	B-157
Board and Committee Size	B-157
Limit Term of Office	B-158
Cumulative Voting	B-158
Failure to Act on Shareholder Proposals Receiving Majority Support	B-159
Votes Against or Withholds from Directors for Shareholder Rights Plan (i.e. Poison Pills)	B-159
Shareholder Access to the Proxy (“Open Access”)	B-160
Majority Threshold Voting Requirement for Director Elections	B-160
Establish An Office of the Board	B-161
Director and Officer Indemnification ~ Liability Protection	B-161
Indemnification	B-161
COMPENSATION	B-161
Stock Option Plans	B-163
Methodology for Analyzing Pay Plans	B-163
Voting Power Dilution (VPD) Calculation	B-164
Fair Market Value, Dilution and Repricing	B-164
Burn Rate	B-165
Executive Concentration Ratio	B-165
Principle of Pay-For-Performance	B-165
Evergreen Provisions	B-165
Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options	B-165
Problematic Compensation Practices and Compensation Committee Performance	B-166
Restricted Stock	B-168
Executive Holding Periods	B-168
Performance-Based Options	B-168
Options Backdating	B-169
Pension Plan Income Accounting	B-169
Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay	B-169
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Shareholder Proposals	B-169
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Management Proposals	B-169
Compensation Consultants — Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization	B-170
Golden and Tin Parachutes	B-170
Executive Perks and Retirement/Death Benefits	B-170
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)	B-171
OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals	B-171
Amendments to Add Performance-Based Goals	B-171
Amendments to Increase Shares and Retain Tax Deductions Under OBRA	B-171
Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans	B-171

B-148

AUDITORS	B-172
Auditor Independence	B-172
Auditor Ratification	B-172
Auditor Rotation	B-173
Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability	B-173
Disclosures Under Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act	B-174
Adverse Opinions	B-174
TAKEOVER DEFENSES	B-175
Poison Pills	B-175
Greenmail	B-176
Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors	B-176
Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board	B-176
SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS	B-176
Confidential Voting	B-176
Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings	B-177
Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent	B-177
Unequal Voting Rights	B-177
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws	B-177
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers	B-178
Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses	B-178
Bundled Proposals	B-178
MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS/CORPORATE RESTRUCTURINGS	B-179
Fair Price Provisions	B-179
Corporate Restructuring	B-180
Appraisal Rights	B-180
Spin-offs	B-180
Asset Sales	B-180
Liquidations	B-180
Going Private Transactions (LBOs, Minority Squeezeouts)	B-180
Plans of Reorganization (Bankruptcy)	B-180
CAPITAL STRUCTURE	B-182
Common Stock Authorization	B-182
Reverse Stock Splits	B-182
Blank Check Preferred Authorization	B-182
Adjust Par Value of Common Stock	B-183
Preemptive Rights	B-183
Debt Restructuring	B-183
STATE OF INCORPORATION	B-185
Voting on State Takeover Statutes	B-185
Reincorporations Proposals	B-185
Offshore Reincorporations and Tax Havens	B-185
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY	B-186
I.    GENERAL CSR RELATED	B-187
Special Policy Review and Shareholder Advisory Committees	B-187
Operations in Protected or Sensitive Areas	B-187
Land Use	B-187
International Financial Related	B-187
Affirm Political Non-Partisanship	B-188
Political Contributions Reporting & Disclosure	B-188
Military Sales	B-189
Report on Operations in Sensitive Regions or Countries	B-189
Recycling Policy	B-189

B-149

II.  CLIMATE CHANGE ~ GLOBAL WARMING	B-189
Kyoto Compliance	B-190
Greenhouse Gas Emissions	B-190
Investment in Renewable Energy	B-190
Sustainability Reporting and Planning	B-190
Endorsement of CERES Principles	B-191
III. WORKPLACE PRACTICES & HUMAN RIGHTS	B-191
Equal Employment Opportunity	B-191
High-Performance Workplace	B-192
Non-Discrimination in Retirement Benefits	B-192
Fair Lending Reporting and Compliance	B-192
MacBride Principles	B-193
Contract Supplier Standards	B-193
Corporate Conduct and Labor Code of Conduct	B-194
IV. CONSUMER HEALTH & PUBLIC SAFETY	B-194
Phase-out or Label Products Containing Genetically Engineered Ingredients	B-194
Tobacco-Related Proposals	B-194
Toxic Emissions	B-194
Toxic Chemicals	B-195
Nuclear Safety	B-195
Concentrated Area Feeding Operations (CAFOs)	B-195
Pharmaceutical Product Reimportation	B-195
Pharmaceutical Product Pricing	B-196

B-150

TAFT-HARTLEY ADVISORY SERVICES

PROXY VOTING POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES

This statement sets forth the proxy voting policy of RiskMetrics’ Taft-Hartley Advisory Services. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has stated that the fiduciary act of managing plan assets that are shares of corporate stock includes the voting of proxies appurtenant to those shares of stock and that trustees may delegate this duty to an investment manager. ERISA section 3(38) defines an investment manager as any fiduciary who is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940. RiskMetrics is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote the proxies of its clients solely in the interest of their participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them. The interests of participants and beneficiaries will not be subordinated to unrelated objectives. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. When proxies due to Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ clients have not been received, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will make reasonable efforts to obtain missing proxies. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is not responsible for voting proxies it does not receive.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall analyze each proxy on a case-by-case basis, informed by the guidelines elaborated below, subject to the requirement that all votes shall be cast solely in the long-term interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plans. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services does not intend for these guidelines to be exhaustive. Hundreds of issues appear on proxy ballots every year, and it is neither practical nor productive to fashion voting guidelines and policies which attempt to address every eventuality. Rather, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ guidelines are intended to cover the most significant and frequent proxy issues that arise. Issues not covered by the guidelines shall be voted in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries of the plan based on a worker-owner view of long-term corporate value. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall revise its guidelines as events warrant and will remain in full conformity with the AFL-CIO proxy voting policy.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall report annually to its clients on proxy votes cast on their behalf. These proxy voting reports will demonstrate Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ compliance with its responsibilities and will facilitate clients’ monitoring of Taft-Hartley Advisory Services. A copy of this Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Guidelines is provided to each client at the time Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is retained. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall provide its clients with revised copies of this proxy voting policy statement and guidelines whenever significant revisions have been made.

DIRECTOR ELECTIONS

Electing directors is the single most important stock ownership right that shareholders can exercise. By electing directors who share their views, shareholders can help to define performance standards against which management can be held accountable. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services holds directors to a high standard when voting on their election, qualifications, and compensation. We evaluate directors fairly and objectively, rewarding them for significant contributions and holding them ultimately accountable to shareholders for corporate performance. Institutional investors should use their voting rights in uncontested elections to influence financial performance and corporate strategies for achieving long term shareholder value.

Director accountability, independence and competence have become issues of prime importance to investors given the failings in oversight exposed by the global financial crisis. There is also concern over the environment in the boardrooms of certain markets, where past failures appear to be no impediment to continued or new appointments at major companies and may not be part of the evaluation process at companies in considering whether an individual is, or continues to be, fit for the role and best able to serve shareholder’s interests.

B-151

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Votes concerning the entire board of directors and members of key board committees are examined using the following five factors:

• Lack of independence of the full board and key board committees (fully independent audit, compensation, and nominating committees);

• Performance of the board and key board committees (flagrant actions by management or the board, excessive risk-taking, problematic governance provisions, egregious compensation practices, poor accounting practices, imprudent use of corporate assets, etc.);

• Failure of the board to properly respond to high withhold/against votes or majority votes on shareholder proposals;

• Poor long-term corporate performance record relative to peers, S&P 500 or Russell 3000 Indices;

• Diversity of board.

Votes on individual director nominees are always made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Specific director nominee WITHHOLD/AGAINST¹ votes can be triggered by one or more of the following factors:

• Lack of a board that is at least two-thirds (67 percent) independent — i.e. where the composition of non-independent board members is in excess of 33 percent of the entire board;

• Attendance of director nominees at board meetings of less than 75 percent in one year without valid reason or explanation;

• Lack of independence on key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation, and nominating committees);

• Failure to establish any key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation, or nominating);

• Directors serving on an excessive number of other boards which could compromise their primary duties of care and loyalty;

• Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) violations or fines, and criminal investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Government Accounting Office (GAO) or any other federal agency;

• Performance of compensation committee members and/or the entire board in relation to the approval of egregious or excessive executive compensation (including perquisites and cash and equity awards);

• Performance of audit committee members concerning the approval of excessive non-audit fees, material weaknesses, and/or the lack of auditor ratification upon the proxy ballot;

• If 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 underlying issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote;

• The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of the shareholders tendered their shares;

• The board lacks accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers;

• If the company has a classified board and a continuing director is responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level that would warrant a withhold/against vote, in addition

¹ In general, companies with a plurality vote standard use “Withhold” as the valid 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.

B-152

to potential future withhold/against votes on that director, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may vote against or withhold votes from any or all of the nominees up for election, with the exception of new nominees;

• The presence of problematic governance issues including interlocking directorships, multiple related-party transactions or other issues putting director independence at risk;

• Inadequate CEO succession planning, including the absence of an emergency and non-emergency/orderly CEO succession plan;

• Material failures of governance, stewardship, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company, failure to replace management as appropriate, egregious actions related to the 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.

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from the members of the Audit Committee when:

• Consulting (i.e. non-audit) fees paid to the auditor are excessive;

• Auditor ratification is not included on the proxy ballot;

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

• There is 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; or

• Poor accounting practices such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures, exist. Poor accounting practices may warrant voting against or withholding votes from the full board.

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from the members of the Compensation Committee when:

• There is a negative correlation or disconnect between the CEO’s pay and company performance;

• The company implements a repricing or an option exchange program, by buying out underwater options for stock, cash or other consideration or canceling underwater options and regranting options with a lower exercise price, without prior shareholder approval, even if such repricings are allowed in its equity plans;

• The company fails to submit one-time transfers of stock options to a shareholder vote;

• The company fails to fulfill the terms of a burn rate commitment they made to shareholders;

• The company has backdated options (see Options Backdating policy);

• There is evidence that management/board members are using company stock in hedging activities

• The company has problematic compensation practices such as the provision of excise tax gross-ups, single and modified single trigger provisions, liberal change in control definitions, excessive executive perks and tax gross-ups on executive perks, excessive executive pay or disproportionately high compensation payouts tied to short-term financial results, etc. (see Probematic Pay Practices policy).

Problematic pay practices may warrant voting against or withholding votes from the entire board.

Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Contested elections of directors frequently occur when a board candidate or “dissident slate” seeks election for the purpose of achieving a significant change in corporate policy or control of seats on the board. Competing slates will be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis with a number of considerations in mind. These include, but

B-153

are not limited to, the following: personal qualifications of each candidate; the economic impact of the policies advanced by the dissident slate of nominees; and their expressed and demonstrated commitment to the interests of the shareholders of the company. Votes in a contested election of directors are evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis with the following seven factors in consideration:

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

• Management’s track record;

• Background to the proxy contest;

• Qualifications of director nominees (both slates);

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

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

• Stock ownership positions.

Independent Directors

Board independence from management is of vital importance to a company and its shareholders. Accordingly, we believe votes should be cast in a manner that will encourage the independence of boards. Independence will be evaluated based upon a number of factors, including: employment by the company or an affiliate in an executive capacity; past or current employment by a firm that is one of the company’s paid advisors or consultants; personal services contract with the company; family relationships of an executive or director of the company; interlocks with other companies on which the company’s chairman or chief executive officer is also a board member; and service with a non-profit that receives significant contributions from the company.

• Generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from non-independent director nominees (insiders and affiliated outsiders) where the entire board is not at least two-thirds (67 percent) independent;

• Generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from non-independent director nominees (insiders and affiliated outsiders) when the nominating, compensation and audit committees are not fully independent;

• Generally consider independent board members who have been on the board continually for a period longer than 10 years as affiliated outsiders;

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that all key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation and/or nominating) include independent directors exclusively;

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that the board be comprised of a two-thirds majority of independent directors.

Non-Independent Chairman

Two major components at the top of every public company are the running of the board and the executive responsibility for the running of the company’s business. Many institutional investors believe there should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company that will ensure a balance of power and authority, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision. When there is no clear division between the executive and board branches of a company, poor executive and/or board actions often go unchecked to the ultimate detriment of shareholders. Since executive compensation is so heavily correlated to the managerial power relationship in the boardroom, the separation of the CEO and chairman positions is a critical step in curtailing excessive pay, which ultimately can become a drain on shareholder value.

Arguments have been made that a smaller company and its shareholders can benefit from the full-time attention of a joint chairman and CEO. This may be so in select cases, and indeed, using a case-by-case review of

B-154

circumstances there may be worthy exceptions. But, even in these cases, it is the general view of many institutions that a person should only serve in the position of joint CEO and chairman on a temporary basis, and that these positions should be separated following their provisional combination.

We strongly believe that the potential for conflicts of interest in the board’s supervisory and oversight duties trumps any possible corollary benefits that could ensue from a dual CEO/chairman scenario. Instead of having an ingrained quid pro quo situation whereby a company has a single leader overseeing both management and the boardroom, Taft-Hartley fiduciaries believe that it is the board’s implicit duty to assume an impartial and objective role in overseeing the executive team’s overall performance. Shareholders interests are placed in jeopardy if the CEO of a company is required to report to a board that she/he also chairs.

Inherent in the chairman’s job description is the duty to assess the CEO’s performance. This objectivity is obviously compromised when a chairman is in charge of evaluating her/his own performance or has a past or present affiliation with management. Moreover, the unification of chairman and CEO poses a direct threat to the smooth functioning of the entire board process since it is the ultimate responsibility of the chairman to set the agenda, facilitate discussion, and make sure that directors are given complete access to information in order to make informed decisions.

• Generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from any non-independent director who serves as board chairman;

• Generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from a CEO who is also serving in the role of chairman at the same company;

• Generally support shareholder proposals calling for the separation of the CEO and chairman positions;

• Generally support shareholder proposals calling for a non-executive director to serve as chairman who is not a former CEO or senior-level executive of the company.

Excessive Directorships

As new regulations mandate that directors be more engaged and vigilant in protecting shareholder interests or else risk civil and/or criminal sanctions, board members are having to devote more time and effort to their oversight duties which, on average, were estimated to run to 280 hours per year, per board in 2005. Recent surveys of U.S. directors also confirm a desire for limiting board memberships, to between three and five seats. In view of the increased demands placed on corporate board members, Taft-Hartley fiduciaries believe that directors who are overextended may be impairing their ability to serve as effective representatives of shareholders. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against or withhold from directors serving on an excessive number of other boards, which could compromise their primary duties of care and loyalty.

• Generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from directors serving on an excessive number of boards. As a general rule, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from director nominees who are:

• CEOs of publicly traded companies who serve on more than two public boards (i.e. more than one public boards other than their own board). NOTE: Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against or withhold from overboarded CEO directors only at their outside directorships and not at the company in which they presently serve as CEO); and

• Non-CEO directors who serve on more than five public company boards.

Performance/Governance Evaluation for Directors

Many institutional investors believe long-term financial performance and the appropriateness of governance practices should be taken into consideration when determining vote recommendations with regard to directors in uncontested elections. When evaluating whether to vote against or withhold votes from director nominees, we

B-155

will evaluate underperforming companies that exhibit sustained poor performance as measured by one- and three-year total shareholder returns in the bottom half of a company’s four-digit GICS industry group (Russell 3000 companies only). For companies outside the Russell 3000 universe, a company will be considered to have exhibited sustained poor performance if it underperforms its peers or index on the basis of both one-year and three-year total shareholder returns.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services views deficient oversight mechanisms and the lack of board accountability to shareholders especially in the context of sustained poor performance, as problematic. As part of our framework for assessing director performance, we will also evaluate board accountability and oversight at companies that demonstrate sustained underperformance. A governance structure that discourages director accountability may lead to board and management entrenchment. For example, the existence of several anti-takeover provisions* has the cumulative effect of deterring legitimate tender offers, mergers, and corporate transactions that may have ultimately proved beneficial to shareholders. When a company maintains entrenchment devices, shareholders of poorly performing companies are left with few effective routes to beneficial change.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will assess the company’s response to the ongoing performance issues, and consider recent board and management changes, board independence, overall governance practices, and other factors that may have an impact on shareholders. If a company exhibits sustained poor performance coupled with a lack of board accountability and oversight, we may also consider the company’s five-year total shareholder return and five-year operational metrics in our evaluation.

*Problematic provisions include but are not limited to:

• a classified board structure; o a supermajority vote requirement;

• majority voting with no carve out for contested elections;

• the inability for shareholders to call special meetings;

• the inability for shareholders to act by written consent;

• a dual-class structure; and/or

• a non-shareholder approved poison pill.

Vote AGAINST/WITHHOLD votes from all director nominees if the board lacks accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers. Sustained poor performance is measured by one- and three-year total shareholder returns in the bottom half of a company’s four-digit GICS industry group (Russell 3000 companies only). Sustained poor performance for companies outside the Russell 3000 universe, is defined as underperforming peers or index on the basis of both one-year and three-year total shareholder returns.

Director Diversity

Gender and ethnic diversity are important components on a company’s board. Diversity brings different perspectives to a board that in turn leads to a more varied approach to board issues. Taft-Hartley fiduciaries believe that increasing diversity in the boardroom to better reflect a company’s workforce, customers, and community enhances shareholder value.

• Support proposals asking the board to make greater efforts to search for qualified female and minority candidates for nomination to the board of directors;

• Support endorsement of a policy of board inclusiveness;

• Support reporting to shareholders on a company’s efforts to increase diversity on their boards.

B-156

Stock Ownership Requirements

Corporate directors should own some amount of stock of the companies on which they serve as board members. Stock ownership is a simple method to align the interests of directors with company shareholders. Nevertheless, many highly qualified individuals such as academics and clergy who can offer valuable perspectives in boardrooms may be unable to purchase individual shares of stock. In such a circumstance, the preferred solution is to look at the board nominees individually and take stock ownership into consideration when voting on the merits of each candidate.

• Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director nominee or to remain on the board.

Classified Boards — Annual Elections

The ability to elect directors is the single most important use of the shareholder franchise, and all directors should be accountable on an annual basis. Annually elected boards provide the best governance system for accountability to shareholders. A classified board is a board that is divided into separate classes, with directors serving overlapping terms. A company with a classified board usually divides the board into three classes. Under this system, only one class of nominees comes up to shareholder vote at the AGM each year.

As a consequence of these staggered terms, shareholders only have the opportunity to vote on a single director approximately once every three years. A classified board makes it difficult to change control of the board through a proxy contest since it would normally take two years to gain control of a majority of board seats. Under a classified board, the possibility of management entrenchment greatly increases. Classified boards can reduce director accountability by shielding directors, at least for a certain period of time, from the consequences of their actions. Continuing directors who are responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level would avoid shareholders’ reactions to their actions because they would not be up for election in that year. Ultimately, in these cases, the full board should be responsible for the actions of its directors.

Many in management believe that staggered boards provide continuity. Some shareholders believe that in certain cases a staggered board can provide consistency and continuity in regard to decision-making and commitment that may be important to the long-term financial future of the company. Nevertheless, empirical evidence strongly suggests that staggered boards are generally not in the shareholders’ best interest. In addition to shielding directors from being held accountable by shareholders on an annual basis, a classified board can entrench management and effectively preclude most takeover bids or proxy contests.

• Vote AGAINST management or shareholder proposals seeking to classify the board when the issue comes up for vote;

• Vote FOR management or shareholder proposals to repeal a company’s classified board structure.

• If the company has a classified board and a continuing director is responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level that would warrant a withhold/against vote, in addition to potential future withhold/against votes on that director, we may vote against or withhold votes from any or all of the nominees up for election, with the exception of new nominees.

Board and Committee Size

While there is no hard and fast rule among institutional investors as to what may be an optimal size board, there is an acceptable range that companies should strive to meet and not exceed. A board that is too large may function inefficiently. Conversely, a board that is too small may allow the CEO to exert disproportionate influence or may stretch the time requirements of individual directors too thin.

B-157

Proposals seeking to set board size will be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Given that the preponderance of boards in the U.S. range between five and fifteen directors, many institutional investors believe this benchmark is a useful standard for evaluating such proposals.

• Generally vote AGAINST any proposal seeking to amend the company’s board size to fewer than five seats;

• Generally vote AGAINST any proposal seeking to amend the company’s board size to more than fifteen seats;

• Evaluate board size on a CASE-BY-CASE basis and consider WITHHOLD or AGAINST votes or other action at companies that have fewer than five directors and more than 15 directors on their board.

Limit Term of Office

Those who support term limits argue that this requirement would bring new ideas and approaches on to a board. While term of office limitations can rid the board of non-performing directors over time, it can also unfairly force experienced and effective directors off the board. When evaluating shareholder proposals on director term limits, consider whether the company’s performance has been poor and whether problematic or entrenching governance provisions are in place at the company. Additionally, consider board independence, including whether the board chair is independent.

• Generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors.

Cumulative Voting

Most corporations provide that shareholders are entitled to cast one vote for each share owned. Under a cumulative voting scheme, the shareholder is permitted to have one vote per share for each director to be elected. Shareholders are permitted to apportion those votes in any manner they wish among the director candidates. Thus, under a cumulative voting scheme shareholders have the opportunity to elect a minority representative to a board by cumulating their votes, thereby ensuring minority representation for all sizes of shareholders.

For example, if there is a company with a ten-member board and 500 shares outstanding-the total number of votes that may be cast is 5,000. In this case a shareholder with 51 shares (10.2 percent of the outstanding shares) would be guaranteed one board seat because all votes may be cast for one candidate. Without cumulative voting, anyone controlling 51 percent of shares would control the election of all ten directors.

With the advent and prevalence of majority voting for director elections, shareholders now have greater flexibility in supporting candidates for a company’s board of directors. Cumulative voting and majority voting are two different voting mechanisms designed to achieve two different outcomes. While cumulative voting promotes the interests of minority shareholders by allowing them to get some representation on the board, majority voting promotes a democratic election of directors for all shareholders and ensures board accountability in uncontested elections. Though different in philosophic view, cumulative voting and majority voting can work together operationally, with companies electing to use majority voting for uncontested elections and cumulative voting for contested elections to increase accountability and ensure minority representation on the board.

In contested elections, similar to cumulative voting, proxy access allows shareholder access to the ballot without a veto from the nominating committee, but unlike cumulative voting, it also requires majority support to elect such directors.

At controlled companies, where majority insider control would preclude minority shareholders from having any representation on the board, cumulative voting would allow such representation and shareholder proposals for cumulative voting would be supported.

• Generally vote AGAINST proposals to eliminate cumulative voting;

B-158

• Generally vote FOR proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting unless:

• The company has proxy access or a similar structure² to allow 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 (where insider voting power exceeds 50%).

Failure to Act on Shareholder Proposals Receiving Majority Support

• Generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from all director nominees at a company that has ignored a shareholder proposal that was approved by a majority of the votes cast at the last annual meeting.

Votes Against or Withholds from Directors for Shareholder Rights Plan (i.e. Poison Pills)

Institutional investors view shareholder rights plans, or poison pills, as among the most onerous of takeover defenses that may serve to entrench management and have a detrimental impact on their long-term share value. While recognizing that boards have a fiduciary duty to use all available means to protect shareholders’ interests, as a best governance principle, boards should seek shareholder ratification of a poison pill (or an amendment thereof) within a reasonable period, to ensure that the features of the poison pill support the interests of shareholders and do not merely serve as a management entrenchment device. Boards that fail to do so should be held accountable for ultimately disregarding shareholders’ interests. In applying this principle to voting in uncontested director elections, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services considers the term of the pill an important factor, as shorter term pills are generally less onerous as a takeover defense when compared to longer term pills, and may in some cases provide the board with a valuable tool to maximize shareholder value in the event of an opportunistic offer.

Companies that unilaterally adopt a long-term pill should be subject to a more frequent review –- at least once every three years, beginning the first year following the adoption and extending until the pill has expired or been redeemed. However, we believe special consideration must be given to the combination of a poison pill and a classified board; together they create a powerful anti-takeover and entrenchment device. Instead of only reviewing such companies every 3 years, an annual review is more appropriate. Under a 3-year review, the same class of directors would be receiving against or withhold recommendations, while the other 2 classes of directors would be shielded. An annual review would hold responsible all directors of classified boards for not putting the pill to a shareholder vote.

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from all nominees of the board of directors (except new nominees, who should be considered on a CASE-by-CASE basis) at a company that has a dead-hand or modified dead-hand poison pill in place. Vote AGAINST/WITHHOLD every year until this feature is removed;

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from all nominees of the board of directors (except new nominees, who should be considered on a CASE-by-CASE basis) if the board has adopted a poison pill with a term of more than 12 months (“long-term pill” ) or renewed any existing pill, including any “short-term” pill (12 months or less) without shareholder approval, and there is no requirement or commitment to put the pill to a binding shareholder vote. Review such companies with classified

² A similar structure would be a structure that allows shareholders to nominate candidates who the company will include on the management ballot in addition to management’s nominees, and their bios are included in management’s proxy.

B-159

boards every year, and such companies with annually-elected boards at least once every three years, and vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from all nominees if the company still maintains a non-shareholder-approved poison pill;

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from all nominees of the board of directors (except new nominees, who should be considered on a CASE-by-CASE basis) if the board makes a material, adverse change to an existing poison pill without shareholder approval;

• Vote CASE-By-CASE on all nominees if the board adopts a poison pill with a term of 12 months or less (“short-term pill”) without shareholder approval, taking into account the following factors:

• The date of the pill’s adoption relative to the date of next meeting of shareholders — i.e. whether the company had time to put the pill on ballot for shareholder ratification given the circumstances;

• The issuer’s rationale;

• The issuer’s governance structure and practices; and

• The issuer’s track record of accountability to shareholders.

Shareholder Access to the Proxy (“Open Access”)

The current director election process as it exists leaves much to be desired. Companies currently nominate for election only one candidate for each board seat. Shareholders who oppose a candidate have no easy way to do so unless they are willing to undertake the considerable expense of running an independent candidate for the board. The only way for shareholders to register symbolic dissent about a certain director candidate is to simply “withhold” support from that nominee. But because directors are typically elected by a plurality (those nominees receiving the most votes win board seats), company nominees running unopposed are reelected.

• Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis reasonably crafted shareholder proposals asking companies to voluntarily provide shareholders the ability to nominate director candidates to be included on management’s proxy card, taking into account the ownership threshold proposed in the resolution. Special consideration will be made at companies where there are legitimate concerns surrounding responsiveness to shareholders (such as not implementing majority-supported shareholder proposals), board and key committee independence, problematic governance and compensation practices, and past accounting or financial issues such as restatements.

Majority Threshold Voting Requirement for Director Elections

Shareholders have expressed strong support for precatory resolutions on majority threshold voting since 2005, with a number of proposals receiving majority support from shareholders. Taft-Hartley fiduciaries believe shareholders should have a greater voice in regard to the election of directors and view majority threshold voting as a viable alternative to the current deficiencies of the plurality system in the U.S.

• Generally support reasonably crafted shareholders proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g. in contested elections).

• Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may recommend withhold/against votes on members of the board at companies without the carve-out for plurality voting in contested elections, as the use of a majority vote standard can act as an anti-takeover defense in contested elections. (e.g. although the dissident nominees may have received more shares cast, as long as the combination of withhold/against votes and the votes for the management nominees keep the dissident nominees under 50%, the management nominees will win, due to the holdover rules). This is clearly contradicts the expressed will of shareholders.

B-160

• In addition to supporting proposals seeking a majority vote standard in director elections, we also support a post-election “director resignation policy” that addresses the situation of holdover directors to accommodate both shareholder proposals and the need for stability and continuity of the board.

Establish An Office of the Board

• Generally vote FOR shareholders proposals requesting that the board establish an Office of the Board of Directors in order to facilitate direct communication between shareholders and non-management directors, unless the company has effectively demonstrated via public disclosure that it already has an established structure in place.

Director and Officer Indemnification ~ Liability Protection

Management proposals typically seek shareholder approval to adopt an amendment to the company’s charter to eliminate or limit the personal liability of directors to the company and its shareholders for monetary damages for any breach of fiduciary duty to the fullest extent permitted by state law. In contrast, shareholder proposals seek to provide for personal monetary liability for fiduciary breaches arising from gross negligence.

Each proposal addressing director liability will be evaluated consistent with this philosophy. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may support these proposals when the company persuasively argues that such action is necessary to attract and retain directors, but we may often oppose management proposals and support shareholder proposals in order to promote greater director accountability.

• Vote AGAINST proposals to limit or eliminate entirely director and officer liability in regards to: (i) breach of the director’s fiduciary “duty of loyalty” to shareholders; (ii) acts or omissions not made in “good faith” or involving intentional misconduct or knowledge of violations under the law; (iii) acts involving the unlawful purchases or redemptions of stock; (iv) payment of unlawful dividends; or (v) use of the position as director for receipt of improper personal benefits.

Indemnification

Indemnification is the payment by a company of the expenses of directors who become involved in litigation as a result of their service to a company. Proposals to indemnify a company’s directors differ from those to eliminate or reduce their liability because with indemnification directors may still be liable for an act or omission, but the company will bear the expense. Taft-Hartley fiduciaries may support these proposals when the company persuasively argues that such action is necessary to attract and retain directors, but will generally oppose indemnification when it is being proposed to insulate directors from actions that have already occurred.

• Vote AGAINST indemnification proposals that would expand individual coverage beyond ordinary legal expenses to also cover specific acts of negligence which exceed the standard of mere carelessness that is regularly covered in board fiduciary indemnification;

• Vote FOR only those proposals which provide expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if: (1) the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he/she reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and (2) only if the director’s legal expenses would be covered.

COMPENSATION

The housing market collapse and resulting credit crisis have resulted in significant erosion of shareholder value, unprecedented levels of market volatility, and continuing lack of confidence among financial market participants. Many Taft-Hartley trustees are questioning the role of executive compensation in incentivizing inappropriate or excessive risk-taking behavior by executives that could threaten a corporation’s long-term viability. Further, generous severance packages and other payments to departing executives of failed institutions have heightened attention on the issue of pay for performance.

B-161

Trustees of Taft-Hartley funds, which have lost significant value in their investments as a result of the financial crisis, have little patience for “pay for failure” and continue to press for the adoption of executive compensation practices aimed at creating and sustaining long-term shareholder value.

Companies have long argued that legally binding executive compensation obligations cannot be modified. The Capital Purchase Program implemented under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the “bail out” program for the U.S. financial system, set the tone for executive compensation reform and requires participating firms to accept certain limits and requirements on executive compensation, regardless of existing contractual arrangements. A number of firms have agreed to these requirements.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that executive pay programs should be fair, competitive, reasonable, and appropriate, and that pay for performance should be a central tenet in executive compensation philosophy.

Examples of best pay practices include:

Employment contracts: Companies should enter into employment contracts under limited circumstances for a short time period (e.g., new executive hires for a three-year contract) for limited executives. The contracts should not have automatic renewal feature and should have a specified termination date.

Severance agreements: Severance provisions should not be so appealing that they become an incentive for the executive to be terminated. The severance formula should be reasonable and not overly generous to the executive (e.g., use maximum severance multiple of 3X pay; use pro-rated target/average historical bonus and not maximum bonus). Failure to renew employment contract, termination under questionable events or for poor performance should not constitute “good reason” for termination with severance payments.

Change-in-control payments: Change-in-control payments should be “double-triggered” — i.e. be payouts should only made when there is a significant change in company ownership structure, and when there is a loss of employment or substantial change in job duties associated with the change in company ownership structure. Change-in-control provisions should exclude excise tax gross-ups and should not authorize the acceleration of vesting of equity awards upon a change in control unless provided under a double-trigger scenario. Similarly, change in control provisions in equity plans should be double-triggered. A change in control event should not result in an acceleration of vesting of all unvested stock options or lapsing of vesting/performance requirements on restricted stock/performance shares, unless there is a loss of employment or substantial change in job duties.

Supplemental executive retirement plans (SERPs): SERPs should not include sweeteners that can increase the payout value significantly or even exponentially, such as additional years of service credited for pension calculations, or inclusion of variable pay (e.g. bonuses and equity awards) into the formula. Pension formulas should not include extraordinary annual bonuses paid close to the time of retirement and should be based on an average, not the maximum, level of compensation earned.

Deferred compensation: Above-market returns or guaranteed minimum returns should not be applied on deferred compensation.

Disclosure practices: The Compensation, Discussion and Analysis should be written in plain English, with as little “legalese” as possible and formatted using section headers, bulleted lists, tables and charts where possible to ease reader comprehension. Ultimately, the document should provide detail and rationale regarding compensation, strategy, pay mix, goals/metrics, challenges, competition and pay for performance linkage, etc. in a narrative fashion.

Responsible use of company stock: Companies should adopt policies that prohibit executives from speculating in company’s stock or using company stock in hedging activities, such as “cashless” collars, forward

B-162

sales, equity swaps or other similar arrangements. Such behavior undermines the ultimate alignment with long-term shareholders’ interests. In addition, the policy should prohibit or discourage the use of company stock as collateral for margin loans, to avoid any potential sudden stock sales (required upon margin calls) that could have a negative impact on the company’s stock price.

Long-term focus: Executive compensation programs should be designed to support companies’ long-term strategic goals. A short-term focus on performance does not necessarily create sustainable shareholder value. Instead, long-term goals may be sacrificed to achieve short-term expectations to the detriment of shareholder value, as evidenced by the financial crisis.

Compensation programs embedding a long-term focus with respect to company goals better align with the long-term interests of shareholders. Granting stock options and restricted stock to executives that vest in five years does not necessarily provide a long-term focus, as executives can sell off the company shares once they vest. However, requiring senior executives to hold company stock until retirement or after retirement can encourage a long-term focus on company performance.

Stock Option Plans

Compensation to executive and other senior level employees should be strongly correlated to sustained performance. Stock options, restricted stock and other forms of non-cash compensation should be performance-based with an eye toward improving long-term corporate value. Well-designed stock option plans can align the interests of executives and shareholders by providing that executives benefit when stock prices rise so that the employees of the company, along with shareholders, prosper together. Likewise, option plans should not allow for the benefits of share price gains without the risk of share price declines. Poorly designed stock option plans can encourage excessive risk-taking behavior and incentivize executives to pursue corporate strategies that promote short-term stock price to the ultimate detriment of long-term shareholder value.

Many plans sponsored by management provide goals so easily attained that executives can realize massive rewards even though shareholder value is not created. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports option plans when they provide legitimately challenging performance targets that serve to truly motivate executives in the pursuit of sustained superior performance. Moreover, equity pay plans should be designed in a fashion that ensures executive compensation is veritably performance driven and “at risk” such that executives are penalized (by either reducing or withholding compensation) for failure to meet pre-determined performance hurdles. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose those plans that offer unreasonable benefits to executives that are not generally available to other shareholders or employees.

Methodology for Analyzing Pay Plans

The theory that stock options are beneficial to shareholders because they motivate management and align the interests of investors with those of executives is no longer held sacrosanct. Indeed, many academic studies have found that there is limited correlation between executive stock ownership and company performance. Misused stock options can give executives an incentive to inflate their company’s earnings, take excessive risks, and make irresponsibly optimistic forecasts in order to keep stock prices high and their paychecks gargantuan.

Therefore, it is vital for shareholders to fully analyze all equity plans that appear on ballot. In general, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services evaluates executive and director compensation plans on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. When evaluating equity-based compensation items on ballot, the following elements will be considered:

Primary Considerations:

• Dilution: Vote AGAINST plans in which the potential voting power dilution (VPD) of all shares outstanding exceeds ten percent;

B-163

• Full Market Value: Awards must be granted at 100 percent of fair market value on the date of grant. However, in instances when a plan is open to broad-based employee participation and excludes the five most highly compensated employees, we accept a 15 percent discount;

• Burn Rate: Vote AGAINST plans where the annual burn rate exceeds industry and index burn rates over a three-year period;

• Liberal Definition of Change-in-Control: Vote AGAINST equity plans if the plan provides for the accelerated vesting of equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur. Examples of such a definition could 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;

• Problematic Pay Practices: Vote AGAINST equity plans if the plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices (e.g. if the plan allows for change-in-control payouts that are single triggered).

Secondary Considerations:

• Executive Concentration Ratio: Vote AGAINST plans where the annual grant rate to the top five executives (“named officers”) exceeds one percent of shares outstanding;

• Pay-For-Performance Metric: Vote AGAINST plans where CEO pay and the company’s performance is incongruous, as measured against industry peers over one and three-year periods, or if the performance criteria is not disclosed;

• Evergreen Features: Vote AGAINST plans that reserve a specified percentage of outstanding shares for award each year instead of having a termination date;

• Repricing: Vote AGAINST plans if the company’s policy permits repricing of “underwater” options or if the company has a history of repricing past options;

• Loans: Vote AGAINST the plan if the plan administrator may provide loans to officers to assist in exercising the awards.

Voting Power Dilution (VPD) Calculation

Voting power dilution, or VPD, measures the amount of voting power represented by the number of shares reserved over the life of the plan. Industry norm dictates that ten percent dilution over the life of a ten-year plan is reasonable for most mature companies. Restricted stock plans or stand-alone stock bonus plans that are not coupled with stock option plans can be held to a lower dilution cap.

Voting power dilution may be calculated using the following formula:

A: Shares reserved for this amendment or plan;

B: Shares available under this plan and/or continuing plans prior to proposed amendment;

C: Shares granted but unexercised under this plan and/or continuing plans;

D: All outstanding shares plus any convertible equity, outstanding warrants, or debt.

The formula can be applied as follows:	A + B + C
	A + B + C + D

Fair Market Value, Dilution and Repricing

Consideration will be made as to whether the proposed plan is being offered at fair market value or at a discount; whether the plan excessively dilutes the earnings per share of the outstanding shares; and whether the plan gives management the ability to replace or reprice “underwater” options. Repricing is an amendment to a

B-164

previously granted stock option contract that reduces the option exercise price. Options are “underwater” when their current price is below the current option contract price. Options can also be repriced through cancellations and re-grants. The typical new grant would have a ten-year term, new vesting restrictions, and a lower exercise price reflecting the current lower market price.

Burn Rate

The annual burn rate is a measure of dilution that illustrates how rapidly a company is deploying shares reserved for equity compensation plans. The burn or run rate is calculated by dividing the number of shares pursuant to awards granted in a given year by the number of shares outstanding. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services benchmarks a company’s burn rate against three-year industry and primary index burn rates, and generally oppose plans whose average three-year burn rates exceed the greater of: (1) the mean plus one standard deviation of the company’s GICS group segmented by Russell 3000 index and non-Russell 3000 index; or (2) two percent of weighted common shares outstanding. The three-year burn rate policy does not apply to non-employee director plans unless outside directors receive a significant portion of shares each year.

Executive Concentration Ratio

In examining stock option awards, restricted stock and other forms of long-term incentives, it is important to consider internal pay equity; that is, the concentration and distribution of equity awards to a company’s top five executives (“named officers”) as a percentage of overall grants. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider voting against equity compensation plans whose annual grant rate to top executives exceeds one percent of shares outstanding.

Principle of Pay-For-Performance

Stock-based pay is often the main driver for excessive executive compensation, which is fueled by poor administration of the plan. Therefore, it is important to closely examine any discrepancies between increases in CEO pay and total shareholder returns against those of peer firms over a one- three- and five-year timeframe in assessing equity-based compensation plans.

Significant disparities between pay and performance warrants votes against or withholding from Compensation Committee members who are responsible for overseeing the company’s compensation schemes, or the entire board if the whole board was involved in and contributed to egregious compensation practices. If the equity component is the source of the imbalance, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider opposing the equity plan in which the CEO participates.

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the Compensation Committee members when the company has a pay-for-performance disconnect.

Evergreen Provisions

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose plans that reserve a specified percentage of outstanding shares for award each year (evergreen plans) instead of having a termination date. Such plans provide for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant with or without limits on an annual basis. Because they represent a transfer of shareholder value and have a dilutive impact on a regular basis, evergreen plans are expensive to shareholders. Evergreen features also minimize the frequency that companies seek shareholder approval in increasing the number of shares available under the plan.

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice options taking into consideration the following factors:

• 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;

B-165

• Rationale for the re-pricing: was the stock price decline beyond management’s control?

• 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: the plan should be broad-based and executive officers and directors should be excluded;

• Is this a value-for-value exchange?

• Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?

If the surrendered options are added back to the equity plans for re-issuance, then we will also take into consideration the impact on the company’s equity plans and its three-year average burn rate.

In addition to the above considerations, we will 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. We do not view market deterioration, in and of itself, as an acceptable reason for companies to reprice stock options and/or reset goals under performance plans. Repricing after a recent decline in stock price triggers additional scrutiny and may warrant a vote AGAINST the proposal. At a minimum, the decline should not have happened within the past year. 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.

Problematic Compensation Practices and Compensation Committee Performance

Poor disclosure, the absence or non-transparency of disclosure and poor plan design of compensation payouts lead to excessive executive compensation practices that are detrimental to shareholders. Poorly designed plans or those lacking in transparency can be reflective of a poorly performing compensation committee.

Companies are expected to meet a minimum standard of tally sheet disclosure as to allow shareholders to readily assess the total executive pay package, understand the actual linkage between pay and performance, and mitigate misinformation to shareholders. The SEC has issued rules on executive and director compensation that require expansive disclosure and a total compensation figure for each of the named executive officers.

Executive compensation will continue to be in the spotlight in the ensuing years, particularly when shareholders will have access to more complete information. In the absence of disclosure that would necessitate a higher level of scrutiny, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may also consider voting against or withholding from the compensation committee for failure to provide pertinent information in the Comensasion Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) report.

• Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider voting AGAINST or WITHHOLDING votes from compensation committee members and/or the CEO on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the company has problematic compensation practices. In addition, we may consider a vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD vote from the entire board if the whole board was involved in and contributed to egregious compensation. Problematic compensation practices include, but are not limited to, the following:

Non-Performance based Compensation Elements

• Multi-year guarantees for salary increases, non-performance based bonuses, and equity compensation;

B-166

• Egregious SERP (Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans) payouts (e.g. inclusion of additional years of service not earned or inclusion of performance-based equity awards in the pension calculation);

• Excessive perks for current, former and/or retired executives (e.g. personal use of corporate aircraft, personal security systems maintenance and/or installation, car allowances, extraordinary relocation benefits, and/or other inappropriate arrangements);

• Income tax reimbursements (gross-ups) for any executive perquisites or other payments;

• Excessive severance and/or change-in-control provisions (e.g. payments upon an executive’s termination in connection with performance failure, provisions for the payment of excise tax gross-ups (including modified gross-ups) and/or modified single-triggers — under which an executive may voluntarily depart for any reason and still receive change-in-control severance payments — );

• Change-in-control payouts without loss of job or substantial diminution of job duties (“single-triggers”);

• Liberal change-in-control definitions in individual contracts or equity plans which could result in payments to executives without an actual change in control occurring;

• Payment of dividends or dividend equivalents on unvested/unearned performance awards;

• Executives using company stock in hedging activities, such as “cashless” collars, forward sales, equity swaps or other similar arrangements;

• Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/stock appreciation rights without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender/subsequent regrant of underwater options);

• Performance metrics that are changed, canceled or replaced during the performance period without adequate explanation of the action and the link to performance;

• New CEO with overly generous new hire package (e.g., including excessive “make whole” provisions).

Incentives that may Motivate Excessive Risk-Taking

• Guaranteed bonuses or other abnormally large bonus payouts without justifiable performance linkage or appropriate disclosure;

• Mega annual equity grants that provide unlimited upside with no downside risk;

• A single performance metric used for short- and long-term plans;

• High pay opportunities relative to industry peers;

• Disproportionate supplemental pensions.

Factors that potentially mitigate the impact of risky incentives include rigorous claw-back provisions, robust stock ownership/holding guidelines, and substantive bonus deferral/escrowing programs.

Other Problematic Practices

• Poor Disclosure Practices (e.g. unclear explanation of how the CEO is involved in the pay setting process, retrospective performance targets and methodology not discussed, methodology for benchmarking practices and/or peer group not disclosed and explained);

• Internal pay disparity (excessive differential between CEO total pay and that of next highest-paid named executive officer);

B-167

• Options backdating (covered in a separate policy);

• Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics;

• Failure to respond to concerns raised in connection with significant opposition to Management Say on Pay proposals.

Moreover, if there is an equity plan proposal on the ballot and the plan is a vehicle for poor pay practices, we may consider voting against the proposal based on past compensation practices.

Restricted Stock

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the use of performance-vesting restricted stock as long as the absolute amount of restricted stock being granted is a reasonable proportion of an executive’s overall compensation. The best way to align the interests of executives with shareholders is through direct stock holdings, coupled with at-risk variable compensation that is tied to explicit and challenging performance benchmarks. Performance-vesting restricted stock both adds to executives direct share holdings and incorporates at-risk features.

To reward performance and not job tenure, restricted stock vesting requirements should be performance-based rather than time lapsing. Such plans should explicitly define the performance criteria for awards to senior executives and may include a variety of corporate performance measures in addition to the use of stock price targets. In addition, executives should be required to hold their vested restricted stock as long as they remain employees of the company.

Executive Holding Periods

Senior level executives should be required to hold a substantial portion of their equity compensation awards, including shares received from option exercises (e.g. 75% of their after-tax stock option proceeds), while they are employed at a company or even into retirement. Equity compensation awards are intended to align management interests with those of shareholders, and allowing executives to sell these shares while they are employees of the company undermines this purpose. Given the large size of a typical annual equity compensation award, holding requirements that are based on a multiple of cash compensation may be inadequate.

Performance-Based Options

Stock options are intended to align the interests of management with those of shareholders. However, stock option grants without performance-based elements can excessively compensate executives for stock increases due solely to a general stock market rise, rather than improved or superior company stock performance. When option grants reach the hundreds of thousands, a relatively small increase in the share price may permit executives to reap millions of dollars without providing material benefits to shareholders.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services advocates for performance-based awards — such as premium-priced or indexed — which encourage executives to outperform peers, certain indices, or the broader market rather than being rewarded for any minimal rise in the share price, which can occur if there are not empirical performance measures incorporated into the structure of the options. Additionally, it should be noted that performance-accelerated vesting and premium priced options allow fixed plan accounting, whereas performance-vested and indexed options entail certain expensing requirements.

• Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals that seek to provide for performance-based options such as indexed and/or premium priced options.

B-168

Options Backdating

Options backdating has serious implications and has resulted in financial restatements, delisting of companies, and/or the termination of executives or directors. When options backdating has taken place, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may recommend voting AGAINST or WITHHOLDING from the compensation committee, depending on the severity of the practices and the subsequent corrective actions on the part of the board. We will adopt a CASE-BY-CASE approach to the options backdating issue to differentiate companies that had sloppy administration vs. those that had committed fraud, as well as those companies which have since taken corrective action. Instances in which companies have committed fraud are more disconcerting, and Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will look to them to adopt formal policies to ensure that such practices will not reoccur in the future.

In recommending votes against or withhold votes from the compensation committee members who oversaw the questionable options grant practices or from current compensation committee members who fail to respond to the issue proactively, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider several factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

• 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 repricing backdated options, or recoupment of option gains on backdated grants;

• Adoption of a grant policy that prohibits backdating, and creation of a fixed grant schedule or window period for equity grants going forward.

Pension Plan Income Accounting

• Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals to exclude pension plan income in the calculation of earnings used in determining executive bonuses/compensation.

Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay

• Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information;

• Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals that seek to eliminate outside directors’ retirement benefits;

• Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis all other shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay. This includes shareholder proposals that seek to link executive compensation to customer, employee, or stakeholder satisfaction.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Shareholder Proposals

• Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that call for non-binding shareholder ratification of the compensation of the Named Executive Officers and the accompanying narrative disclosure of material factors provided to understand the Summary Compensation Table.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Management Proposals

• Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals for an advisory vote on executive compensation, considering the following factors:

• Evaluation of performance metrics in short-term and long-term plans, considering i) the measures, goals, and target awards reported by the company for executives’ short- and long-term incentive

B-169

awards; ii) whether the metrics are disclosed; iii) whether the company explains their alignment with the company’s business strategy; and iv) whether the goals appear to be sufficiently challenging in relation to resulting payouts.

• Evaluation of peer group benchmarking used to set target pay or award opportunities, including i) the rationale stated by the company for constituents in its pay benchmarking peer group; and ii) as the benchmark targets it uses to set or validate executives’ pay.

• Balance of performance-based versus non-performance-based pay, considering i) the ratio of performance-based versus non-performance-based CEO pay elements; ii) presence of concerns about other compensation factors such as performance metrics/goals, benchmarking practices, and pay-for-performance disconnects.

• Prescence of problematic pay practices (see Problematic Compensation Practices above)

• Poor compensation disclosure practices.

• Vote AGAINST management say on pay proposals where there is a misalignment between CEO pay and company performance, the company maintains problematic pay practices, the board exhibits poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders or if the board has failed to demonstrate good stewardship of investors’ interests regarding executive compensation practices.

Compensation Consultants — Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

• 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.

Golden and Tin Parachutes

Golden parachutes are designed to protect the employees of a corporation in the event of a change-in-control. Under most golden parachute agreements, senior level management employees receive a lump sum payout triggered by a change-in-control at usually two to three times their current base salary. Increasingly, companies that have golden parachute agreements for senior level executives are extending coverage for all their employees via “tin” parachutes. The SEC requires disclosure of all golden parachute arrangements in the proxy statement, while disclosure of tin parachutes in company filings is not required at this time.

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals to all have golden parachute agreements submitted for shareholder ratification;

• Generally vote AGAINST all proposals to ratify golden parachutes;

• Vote on tin parachutes on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Executive Perks and Retirement/Death Benefits

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports enhanced disclosure and shareholder oversight of executive benefits and other in-kind retirement perquisites. For example, compensation devices like executive pensions (SERPs), deferred compensation plans, below-market-rate loans or guaranteed post-retirement consulting fees can amount to significant liabilities to shareholders and it is often difficult for investors to find adequate disclosure of their full terms. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes any perquisite or benefit to executives that exceeds what is generally offered to other company employees. From a shareholder prospective, the cost of these executive entitlements would be better allocated to performance-based forms of executive compensation during their term in office.

• 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.

B-170

• Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals calling companies to adopt a policy of discontinuing or 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 that the broad-based employee population is eligible.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

An Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) is an employee benefit plan that makes the employees of a company also owners of stock in that company. Recent academic research of the performance of ESOPs in closely held companies found that ESOPs appear to increase overall sales, employment, and sales per employee over what would have been expected absent an ESOP. Studies have also found that companies with an ESOP are also more likely to still be in business several years later, and are more likely to have other retirement oriented benefit plans than comparable non-ESOP companies.

• Vote FOR proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is deemed excessive (i.e. generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares).

OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals

• Vote FOR amendments that place a cap on annual grants or amend administrative features;

• Vote FOR plans that simply amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants that any one participant may receive in order to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

Amendments to Add Performance-Based Goals

Section 162(m) of the IRS Code Section limits the deductibility of compensation in excess of $1 million to a named executive officer unless certain prescribed actions are taken including shareholder approval and the establishment of performance goals.

• Vote FOR amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA, unless they are inappropriate.

Amendments to Increase Shares and Retain Tax Deductions Under OBRA

Amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans

• Generally vote AGAINST cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA if the plan provides for awards to individual participants in excess of $2 million a year;

• Vote AGAINST plans that are deemed to be excessive because they are not justified by performance measures;

• Vote AGAINST plans if the compensation committee does not fully consist of independent outsiders, as defined by Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ definition of director independence.

[this part of page intentionally left blank]

B-171

AUDITORS

Auditors play an integral role in certifying the integrity and reliability of corporate financial statements on which investors rely to gauge the financial well being of a company and the viability of an investment. The well-documented auditor-facilitated bankruptcies and scandals at several large public companies in recent years underscore the catastrophic consequences that investors can suffer when the audit process breaks down.

Auditor Independence

The recent wave of accounting scandals at companies illuminate the need to ensure auditor independence in the face of selling consulting services to audit clients. At the large four accounting firms, revenues from non-audit services grew from 13% of total revenues in 1981 to half of total revenue in 2000. A study of over 1,200 US companies in the S&P 500, Mid Cap, and Small Cap indices found that 72% of fees paid to auditors in 2002 were for non-audit services, exactly the same level as 2001. We believe that this ratio should be reversed and that non-audit fees should make up no more than one-quarter of all fees paid to the auditor so as to properly discourage even the appearance of any undue influence upon an auditor’s objectivity.

Under SEC rules, disclosed categories of professional fees paid for audit and non-audit services are as follows: (1) Audit Fees, (2) Audit-Related Fees, (3) Tax Fees, and (4) All Other Fees. Under the revised reporting requirements, a company will also be required to describe — in qualitative terms — the types of services provided under the three categories other than Audit Fees. The following fee categories are defined as: A) tax compliance or preparation fees are excluded from our calculations of non-audit fees; and B) fees for consulting services for tax-avoidance strategies and tax shelters will be included in “other fees” and will be considered non-audit fees if the proxy disclosure does not indicate the nature of the tax services. In circumstances where “Other” fees include fees related to significant one-time capital structure events: initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs; and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees which 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.

As auditors are the backbone upon which a company’s financial health is measured, auditor independence is absolutely essential for rendering objective opinions upon which investors then rely. When an auditor is paid excessive consulting fees in addition to fees paid for auditing, the company-auditor relationship is left open to conflicts of interest.

Auditor Ratification

The ratification of auditors is an important component of good governance. In light of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and increased shareholder scrutiny, some companies are opting to take auditor ratification off the ballot. Neglecting to include the ratification of auditors on the proxy takes away the fundamental shareholder tight to ratify the company’s choice of auditor. Whereas shareholder ratification of auditors was once considered routine by many shareowners, the subsequent accounting scandals have caused shareholders to be more vigilant about the integrity of the auditors certifying their companies’ financial statements. It is now viewed as best practice for companies to place the item on ballot.

Although U.S. companies are not legally required to allow shareholders to ratify their appointment of independent auditors, roughly 60% of S&P 500 companies allow for shareholder ratification of their auditors. Submission of the audit firm for approval at the annual meeting on an annual basis gives shareholders the means to weigh in on their satisfaction (or lack thereof) on the auditor’s independent execution of their duties.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services firmly believes mandatory auditor ratification is in line with sound and transparent corporate governance and remains an important mechanism to ensure the integrity of the auditor’s

B-172

work. In the absence of legislation mandating shareholder ratification of auditors, the failure by a company to present its selection of auditors for shareholder ratification should be discouraged as it undermines good governance and disenfranchises shareholders.

Proposals to ratify auditors is examined for potential conflicts of interest, with particular attention to the fees paid to the auditor, as well as whether the ratification of auditors has been put up for shareholder vote.

• Vote FOR proposals to ratify auditors when the amount of audit fees is equal to or greater than three times (75 percent) the amount paid for consulting, unless: i) An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or ii) There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;

• Vote AGAINST proposals to ratify auditors when the amount of non-audit consulting fees exceeds a quarter of all fees paid to the auditor;

• Generally support shareholder proposals seeking to limit companies from buying consulting services from their auditor.

Auditor Rotation

Long-term relationships between auditors and their clients can impede auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism. Such long-standing relationships foster an undesirable coziness between audit firms and their clients, which can cause the auditors to lose their independence and become less questioning especially where lucrative contracts for the provision of non-audit consulting services are involved. Mandatory auditor rotation is a widely supported safeguard against improper audits and is viewed by many as an effective mechanism for mitigating the potential risks borne by long-term auditor-client relationships.

Proponents of compulsory audit firm rotation contend that rotation policies promote objectivity and independence among auditors and minimize the scope of vested interests developing in the audit. Opponents of audit firm rotation argue that regular re-tendering is a costly practice, likely to reduce audit quality and increase the risk of audit failure in the early years due to the time required to gain cumulative knowledge of an often complex and geographically diverse business. A solution around this apparent negative effect of mandatory rotation is to keep a longer rotation period.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services recommends that companies not maintain the same audit firm in excess of seven years, and will consider voting against auditors if their tenure at a company exceeds seven years. A revolving seven-year rotation period allows the auditor to develop cumulative knowledge of a company’s business and the effect of changes in the business along with the corresponding changes in its risks, thereby enhancing the quality of the audit and trammeling potential loss of auditor objectivity and independence. Many institutional investors argue that the increased costs associated with compulsory auditor rotation are a lesser evil vis-à-vis the larger evil of the costs to shareholders when the objectionable coziness between clients and long-standing auditors leads to gross erosion of shareholder value.

• Generally support shareholder proposals to ensure auditor independence through measures such as mandatory auditor rotation (no less than every seven years).

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

Indemnification clauses allow auditors to avoid liability for potential damages, including punitive damages. Eliminating concerns about being sued for carelessness could lead to; 1) potential impairment of external auditor independence and impartiality by contractual clauses limiting their liability; and 2) a decrease the quality and reliability of the audit given the lack of consequence for an inadequate audit.

B-173

Given the substantial settlements against auditors in recent years for poor audit practices and the cost of such insurance to the company and its shareholders, there are legitimate concerns over the broader use of indemnification clauses. Such agreements may weaken the objectivity, impartiality and performance of audit firms. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes it is important for shareholders to understand the full risks and implications of these agreements and determine what impact they could have on shareholder value. At the present time, however, due to poor disclosure in this area, it is difficult to identify the existence and extent of limited liability provisions and auditor agreements, and investors lack the information needed to make informed decisions regarding these agreements.

Without uniform disclosure, it is difficult to consistently apply policy and make informed vote recommendations. As such, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews the use of indemnification clauses and limited liability provisions in auditor agreements on a case-by-case basis, when disclosure is present.

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from Audit Committee members if 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.

Disclosures Under Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that companies document and assess the effectiveness of their internal financial controls. Beginning in 2005, most public companies must obtain annual attestation of the effectiveness of their internal controls over financial reporting from their outside auditors. Companies with significant material weaknesses identified in the Section 404 disclosures potentially have ineffective internal financial reporting controls, which may lead to inaccurate financial statements, hampering shareholders’ ability to make informed investment decisions, and may lead to destruction of public confidence and shareholder value. The Audit Committee is ultimately responsible for the integrity and reliability of the company’s financial information and its system of internal controls.

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from Audit Committee members under certain circumstances when a material weakness rises to a level of serious concern, if there are chronic internal control issues, or if there is an absence of established effective control mechanisms;

• Vote AGAINST management proposals to ratify auditors if there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;

Adverse Opinions

An Adverse Opinion on the company’s financial statements is issued when the auditor determines that the financial statements are materially misstated and, when considered as a whole, do not conform to GAAP. It essentially states that the information contained is materially incorrect, unreliable, and inaccurate in order to assess the company’s financial position and results of operations.

Adverse opinions on companies’ financial statements are generally very rare because they essentially state that a significant portion of the financial statements are unreliable and the auditor had no choice but to issue an adverse opinion after a long process of seeking resolution with the company subjected to the audit.

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from Audit Committee members if the company receives an Adverse Opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditors.

[this part of page intentionally left blank]

B-174

TAKEOVER DEFENSES

Poison Pills

Shareholder rights plans, typically known as poison pills, take the form of rights or warrants issued to shareholders and are triggered when a potential acquiring stockholder reaches a certain threshold of ownership. When triggered, poison pills generally allow shareholders to purchase shares from, or sell shares back to, the target company (“flip-in-pill”) and/or the potential acquirer (“flip-out-pill”) at a price far out of line with fair market value.

Depending on the type of pill, the triggering event can either transfer wealth from the target company or dilute the equity holdings of current shareholders. Poison pills insulate management from the threat of a change in control and provide the target board with veto power over takeover bids. Because poison pills greatly alter the balance of power between shareholders and management, shareholders should be allowed to make their own evaluation of such plans.

In evaluating management proposals on poison pills, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services consider the company’s rationale for adopting the pill and its existing governance structure in determining whether or not the pill appropriately serves in shareholders’ best interests. The rationale for adopting the pill should be thoroughly explained by the company. Additionally, we examine the company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, or any problematic governance concerns.

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification;

• Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill;

• Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill;

• Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from any board where a dead-hand poison pill provision is in place. From a shareholder perspective, there is no justification for a dead-hand provision. Directors of companies with these lethal protective devices should be held fully accountable.

Net operating losses (NOL) pills, which are used to preserve a tax benefit (as opposed to traditional poison pills which are used as a takeover defense), typically have low triggers that some shareholders have difficulty supporting. This lack of support may have the effect of discouraging issuers from seeking shareholder approval for such pills. In assessing NOL pills, we take into account the unique purpose and features of NOL pills to enable shareholders make informed decisions when presented with proposals to adopt such pills, and to encourage issuers to submit such pills to a shareholder vote.

For management proposals to adopt a poison pill for the stated purpose of preserving a company’s net operating losses (“NOL pills”), the following factors are considered on a CASE-BY-CASE following basis:

• The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL pills generally have a trigger slightly below 5%);

• The value of the NOLs;

• The term;

• 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.

B-175

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 shares, the practice discriminates against most shareholders. This transferred cash, absent the greenmail payment, could be put to much better use for reinvestment in the company, payment of dividends, or to fund a public share repurchase program.

• Vote FOR proposals to adopt an anti-greenmail provision in their charter or bylaws that would thereby restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments to certain shareholders;

• Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis all anti-greenmail proposals when they are presented as bundled items with other charter or bylaw amendments.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors

Shareholder ability to remove directors, with or without cause, is either prescribed by a state’s business corporation law, individual company’s articles of incorporation, or its corporate bylaws. Many companies have sought shareholder approval for charter or bylaw amendments that would prohibit the removal of directors except for cause, thus ensuring that directors would retain their directorship for their full-term unless found guilty of self-dealing. By requiring cause to be demonstrated through due process, management insulates the directors from removal even if a director has been performing poorly, not attending meetings, or not acting in the best interests of shareholders.

• Vote AGAINST proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause;

• Vote FOR proposals which seek to restore the authority of shareholders to remove directors with or without cause;

• Vote AGAINST proposals that provide only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies;

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

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board

Proposals that would allow management to increase or decrease the size of the board at its own discretion are often used by companies as a takeover defense. Proposals to fix the size of the board at a specific number can prevent management from increasing the board size without shareholder approval when facing a proxy context. By increasing the size of the board, management can make it more difficult for dissidents to gain control of the board. Fixing the size of the board also prevents a reduction in the size of the board as a strategy to oust independent directors. Fixing board size also prevents management from increasing the number of directors in order to dilute the effects of cumulative voting.

• Vote FOR proposals that seek to fix the size of the board within an acceptable range;

• Vote AGAINST proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS

Confidential Voting

The confidential ballot ensures that voters are not subject to real or perceived coercion. In an open voting system, management can determine who has voted against its nominees or proposals before a final vote count. As a result, shareholders can be pressured to vote with management at companies with which they maintain or would like to establish a business relationship.

B-176

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, the use of independent tabulators, and the use of independent inspectors for an election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests. In the case of a contested election, management is permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived;

• Vote FOR management proposals to adopt confidential voting procedures.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

Most state corporation statutes allow shareholders to call a special meeting when they want to take action on certain matters that arise between regularly scheduled annual meetings. Sometimes this right applies only if a shareholder or a group of shareholders own a specified percentage of shares, with ten percent being the most common. Shareholders may lose the ability to remove directors, initiate a shareholder resolution, or respond to a beneficial offer without having to wait for the next scheduled meeting if they are unable to act at a special meeting of their own calling.

• Vote AGAINST proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings;

• Vote FOR proposals that remove restrictions on the right of shareholders to act independently of management;

• Vote AGAINST provisions that would require advance notice of more than sixty days.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

Consent solicitations allow shareholders to vote on and respond to shareholder and management proposals by mail without having to act at a physical meeting. A consent card is sent by mail for shareholder approval and only requires a signature for action. Some corporate bylaws require supermajority votes for consents, while at others standard annual meeting rules apply. Shareholders may lose the ability to remove directors, initiate a shareholder resolution, or respond to a beneficial offer without having to wait for the next scheduled meeting if they are unable to act at a special meeting of their own calling.

• Vote AGAINST proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent;

• Vote FOR proposals to allow or make easier shareholder action by written consent.

Unequal Voting Rights

Incumbent managers are able to use unequal voting rights through the creation of a separate class of shares that has superior voting rights to the common shares of regular shareholders. This separate class of shares with disproportionate voting power allows management to concentrate its power and insulate itself from the wishes of the majority of shareholders. Dual class exchange offers involve a transfer of voting rights from one group of shareholders to another group of shareholders typically through the payment of a preferential dividend. A dual class recapitalization plan also establishes two classes of common stock with unequal voting rights, but initially involves an equal distribution of preferential and inferior voting shares to current shareholders.

• Vote FOR resolutions that seek to maintain or convert to a one-share-one-vote capital structure;

• Vote AGAINST requests for the creation or continuation of dual class capital structures or the creation of new or additional super-voting shares.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws

Supermajority shareholder vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments are often the result of “lock-in” votes, which are the votes required to repeal new provisions to the corporate charter. Supermajority

B-177

provisions violate the principle that a simple majority of voting shares should be all that is necessary to effect change regarding a company and its corporate governance provisions. Requiring more than this may entrench managers by blocking actions that are in the best interests of shareholders.

The general lack of credit availability for financially distressed companies has resulted in “rescue” or highly dilutive stock and warrant issuances, which often comprise a majority of the company’s voting stock upon conversion. When an investor takes control of the company through the conversion of securities, the new owners often seek statutory amendments, such as adopting written consent, or allowing 50 percent shareholders to call a special meeting, that allow effective control over the company with little or no input from minority shareholders.

In such cases, the existing supermajority vote requirements would serve to protect minority shareholders’ interests. The reduction in the vote requirements, when coupled with low quorum requirements (in Nevada and other states) could shift the balance in power away from small shareholders while overly empowering large shareholders.

• Vote AGAINST management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments;

• Vote AGAINST management proposals seeking to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements when they accompany management sponsored proposals to also change certain charter or bylaw amendments;

• Vote FOR management or shareholder proposals to reduce supermajority vote requirements for charter and bylaw amendments. However, for companies with shareholder(s) who have significant ownership levels, vote CASE-BY-CASE, taking into account i) ownership structure, ii) quorum requirements, and iii) supermajority vote requirements.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers

Supermajority provisions violate the principle that a simple majority of voting shares should be all that is necessary to effect change regarding a company and its corporate governance provisions. Requiring more than this may entrench managers by blocking actions that are in the best interests of shareholders.

• Vote AGAINST management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve mergers and other significant business combinations;

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for mergers and other significant business combinations.

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

• Generally support shareholder proposals to reimburse for proxy solicitation expenses;

• When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, always support the reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election;

• Generally support requests seeking to reimburse a shareholder proponent for all reasonable campaign expenditures for a proposal approved by the majority of shareholders.

Bundled Proposals

• 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.

[this part of page intentionally left blank]

B-178

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS/CORPORATE RESTRUCTURINGS

A number of academic and industry studies in recent years have estimated that nearly three quarters of all corporate acquisitions fail to create economically meaningful shareholder value. These studies have also demonstrated that the larger the deal the greater the risk in realizing long-term value for shareholders of the acquiring firm. These risks include integration challenges, over-estimation of expected synergies, incompatible corporate cultures and poor succession planning. Indeed, some studies have found that smaller deals within specialized industries on average outperform “big bet” larger deals by a statistically significant factor.

In analyzing M&A deals, private placements or other transactional related items on proxy, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services performs a well-rounded analysis that seeks to balance all facets of the deal to ascertain whether the proposed acquisition is truly going to generate long-term value for shareholders and enhance the prospects of the ongoing corporation.

Votes on mergers and acquisitions are always considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into account the following factors:

• Impact of the merger on shareholder value;

• Perspective of ownership (target vs. acquirer) in the deal;

• Form and mix of payment (i.e. stock, cash, debt, etc.);

• Fundamental value drivers behind the deal;

• Anticipated financial and operating benefits realizable through combined synergies;

• Offer price (cost vs. premium);

• Change-in-control payments to executive officers;

• Financial viability of the combined companies as a single entity;

• Was the deal put together in good faith? What kind of auction setting took place? Were negotiations carried out at arm’s length? Was any portion of the process tainted by possible conflicts of interest?;

• Fairness opinion (or lack thereof);

• Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights;

• What are the potential legal or environmental liability risks associated with the target firm?;

• Impact on community stakeholders and employees in both workforces;

• How will the merger adversely affect employee benefits like pensions and health care?

Fair Price Provisions

Fair price provisions were originally designed to specifically defend against the most coercive of takeover devises- the two-tiered, front-end loaded tender offer. In such a hostile takeover, the bidder offers cash for enough shares to gain control of the target. At the same time, the acquirer states that once control has been obtained, the target’s remaining shares will be purchased with cash, cash and securities, or only securities. Since the payment offered for the remaining stock is, by design, less valuable than the original offer for the controlling shares, shareholders are forced to sell out early to maximize the value of their shares. Standard fair price provisions require that in the absence of board or shareholder approval of the acquisition the bidder must pay the remaining shareholders the same price for their shares that brought control.

• Vote FOR fair price proposals as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares;

B-179

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.

Corporate Restructuring

• Votes concerning corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeeze outs, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales, are considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Appraisal Rights

Rights of appraisal provide shareholders who do not approve of the terms of certain corporate transactions the right to demand a judicial review in order to determine the fair value for their shares. The right of appraisal applies to mergers, sale of corporate assets, and charter amendments that may have a materially adverse effect on the rights of dissenting shareholders.

• Vote FOR proposals to restore or provide shareholders with the right of appraisal.

Spin-offs

• Votes on spin-offs are considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis depending on the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

Asset Sales

• Votes on asset sales are made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of diseconomies.

Liquidations

• Votes on liquidations are made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis after reviewing management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Going Private Transactions (LBOs, Minority Squeezeouts)

• Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis 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), cash-out value, whether the interests of continuing and cashed-out shareholders are balanced, and market reaction to public announcement of transaction.

Changing Corporate Name

• Vote FOR changing the corporate name in all instances if proposed and supported by management and the board.

Plans of Reorganization (Bankruptcy)

The recent financial crisis has placed Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganizations as a potential alternative for distressed companies. While the number of bankruptcies has risen over the past year as evidenced by many firms,

B-180

including General Motors and Lehman Brothers, the prevalence of these reorganizations can vary year over year due to, among other things, market conditions and a company’s ability to sustain its operations. Additionally, the amount of time that lapses between a particular company’s entrance into Chapter 11 and its submission of a plan of reorganization varies significantly depending on the complexity, timing, and jurisdiction of the particular case. These plans are often put to a vote of shareholders (in addition to other interested parties), as required by the Bankruptcy Code.

• Vote CASE-BY-CASE basis 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.

B-181

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

The management of a corporation’s capital structure involves a number of important issues including dividend policy, types of assets, opportunities for growth, ability to finance new projects internally, and the cost of obtaining additional capital. Many financing decisions have a significant impact on shareholder value, particularly when they involve the issuance of additional common stock, preferred stock, or debt.

Common Stock Authorization

State statutes and stock exchanges require shareholder approval for increases in the number of common shares. Corporations increase their supply of common stock for a variety of ordinary business purposes: raising new capital, funding stock compensation programs, business acquisitions, implementation of stock splits, or payment of stock dividends.

Clear justification should accompany all management requests for shareholders approval of increases in authorized common stock. We support increases in authorized common stock to fund stock splits that are in shareholders’ interests. Consideration will be made on a case-by-case basis on proposals when the company intends to use the additional stock to implement a poison pill or other takeover defense. The amount of additional stock requested in comparison to the requests of the company’s peers as well as the company’s articulated reason for the increase must be evaluated.

• Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issue. The following factors will be considered:

• Past Board Performance: i) the company’s use of authorized shares during the last three years; ii) one- and three-year total shareholder return; and practices iii) the board’s governance structure and practices including existing takeover defenses and presence of egregious equity compensation practices;

• The Current Request: i) specific reasons/rationale for the proposed increase; ii) the dilutive impact of the request; and iii) risks to shareholders of not approving the request.

• Vote AGAINST proposals at companies with dual-class capital structures to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of stock that has superior voting rights;

• Vote AGAINST proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing authorization by more than fifty percent unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company.

Reverse Stock Splits

Reverse splits exchange multiple shares for a lesser amount to increase share price. Increasing share price is sometimes necessary to restore a company’s share price to a level that will allow it to be traded on the national stock exchanges. In addition, some brokerage houses have a policy of not monitoring or investing in very low priced shares. Reverse stock splits can help maintain stock liquidity.

Management proposals to implement a reverse stock split will be reviewed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into account whether there is a corresponding proportional decrease in authorized shares. Generally support a reverse stock split if management provides a reasonable justification for the split and reduces authorized shares accordingly. Without a corresponding decrease, a reverse stock split is effectively an increase in authorized shares by reducing the number of shares outstanding while leaving the number of authorized shares to be issued at the pre-split level.

Blank Check Preferred Authorization

Preferred stock is an equity security which has certain features similar to debt instruments- such as fixed dividend payments and seniority of claims to common stock — and usually carries little to no voting rights. The

B-182

terms of blank check preferred stock give the board of directors the power to issue shares of preferred stock at their discretion with voting, conversion, distribution, and other rights to be determined by the board at time of issue. Blank check preferred stock can be used for sound corporate purposes but can also be used as a device to thwart hostile takeovers without shareholder approval.

• Vote FOR proposals to create “declawed” blank check preferred stock (stock that cannot be used as a takeover defense);

• Vote FOR requests to require shareholder approval for blank check authorizations;

• Vote FOR proposals to authorize preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable;

• Vote AGAINST proposals that would authorize the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend, distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock);

• Vote AGAINST proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred stock authorized for issuance when no shares have been issued or reserved for a specific purpose.

Adjust Par Value of Common Stock

Stock that has a fixed per share value that is on its certificate is called par value stock. The purpose of par value stock is to establish the maximum responsibility of a stockholder in the event that a corporation becomes insolvent. Proposals to reduce par value come from certain state level requirements for regulatory industries such as banks and other legal requirements relating to the payment of dividends.

• Vote FOR management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

Preemptive Rights

Preemptive rights permit shareholders to share proportionately in any new issues of stock of the same class. These rights guarantee existing shareholders the first opportunity to purchase shares of new issues of stock in the same class as their own and in the same proportion. The absence of these rights could cause stockholders’ interest in a company to be reduced by the sale of additional shares without their knowledge and at prices unfavorable to them. Preemptive rights, however, can make it difficult for corporations to issue large blocks of stock for general corporate purposes. Both corporations and shareholders benefit when corporations are able to arrange issues without preemptive rights that do not result in a substantial transfer of control.

• Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to create or abolish preemptive rights. In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, we look at the size of a company and the characteristics of its shareholder base.

Debt Restructuring

We review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. The following factors are considered:

• Dilution — How much will the ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be?

• Change in Control — Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company? Are board and committee seats guaranteed? Do standstill provisions and voting agreements exist?

• Financial Issues — company’s financial situation, degree of need for capital, use of proceeds, and effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital

B-183

• Terms of the offer — discount/premium in purchase price to investor including any fairness opinion,

• termination penalties and exit strategy

• Conflict of interest — arm’s length transactions and managerial incentives

• Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals regarding debt restructurings.

Vote FOR the debt restructuring if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

[this part of page intentionally left blank]

B-184

STATE OF INCORPORATION

Voting on State Takeover Statutes

Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freeze out provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions). We generally support opting into stakeholder protection statutes if they provide comprehensive protections for employees and community stakeholders. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is less supportive of takeover statutes that only serve to protect incumbent management from accountability to shareholders and which negatively influence shareholder value.

Reincorporations Proposals

Management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, 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.

Offshore Reincorporations and Tax Havens

For a company that seeks to reincorporate, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services evaluates the merits of the move on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into consideration the company’s strategic rationale for the move, the potential economic ramifications, potential tax benefits, and any corporate governance changes that may impact shareholders. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes there are a number of concerns associated with a company looking to reincorporate from the United States to offshore locales such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Panama. The trend of U.S. companies seeking to move offshore appears to be on the rise, and shareholders are just beginning to understand the web of complexities surrounding the legal, tax, and governance implications involved in such a transaction.

When reviewing a proposed offshore move, the following factors are considered:

• Legal recourse for U.S. stockholders of the new company and the enforcement of legal judgments against the company under the U.S. securities laws;

• The transparency (or lack thereof) of the new locale’s legal system;

• Adoption of any shareholder-unfriendly corporate law provisions;

• Actual, quantifiable tax benefits associated with foreign incorporation;

• Potential for accounting manipulations and/or discrepancies;

• Any pending U.S. legislation concerning offshore companies;

• Prospects of reputational harm and potential damage to brand name via increased media coverage concerning corporate expatriation.

Furthermore, generally support shareholder requests calling for “expatriate” companies that are domiciled abroad yet predominantly owned and operated in America to re-domesticate back to a U.S. state jurisdiction.

B-185

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Social, Environmental and Sustainability Issues

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports social, workforce, and environmental shareholder-sponsored resolutions if they seek to create responsible corporate citizens while at the same time attempting to enhance long-term shareholder value. We typically support proposals that ask for disclosure reporting of information that is not available outside the company that is not proprietary in nature. Such reporting is particularly most vital when it appears that a company has not adequately addressed shareholder concerns regarding social, workplace, environmental and/or other issues. A determination whether the request is relevant to the company’s core business and in-line with industry practice will be made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. The proponent of the resolution must make the case that the benefits of additional disclosure outweigh the costs of producing the report.

In determining our vote on social, workplace, environmental, and other related proposals, we specifically analyze the following factors:

• Whether adoption of the proposal would have either a positive or negative impact on the company’s short-term or long-term share value;

• Percentage of sales, assets, and earnings affected;

• Degree to which the company’s stated position on the issues could affect its reputation or sales, or leave it vulnerable to boycott or selective purchasing;

• Whether the issues presented should be dealt with through government or company-specific action;

• 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;

• What its industry peers have done in response to the issue;

• Whether the proposal itself is well framed and reasonable;

• Whether implementation of the proposal would achieve the objectives sought in the proposal;

• Whether the subject of the proposal is best left to the discretion of the board.

In general, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports proposals that request the company to furnish information helpful to shareholders in evaluating the company’s operations from top to bottom. In order to be able to intelligently monitor their investments, shareholders often need information that is best provided by the company in which they have invested on behalf of their end beneficiaries. Qualified requests satisfying the aforementioned criteria usually merit support.

Proposals requesting that the company cease certain actions that the proponent believes are harmful to society or some segment of society will be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Special attention will be made to the company’s legal and ethical obligations, its ability to remain profitable, and potential negative publicity if the company fails to honor the request. A high standard will need to be met by proponents requesting specific action like divesture of a business line or operation, legal remuneration, or withdrawal from certain high-risk markets.

B-186

I. GENERAL CSR RELATED

Special Policy Review and Shareholder Advisory Committees

These resolutions propose the establishment of special committees of the board to address broad corporate policy and provide forums for ongoing dialogue on issues including, but not limited to: shareholder relations, the environment, occupational health and safety, and executive compensation.

• Support these proposals when they appear to offer a potentially effective method for enhancing shareholder value.

Operations in Protected or Sensitive Areas

Operating in regions protected or established under national or international categorization guidelines, including wildlife refuges, national forests, and IUCN categorized areas expose companies to increased oversight and the potential for associated risk and controversy. While it is important for a company to have the flexibility to operate in these regions to take advantage of strategic placement or growth, additional disclosure could be an important mitigating factor when addressing increased risk and oversight. Restrictions to the company’s operations, damaging public opinion, and costly litigation resulting from failure to comply with the requirements associated with protected or categorized regions could have a significant impact on shareholder value.

• Generally support shareholder requests for reports outlining potential environmental damage from operations in protected regions, including wildlife refuges, unless the company does not currently have operations or plans to develop operations in these protected regions.

Land Use

Many large retail stores and real estate development firms have received criticism over their policies and processes for acquiring and developing land. Often, in such cases, there are organizations that support as well as those that oppose the proposed development.

Many of these requests brought forth by the respective stakeholders raise serious issues that can have a real impact on short-term shareholder value. However in some cases, additional reporting may be duplicative of existing disclosure or may fail to provide added benefit to shareholders commensurate with the associated cost or burden of providing additional information. Some of the companies targeted with this resolution have been subject to recent litigation and/or significant fines stemming from its land use practices or recent community boycotts.

• Generally support shareholder resolutions that request better disclosure of detailed information on a company’s policies related to land use or development or compliance with local and national laws and zoning requirements.

International Financial Related

The rise of globalization has put increasing importance on the need for US companies to periodically monitor their business operations abroad. As a means to preserve brand integrity and protect against potentially costly litigation and negative public relations, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports shareholder proposals which call for a report on the company’s core business policies and procedures of its operations outside the United States.

Many of the resolutions which address a company’s international policies can include: impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in emerging market economies; corporate safeguards against money laundering; terrorist financing; economic de-stabilization concerns; relationships with international financial institutions (IFIs); and product sales/marketing abroad (i.e., tobacco, pharmaceutical drug pricing).

B-187

• Generally support proposals asking for policy clarification and reporting on foreign-related matters that can materially impact the company’s short and long-term bottom line.

Affirm Political Non-Partisanship

Employees should not be put in a position where professional standing and goodwill within the corporation could be jeopardized as a result of political beliefs. Responsible employment practices should protect workers from an environment characterized by political indoctrination or intimidation. Corporations should not devote resources to partisan political activities, nor should they compel their employees to contribute to or support particular causes. Moreover, it is wise for a corporation to maintain a politically neutral stance as to avoid potentially embarrassing conflicts of interests that could negatively impact the company’s brand name with consumers.

• Generally support proposals affirming political non-partisanship within the company.

Political Contributions Reporting & Disclosure

Changes in legislation that governs corporate political giving have, rather than limiting such contributions, increased the complexity of tracking how much money corporations contribute to the political process and where that money ultimately ends up. A company’s involvement in the political process could impact shareholder value if such activities are not properly overseen and managed.

Shareholders have the right to know about corporate political activities, and management’s knowledge that such information can be made publicly available should encourage a company’s lawful and responsible use of political contributions.

Moreover, it is critical that shareholders understand the internal controls that are in place at a company to adequately manage political contributions. Given the significant reputational and financial risk involved in political giving, shareholders should expect management to have the necessary capabilities to monitor and track all monies distributed toward political groups and causes. These internal controls should be fully consistent with Section 404 requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

While political contributions, lobbying and other corporate political activity can benefit the strategic interests of a company, it is important that accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that monies disbursed in support of political objectives actually generate identifiable returns on shareholder wealth. Such mechanisms serve to insure against the use of shareholder funds in the furtherance of narrow management agendas.

When analyzing the proposals, special consideration will be made if the target company has been the subject of significant controversy stemming from its contributions or political activities, if the company fails to disclose a policy to shareholders that outlines the process by which the company considers its political contributions, or if the company has recently been involved in significant controversy or litigation related to the company’s political contributions or governmental affairs.

• Support reporting of political and political action committee (PAC) contributions;

• Support establishment of corporate political contributions guidelines and internal reporting provisions or controls;

• Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals asking to publish in newspapers and public media the company’s political contributions as such publications could present significant cost to the company without providing commensurate value to shareholders.

B-188

Military Sales

Shareholder proposals from church groups and other community organizations ask companies for detailed reports on foreign military sales. These proposals often can be created at reasonable cost to the company and contain no proprietary data. Large companies can supply this information without undue burden and provide shareholders with information affecting corporate performance and decision-making.

• Generally support reports on foreign military sales and economic conversion of facilities and where such reporting will not disclose sensitive information that could impact the company adversely or increase its legal exposure;

• Generally vote AGAINST proposals asking a company to develop specific military contracting criteria.

Report on Operations in Sensitive Regions or Countries

Over the past decade, a number of public companies — especially within the extractive sector — have withdrawn from geopolitically sensitive regions as a result of being associated with political controversies involving their host countries (i.e. Myanmar, the Sudan, China, Iran, etc.). Oil and natural gas companies, in particular, continue be the largest investors in many countries involved in human rights abuse and terrorist activities. As such, these companies become targets of consumer boycotts, public relations backlash and even governmental intervention.

• Generally support shareholder proposals to adopt labor standards in connection with involvement in a certain market and other potentially sensitive geopolitical regions;

• Generally support shareholder proposals seeking a report on operations within a certain market and documentation of costs of continued involvement in a given country or region;

• Generally support requests for establishment of a board committee to review and report on the reputational risks and legal compliance with U.S. sanctions as a result of the company’s continued operations in countries associated with terrorist sponsored activities;

• Consider shareholder proposals to pull out of a certain market on a CASE-BY-CASE basis considering factors such as overall cost, FDI exposure, level of disclosure for investors, magnitude of controversy, and the current business focus of the company.

Recycling Policy

A number of companies have received proposals to step-up their recycling efforts, with the goal of reducing the company’s negative impact on the environment and reducing costs over the long-term.

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals that ask companies to increase their recycling efforts or to adopt a formal recycling policy.

II. CLIMATE CHANGE ~ GLOBAL WARMING

Shareholder proposals addressing environmental and energy concerns have been plentiful in recent years, and generally seek greater disclosure on an issue or seek to improve a company’s environmental practices in order to protect the world’s natural resources. In addition, some proponents cite the negative financial implications for companies with poor environmental practices, including liabilities associated with site clean-ups and lawsuits, as well as arguments that energy efficient products and clean environmental practices are sustainable business practices that will contribute to long-term shareholder value. Shareholders say the majority of independent atmospheric scientists agree that global warming poses a serious problem to the health and welfare of all countries, citing the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative scientific body on the subject. Shareholder proponents argue that companies can report on their greenhouse gas emissions within a few months at reasonable cost.

B-189

Kyoto Compliance

The Kyoto Protocol was officially ratified in November 2004 and requires the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by signatory countries in an effort to lower the global emissions of six key greenhouse gasses and address concerns over climate change. While some Kyoto signatory markets have not yet released the details of their respective regulations for companies, it is clear that there will be some significant financial impact on corporate issuers, especially those that operate in industries profoundly impacted by greenhouse gas emission constraints or regulation. In order to comply with the anticipated standards, companies will have to consider options such as: capital improvement to their facilities to reduce emissions, the cost of “trading” carbon credits on an open market to offset emission overages, or the expense of fines or restrictions resulting from noncompliance.

• Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports resolutions requesting that companies outline their preparations to comply with standards established by Kyoto Protocol signatory markets, unless: 1) The company does not maintain operations in Kyoto signatory markets; or 2) The company already evaluates and substantially discloses such information to shareholders; or, 3) Greenhouse gas emissions do not materially impact the company’s core businesses.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Scientists generally 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, and their direct or indirect efforts to promote the view that global warming is not a threat. 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.

Investment in Renewable Energy

Filers of proposals on renewable energy ask companies to increase their investment in renewable energy sources and to work to develop products that rely more on renewable energy sources. Increased use of renewable energy will reduce the negative environmental impact of energy companies. In addition, as supplies of oil and coal exist in the earth in limited quantities, renewable energy sources represent a competitive, and some would even argue essential, long-term business strategy.

• Generally support shareholder proposals seeking increased investment in renewable energy sources, taking into account whether the terms of the resolution are realistic or overly restrictive for management to pursue.

• Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for a company to commit to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions under a reasonable timeline.

Sustainability Reporting and Planning

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

B-190

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.

Reporting and enhanced disclosure addressing sustainable development is important to companies namely because it offers a formal structure for decision making that helps management teams anticipate and address important global trends that can have serious consequences for business and society. Shareholders may request general sustainability reports on a specific location (i.e. drilling in ANWR) or operation (i.e. nuclear facility), often requesting that the company detail the environmental, social, legal and other risks and/or potential liabilities of the specific project in question.

A number of companies have begun to report on sustainability issues using established standards in the marketplace. Such reporting focuses on corporate compliance and measurement regarding key economic, environmental, and social performance indicators. Many best practice companies release annual sustainability reports in conjunction to regular annual statement of operations.

• Generally support shareholder proposals seeking greater disclosure on the company’s environmental practices, and/or environmental risks and liabilities.

Endorsement of CERES Principles

These resolutions call for the adoption of principles that encourage the company to protect the environment and the safety and health of its employees. The CERES Principles, formulated by the Coalition of Environmentally Responsible Economies, require signing companies to address environmental issues, including protection of the biosphere, sustainable use of natural resources, reduction and disposal of wastes, energy conservation, and employee and community risk reduction. A signee to the CERES Principles would disclose its efforts in such areas through a standardized report submitted to CERES and made available to the public.

Evidence suggests that environmentally conscious companies may realize long-term savings by implementing programs to pollute less and conserve resources. In addition, environmentally responsible companies stand to benefit from good public relations and new marketing opportunities. Moreover, the reports that are required of signing companies provide shareholders with more information concerning topics they may deem relevant to their company’s financial well-being. Roughly thirty public companies have voluntarily adopted these principles.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports proposals that improve a company’s public image, reduce exposure to liabilities, and establish standards so that environmentally responsible companies and markets are not at a competitive financial disadvantage.

• Vote FOR requests asking a company to formally adopt the CERES Principles;

• Vote FOR adoption of reports to shareholders on environmental issues.

III. WORKPLACE PRACTICES & HUMAN RIGHTS

Equal Employment Opportunity

These proposals generally request that a company establish a policy of reporting to shareholders its progress with equal opportunity and affirmative action programs. The costs of violating federal laws that prohibit discrimination by corporations are high and can affect corporate earnings.

B-191

The Equal Opportunities Employment Commission (EEOC) does not release the company’s filings to the public unless it is involved in litigation, and it is difficult to obtain from other sources. Companies need to be very sensitive to minority employment issues as the new evolving work force becomes increasingly diverse. This information can be provided with little cost to the company and does not create an unreasonable burden on management.

• Vote FOR proposals calling for action on equal employment opportunity and anti-discrimination;

• Vote FOR legal and regulatory compliance and public reporting related to non-discrimination, affirmative action, workplace health and safety, environmental issues, and labor policies and practices that affect long-term corporate performance;

• Vote FOR non-discrimination in salary, wages, and all benefits.

High-Performance Workplace

High-performance workplace practices emphasize employee training, participation, and feedback. The concept of a high-performance workplace has been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Labor and refers to a workplace that is designed to provide workers with the information, skills, incentives, and responsibility to make decisions essential for innovation, quality improvement and rapid response to changes in the marketplace. These standards embrace a “what is good for the worker is good for the company” philosophy. Studies have shown that improvement in human resources practices is associated with increases in total return to shareholders. High-performance workplace standards proposals can include linking compensation to social measures such as employee training, morale and safety, environmental performance and workplace lawsuits.

• Generally support proposals that incorporate high-performance workplace standards.

Non-Discrimination in Retirement Benefits

A cash balance plan is a defined benefit plan that treats an earned retirement benefit as if it were a credit from a defined contribution plan, but which provides a stated benefit at the end of its term. Because employer contributions to these plans are credited evenly over the life of a plan and not based on a seniority formula, they may reduce payouts to long-term employees who are currently vested in plans.

Cash-balance pension conversions have undergone significant congressional and federal agency scrutiny in the wake of high-profile EEOC complaints on age discrimination and employee anger at several large blue-chip companies. While significant policy reform is unlikely in the short-term, business interests are worried enough that the National Association of Manufacturers and other pro-business lobbies have formed a coalition on Capitol Hill to preserve the essential features of the plans and to overturn a recent IRS ruling.

Driving the push behind conversions from traditional pension plans to cash-balance plans are the substantial savings that companies generate in the process. Critics point out that this savings is gained at the expense of the most senior employees. Shareholder resolutions call on corporate boards to establish a committee of outside directors to prepare a report to shareholders on the potential impact of pension-related proposals now being considered by national policymakers in reaction to the controversy spawned by the plans.

• Support proposals calling for a non-discrimination policy with regard to retirement benefits and pension management at a company.

Fair Lending Reporting and Compliance

These resolutions call for financial institutions to comply with fair lending laws and statutes while avoiding predatory practices in their sub-prime lending. These predatory practices include: lending to borrowers with inadequate income, who will then default; not reporting on payment performances of borrowers to credit agencies; implying that credit life insurance is necessary to obtain the loan (packing); unnecessarily high fees;

B-192

refinancing with high additional fees rather than working out a loan that is in arrears (flipping); and high pre-payment fees.

• Support proposals calling for full compliance with fair-lending laws;

• Support reporting on overall lending policies and data.

MacBride Principles

These resolutions call 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 faces 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 will stabilize the situation and promote further investment.

• Support the MacBride Principles for operations in Northern Ireland that request companies to abide by equal employment opportunity policies.

Contract Supplier Standards

These resolutions call for compliance with governmental mandates and corporate policies regarding nondiscrimination, affirmative action, work place safety and health, and other basic labor protections.

We generally support proposals that:

• Seek publication of a “Worker Code of Conduct” to be implemented by the company’s foreign suppliers and licensees, requiring they satisfy all applicable labor standards and laws protecting employees’ wages, benefits, working conditions, freedom of association, right to collectively bargain, and other rights;

• Request a report summarizing the company’s current practices for enforcement of its Worker Code of Conduct;

• Establishes independent monitoring mechanism in conjunction with local and respected religious and human rights groups to monitor supplier and licensee compliance with the Worker Code of Conduct;

• Create incentives to encourage suppliers to raise standards rather than terminate contracts;

• Implement policies for ongoing wage adjustments, ensuring adequate purchasing power and a sustainable living wage for employees of foreign suppliers and licensees;

• Request public disclosure of contract supplier reviews on a regular basis;

• 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 in the U.S. using forced or child labor, or that fail to comply with applicable laws protecting employees’ wages and working conditions.

B-193

Corporate Conduct and Labor Code of Conduct

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports proposals that call for the adoption and/or enforcement of clear principles or codes of conduct relating to countries in which there are systematic violations of human rights. These conditions include the use of slave, child, or prison labor, undemocratically elected governments, widespread reports by human rights advocates, fervent pro-democracy protests, or economic sanctions and boycotts.

Many proposals refer to the seven core conventions, commonly referred to as the “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights At Work,” ratified by the International Labor Organization (ILO). The seven conventions fall under four broad categories: i) right to organize and bargain collectively; ii) non-discrimination in employment; iii) abolition of forced labor; and iv) end of child labor. Each of the 180 member nations of the ILO body are bound to respect and promote these rights to the best of their abilities.

• Support the principles and codes of conduct relating to company investment and/or operations in countries with patterns of human rights abuses or pertaining to geographic regions experiencing political turmoil (Northern Ireland, Columbia, Burma, former Soviet Union, and China);

• Support the implementation and reporting on ILO codes of conduct;

• Support independent monitoring programs in conjunction with local and respected religious and human rights groups to monitor supplier and licensee compliance with Codes.

IV CONSUMER HEALTH & PUBLIC SAFETY

Phase-out or Label Products Containing Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Shareholder activists request companies engaged in the development of genetically modified agricultural products (GMOs) to adopt a policy of not marketing or distributing such products until long term safety testing demonstrates that they are not harmful to humans, animals or the environment. Until further long term testing demonstrates that these products are not harmful, companies in the restaurant, prepared foods and packaging industries are being asked to remove genetically altered ingredients from products they manufacture, distribute or sell, and label such products in the interim. Shareholders are asking supermarket companies to do the same for their own private label brands.

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals to label products that contain genetically engineered products;

• Generally vote AGAINST proposals calling for a full phase out of product lines containing GMO ingredients.

Tobacco-Related Proposals

Shareholders file resolutions annually asking that companies with ties to the tobacco industry account for their marketing and distribution strategies, particularly as they impact smoking by young people. While the specific resolutions for shareholder proponents vary from year to year, activist shareholders consistently make the tobacco industry one of their most prominent targets. Examples of tobacco proposals include: attempting to link executive compensation with teen smoking rates; the placement of company tobacco products in retail outlets; the impact of second hand smoke; and a review of advertising campaigns and their impact on children and minority groups.

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking to limit the sale of tobacco products to minors;

• Generally vote AGAINST proposals calling for a full phase out of tobacco related product lines.

Toxic Emissions

Shareholder proposals asking companies to take steps to minimize their emissions of toxic chemicals or release of toxic waster into the environment can vary greatly. Some focus on reporting on the impact of these

B-194

chemicals on the communities in which the company operates. Still others ask for a review of the company’s efforts to minimize pollution.

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals calling on the company to establish a plan reduce toxic emissions.

Toxic Chemicals

The use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics, consumables, and household products has become a growing issue of concern for shareholders as international regulations on this topic continue to expand, providing increased scrutiny over potentially toxic materials or compounds used or emitted in the conduct of operations or as an ingredient in consumer goods. Shareholders must recognize the impact that changing regulation and consumer expectations could have on shareholder value and should encourage companies to disclose their policies regarding the use or emission of toxic chemicals. Specific considerations should be made for a company’s geographic markets and the appearance of historical difficulties with controversy, fines, or litigation, requests for disclosure on the potential financial and legal risk associated with toxic chemicals.

• Generally support resolutions requesting that a company discloses its policies related to toxic chemicals;

• Generally support shareholder resolutions requesting that companies evaluate and disclose the potential financial and legal risks associated with utilizing certain chemicals;

Nuclear Safety

These resolutions are filed at companies that manage nuclear power facilities or produce components for nuclear reactors to request disclosure on the risks to the company associated with these operations, including physical security and the potential for environmental damage. Current reporting requirements for companies that operate nuclear facilities are managed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and include detailed reports on safety and security that are available to the public.

• Generally support shareholder resolutions requesting that companies report on risks associated with their nuclear reactor designs and/or the production and interim storage of irradiated fuel rods.

Concentrated Area Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

The level of pollution resulting from CAFOs has drawn increased attention in recent years as certain legal decisions have established the precedent that a company can be held liable for the actions of the contract farms it sources from. Fines and remediation expenses stemming from these cases have been significant and could have a notable impact on the companies’ operations and shareholder value.

• Generally support resolutions requesting that companies report to shareholders on the risks and liabilities associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) unless the company has publicly disclosed guidelines for its corporate and contract farming operations, including compliance monitoring or if the company does not directly source from CAFOs.

Pharmaceutical Product Reimportation

One of the most visible aspects of the legal and political debate over rising health care costs in the United States can be seen through prescription drug reimportation through Canada. While U.S. and Canadian regulations limit reimportation, several states have taken steps to encourage employees to actively seek less expensive medications through reimportation.

Shareholder action at major pharmaceutical companies has requested increased disclosure of the financial and legal risks associated with company policies, or called on companies to change distribution limits to increase product availability in Canada, thereby encouraging product reimportation to the United States. The level of

B-195

public concern over this issue and associated impact that a poorly developed policy could have on the companies suggest that additional disclosure of company policies related to reimportation could be beneficial to shareholders and generally merits support.

• Generally support shareholder proposals requesting that companies report on the financial and legal impact of their policies regarding prescription drug reimportation, unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

• Generally support shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt specific policies to encourage or not constrain prescription drug reimportation.

Pharmaceutical Product Pricing

Pharmaceutical drug pricing, both within the United States and internationally, has raised many questions of the companies that are responsible for creating and marketing these treatments. Shareholder proponents, activists and even some legislators have called upon drug companies to restrain pricing of prescription drugs.

The high cost of prescription drugs is a vital issue for senior citizens across the country. Seniors have the greatest need for prescription drugs, accounting for about one-third of all prescription drug sales, but they often live on fixed incomes and are underinsured. Today about 20 million elderly people have little or no drug coverage in the U.S. In addition, the uninsured and underinsured pay substantially more for drugs than manufacturers favored customers such as HMOs and Federal agencies.

Proponents note that efforts to reign-in pharmaceutical costs will not negatively impact research and development (R&D) costs and that retail drug prices are consistently higher in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations. Pharmaceutical companies often respond that adopting a formal drug pricing policy could put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Against the backdrop of the AIDS crisis in Africa, many shareholders have called on companies to address the issue of affordable drugs for the treatment of AIDS, as well as TB and Malaria throughout the developing world. When analyzing such resolutions, consideration should be made of the strategic implications of pricing policies in the market.

• Proposals asking a company to implement price restraints on its pharmaceutical products will be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into account the following factors:

• Whether the proposal focuses on a specific drug and region;

• Whether the economic benefits of providing subsidized drugs (e.g., public goodwill) outweigh the costs in terms of reduced profits, lower R&D spending, and harm to competitiveness;

• The extent that reduced prices can be offset through the company’s marketing expenditures without significantly impacting R&D spending;

• Whether the company already limits price increases of its products;

• Whether the company already contributes life-saving pharmaceuticals to the needy and Third World countries;

• The extent to which peer companies implement price restraints.

• Generally support proposals requesting that companies implement specific price restraints for its pharmaceutical products in developing markets or targeting certain population groups.

• Generally support proposals requesting that the company evaluate their global product pricing strategy, considering the existing level of disclosure on pricing policies, any deviation from established industry pricing norms, and the company’s existing philanthropic initiatives.

• Vote FOR shareholder proposals that call on companies to develop a policy to provide affordable HIV, AIDS, TB and Malaria drugs to citizens in the developing world.

B-196

2010 Taft-Hartley International Proxy Voting Guidelines

January 2010

Copyright ^© 2010 by RiskMetrics Group.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission to make copies of any part of this work should be sent to: RiskMetrics Group Marketing Department, One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 44th Floor, New York, NY 10005. RiskMetrics Group is a trademark used herein under license.

Risk Management  |  RiskMetrics Labs  |  ISS Governance Services  |  Financial Research & Analysis

www.riskmetrics.com

B-197

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROXY VOTING POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES	B-200
FINANCIAL RESULTS/DIRECTOR AND AUDITOR REPORTS	B-200
APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS AND AUDITOR COMPENSATION	B-201
Ratifying Auditors	B-201
APPOINTMENT OF INTERNAL STATUTORY AUDITORS	B-202
ALLOCATION OF INCOME	B-202
STOCK (SCRIP) DIVIDEND ALTERNATIVE AND DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLANS	B-203
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION	B-203
CHANGE IN COMPANY FISCAL TERM	B-204
LOWER DISCLOSURE THRESHOLD FOR STOCK OWNERSHIP	B-204
TRANSACT OTHER BUSINESS	B-204
DIRECTOR AND SUPERVISORY BOARD MEMBER ELECTIONS	B-205
CONTESTED DIRECTOR ELECTIONS	B-208
DIRECTOR FEES	B-209
DISCHARGE OF BOARD AND MANAGEMENT	B-209
DIRECTOR AND OFFICER LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION, AND AUDITOR INDEMNIFICATION	B-210
BOARD STRUCTURE	B-211
Board Size	B-211
Adopt Classified Board	B-211
Introduction of Mandatory Age of Retirement	B-212
Altering Board Size	B-212
CAPITAL SYSTEMS	B-212
Authorized Capital System	B-212
Conditional Capital System	B-212
SHARE ISSUANCE REQUESTS	B-213
General Issuances	B-213
Specific Issuances	B-213
INCREASES IN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL	B-214
REDUCTION OF CAPITAL	B-214
CAPITAL STRUCTURES	B-215
PREFERRED STOCK	B-215
BLANK CHECK PREFERRED STOCK	B-216
DEBT ISSUANCE REQUESTS	B-217
PLEDGING OF ASSETS FOR DEBT	B-217
INCREASE IN BORROWING POWERS	B-217
SHARE REPURCHASE PLANS	B-218
REISSUANCE OF SHARES REPURCHASED	B-219
CAPITALIZATION OF RESERVES FOR BONUS ISSUES/INCREASE IN PAR VALUE	B-219
REORGANIZATIONS/RESTRUCTURINGS	B-220
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS	B-220
REINCORPORATION PROPOSALS	B-222
EXPANSION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES	B-223
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS	B-223
COMPENSATION PLANS	B-224
Stock Option Plans	B-225
Shares Reserved for Issuance of Options Under the Plan	B-226
Exercise Price	B-226
Exercise Price Discounts	B-226
Plan Administration	B-226
Eligibility and Participation	B-227

B-198

Performance Criteria and Vesting Provisions	B-227
Retesting of Performance Criteria	B-227
Other Features Specific to Option Plans	B-227
Issue Terms	B-227
Option Repricing	B-227
Financial Assistance	B-227
Plans for International Employees	B-228
Stock Appreciation Rights	B-228
Phantom Stock Option Plans	B-228
Super Options	B-228
Restricted Stock	B-228
Dividends Under Option and Dividend Equivalent Payment Provisions	B-228
Incentive Plans	B-228
Share Purchase Plans	B-229
Other Features Specific to Share Purchase Plans	B-229
Eligibility	B-229
Loan Terms	B-229
Grants Outside of Plans	B-230
ANTITAKEOVER MECHANISMS	B-230
Renew Partial Takeover Provision (Australia)	B-230
Golden Shares	B-230
Poison Pills (Canada)	B-230
Depositary Receipts and Priority Shares (The Netherlands)	B-232
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS	B-232
Corporate Governance Proposals	B-233
Social and Environmental Proposals	B-233
Report on Environmental Policies	B-234
Adoption of “CERES Principles”	B-234
Adoption of “MacBride Principles”	B-234
Contract Supplier Standards	B-234
Corporate Conduct and Human Rights	B-234

B-199

TAFT-HARTLEY ADVISORY SERVICES

PROXY VOTING POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES

This statement sets forth the proxy voting policy of RiskMetrics’ Taft-Hartley Advisory Services. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote the proxies of its clients solely in the interest of their participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them. The interests of participants and beneficiaries will not be subordinated to unrelated objectives. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. When proxies due to Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ clients have not been received, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will make reasonable efforts to obtain missing proxies. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is not responsible for voting proxies it does not receive.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall analyze each proxy on a case-by-case basis, informed by the guidelines elaborated below, subject to the requirement that all votes shall be cast solely in the long-term interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plans. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services does not intend for these guidelines to be exhaustive. Hundreds of issues appear on proxy ballots every year, and it is neither practical nor productive to fashion voting guidelines and policies which attempt to address every eventuality. Rather, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ guidelines are intended to cover the most significant and frequent proxy issues that arise across international markets. Issues not covered by the guidelines shall be voted in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries of the plan based on a worker-owner view of long-term corporate value. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall revise its guidelines as events warrant.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall report annually to its clients on proxy votes cast on their behalf. These proxy voting reports will demonstrate Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ compliance with its responsibilities and will facilitate clients’ monitoring of Taft-Hartley Advisory Services. A copy of this Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Guidelines is provided to each client at the time Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is retained. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall provide its clients with revised copies of this proxy voting policy statement and guidelines whenever significant revisions have been made.

FINANCIAL RESULTS/DIRECTOR AND AUDITOR REPORTS

Vote FOR approval of financial statements and director and auditor reports, unless:

• There are concerns about the accounts presented or audit procedures used; or

• The company is not responsive to shareholder questions about specific items that should be publicly disclosed.

• The company failed to disclose the financial reports in a timely manner.

Discussion

Most companies around the world submit these reports to shareholders for approval, and this is one of the first items on most agendas. The official financial statements and director and auditor reports are valuable documents when evaluating a company’s annual performance. The director report usually includes a review of the company’s performance during the year, justification of dividend levels and profits or losses, special events such as acquisitions or disposals, and future plans for the company.

The auditor report discloses any irregularities or problems with the company’s finances. While a qualified report by itself is not sufficient reason to oppose this resolution, it raises cautionary flags of which shareholders should be aware. Most auditor reports are unqualified, meaning that in the auditor’s opinion, the company’s financial statements are made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

B-200

When evaluating a company’s financial statements, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services looks at debt/equity levels on the balance sheet, historical sales and earnings performance, dividend history and payout ratios, and the company’s own performance relative to similar companies in its industry. Unless there are major concerns about the accuracy of the financial statements or the director or auditor reports, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally approves of this item.

APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS AND AUDITOR COMPENSATION

Ratifying Auditors

Vote FOR the reelection of auditors and proposals authorizing the board to fix auditor fees, unless:

• There are serious concerns about the procedures used by the auditor;

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

• External auditors have previously served the company in an executive capacity or can otherwise be considered affiliated with the company;

• Name of the proposed auditors has not been published;

• The breakdown of audit or non-audit fees is not disclosed or provided in a timely manner (in markets where such information is routinely available);

• The auditors are being changed without explanation; or

• Fees for non-audit/consulting services exceed a quarter of total fees paid to the auditor.*

Vote AGAINST auditor remuneration proposals if a company’s non-audit fees are excessive and auditor remuneration is presented as a separate voting item.

In circumstances where fees for non-audit services include fees related to significant one-time capital structure events: initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergencies, and spin-offs; and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees which 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 fees.

*In the UK, the level of non-audit fees is calculated as non-audit fees over audit fees, which results in higher level of non-audit fees. As such, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services uses a 50% non-audit fee benchmark in this market to determine if non-audit fees are excessive. If non-audit fees exceed 100% of audit fees, then Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote oppose both the auditor and election of audit committee members.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will apply its U.S. policy at U.S. firms incorporated in offshore tax and governance havens that do not qualify for disclosure exemptions, and vote against the reelection of auditors where auditor tenure exceeds seven years.

Discussion

Most major companies around the world use one of the major international auditing firms to conduct their audits. As such, concerns about the quality and objectivity of the audit are minimal, and the reappointment of the auditor is usually viewed as a routine matter. Audit fees tend to be highly competitive and vary little between companies. However, if a company proposes a new auditor or an auditor resigns and does not seek reelection, companies should offer an explanation to shareholders. If shareholders request an explanation for a change in auditor and the company or retiring auditor fails to provide one, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against the election of a new auditor. If an explanation is otherwise unavailable, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against this item.

B-201

Many countries also require the appointment of censors, or special auditors who ensure that the board and management are in compliance with the company’s articles. The censors’ role is purely advisory in nature. Proposals to appoint censors are routine, as the censors usually act as a secondary auditor for special audit requirements.

The practice of auditors contributing non-audit services to companies is problematic, as illuminated by the accounting scandals around the world. When an auditor is paid more in consulting fees than for auditing, the company/auditor relationship is left open to conflicts of interest. Because accounting scandals evaporate shareholder value, any proposal to ratify auditors is examined for potential conflicts of interest, with particular attention to the fees paid to the auditor. When fees from non-audit services become significant without any clear safeguards against conflicts of interest, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose the auditor’s reappointment.

APPOINTMENT OF INTERNAL STATUTORY AUDITORS

Vote FOR the appointment or reelection of statutory auditors, unless:

• There are serious concerns about the statutory reports presented or the audit procedures used;

• Questions exist concerning any of the statutory auditors being appointed; or

• The auditors have previously served the company in an executive capacity or can otherwise be considered affiliated with the company.

Discussion

The appointment of internal statutory auditors is a routine request for companies in Latin America, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan, and Russia. The statutory auditing board is usually composed of three to five members, including a group chairman and two alternate members, all of whom are expected to be independent. In addition to the regular duty of verifying corporate accounts, the auditor board is responsible for supervising management and ensuring compliance with the law and articles of association. The auditors must perform an audit of the accounts every three months and present to shareholders a report on the balance sheet at the AGM. For most countries, the auditors are elected annually and may seek reelection. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the appointment of statutory auditors unless there are serious concerns about the reports presented or questions about an auditor’s qualifications.

ALLOCATION OF INCOME

Vote FOR approval of the allocation of income, unless:

• The dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation; or

• The payout is excessive given the company’s financial position.

Discussion

Many countries require shareholders to approve the allocation of income generated during the year. These proposals usually, but not always, contain an allocation to dividends. When determining the acceptability of this proposal, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services focuses primarily on the payout ratio. Payouts of less than 30 percent or more than 100 percent are a trigger for further analysis. The minimum level of 30 percent is based on a review of international practice. Payouts of more than 100 percent are a signal that the company is dipping into reserves to make the payment.

Further analysis of payout ratios should include the following: an examination of historical payouts to determine if there is a long-term pattern of low payouts; exceptional events that may have artificially modified earnings for the year; the condition of a company’s balance sheet; comparisons with similar companies both domestically and internationally; and the classification of the company as growth or mature.

B-202

Justifications for extreme payouts must be reviewed carefully. If the company has an adequate explanation for a certain payout, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the income allocation as proposed. However, if a company has a pattern of low payouts, fails to adequately justify the retention of capital, and is not experiencing above-average growth, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose the proposal. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will also vote against the payout if a company appears to be maintaining an excessive payout that may affect its long-term health.

Although dividend payouts are still the predominant form of distribution of capital to shareholders, share buybacks have become more popular in some markets, such as Denmark. In these cases, companies have introduced policies to return capital to shareholders by way of share repurchases instead of through the payment of dividends. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services votes on proposals to omit the payment of a dividend in favor of a share buyback on a case-by-case basis by looking at factors such as whether repurchased shares will be cancelled or may be reissued, tax consequences for shareholders, liquidity of the shares, share price movements and the solvency ratio of the company.

STOCK (SCRIP) DIVIDEND ALTERNATIVE AND DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLANS

Vote FOR most stock (scrip) dividend proposals.

Vote AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.

Discussion

Stock dividend alternatives, also referred to in some markets as “scrip” dividend alternatives or dividend reinvestment plans (DRIPS), offer shareholders the option of receiving their dividend payment in the form of fully paid ordinary shares and are common proposals worldwide. While dividend payments in the form of shares in lieu of cash do not immediately add to shareholder value, they allow companies to retain cash and to strengthen the position and commitment of long-term shareholders. While Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is generally supportive of such plans, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes stock dividend proposals that do not allow a cash option unless management shows that the cash outflow is detrimental to the company’s health and to long-term shareholder value.

AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

Votes on amendments to the articles of association are considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Requests to amend a company’s articles of association are usually motivated by changes in the company’s legal and regulatory environment, although evolution of general business practice can also prompt amendments to articles. Such proposals are especially common whenever stock exchange listing rules are revised, new legislation is passed, or a court case exposes the need to close loopholes.

Amendments to articles range from minor spelling changes to the adoption of an entirely new set of articles. While the majority of such requests are of a technical and administrative nature, minor changes in wording can have a significant impact on corporate governance. As such, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services carefully scrutinizes any changes to a company’s articles.

From a company’s perspective, it is often more efficient to adopt a new set of articles than to introduce numerous amendments. However, bundling changes that treat different provisions of the articles into one voting item prevents shareholders from separating items of concern from routine changes. By leaving a shareholder with an all-or-nothing choice, bundling allows companies to include negative provisions along with positive or neutral changes.

B-203

When reviewing new or revised articles, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services classifies each change according to its potential impact on shareholder value and then weighs the package as a whole. The presence of one strongly negative change may warrant a recommendation against the resolution. In assigning these classifications, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is not concerned with the nature of the article being amended, but rather focuses on whether the proposed change improves or worsens the existing provision.

The final criterion on which Taft-Hartley Advisory Services bases its decision is whether failure to pass a resolution would cause an immediate loss of shareholder value. In such cases, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports even a bundled resolution that includes negative changes.

CHANGE IN COMPANY FISCAL TERM

Vote FOR resolutions to change a company’s fiscal term unless a company’s motivation for the change is to postpone its annual general meeting (AGM).

Discussion

Companies routinely seek shareholder approval to change their fiscal year end. This is a decision best left to management. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes this resolution only if the company is changing its year-end to postpone its AGM. Most countries require companies to hold their AGM within a certain period of time after the close of the fiscal year. If a company is embroiled in a controversy, it might seek approval to amend its fiscal year end at an EGM to avoid controversial issues at an AGM. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes the change in year-end in these cases.

LOWER DISCLOSURE THRESHOLD FOR STOCK OWNERSHIP

Vote AGAINST resolutions to lower the stock ownership disclosure threshold below 5 percent unless specific reasons exist to implement a lower threshold.

Discussion

Required shareholder disclosure levels vary around the world. Some countries, such as Canada, require the disclosure of any stakes ten percent or higher, while other countries require lower disclosure levels. For example, the United Kingdom requires disclosure of stakes of three percent or greater. In some countries, shareholders may be asked from time to time to reduce the disclosure requirement at a specific company. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will support such initiatives as they encourage greater disclosure by the company’s largest shareholders. However, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote AGAINST reductions that are unduly restrictive or could act as a pretext for an antitakeover device.

TRANSACT OTHER BUSINESS

Vote AGAINST other business when it appears as a voting item.

Discussion

This item provides a forum for questions and any other resolutions that may be brought up at the meeting. In most countries this item is a non-voting formality (not requiring a shareholder vote), but companies in certain countries do include other business as a voting item. Because shareholders who vote by proxy cannot know what issues will be raised under this item, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services cannot approve this request when asked for a vote. While Taft-Hartley Advisory Services recognizes that in most cases this item is a formality or includes discussion that will have no impact on shareholders, shareholders cannot risk the negative consequences of voting in advance on an item for which information has not been disclosed.

B-204

DIRECTOR AND SUPERVISORY BOARD MEMBER ELECTIONS

Vote FOR management nominees in the election of directors, unless:

• Adequate disclosure has not been provided in a timely manner;

• There are clear concerns about the past performance of the company or the board, including;

• Questionable finances or restatements

• Questionable transactions with conflicts of interest

• The board fails to meet minimum corporate governance standards;

• There is a lack of independence on the board and/or its key committees;

• There are any records of abuses against minority shareholder interests;

• The board takes actions that are not in shareholders’ best interests (excessive executive compensation, adopting antitakeover devices, failure to respond to shareholder concerns/wishes, or demonstrating a “lack of duty or care”); or

• The board has been insensitive to labor interests, human rights, supplier codes of conduct, or has engaged in other corporate activities that affect the reputation of the company in the global market.

Generally vote FOR employee and/or labor representatives.

Votes AGAINST/WITHHOLD votes on individual nominees, key committee members or the entire board can be triggered by one or more of the following concerns:

• Lack of a majority independent board;

• Attendance of director nominees at board meetings of less than 75 percent without valid reason or explanation;

• Lack of full independence on key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation, and nominating committees);

• Failure to establish any key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation, or nominating) including where the board serves in the capacity of a key committee, and where there is insufficient information to determine whether key committees exist, who the committee members are, or whether the committee members are independent;

• Presence of a non-independent board chairman;

• Directors serving on an excessive number of other boards which could compromise their primary duties. In markets where the number of board appointments is routinely available, an excessive number of boards is defined as;

• For non-executive directors, more than five total non-executive directorships.

• For executive directors, i) more than three total non-executive directorships; or ii) other executive or board chair positions.

• For board chairs, i) more than four total non-executive directorships; or ii) more than two board chair positions; or iii) other executive positions.

• The names of nominees are unavailable or not provided in a timely manner (in markets where this information is routinely available);

• Director terms are not disclosed exceed market norms;

B-205

• Egregious actions including;

• Material failures of governance, stewardship, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company

• Failure to replace management as appropriate

• Egregious actions related to the 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.

For bundled director elections, vote AGAINST the entire slate if any of the concerns above apply to a particular nominee.

Discussion

Most countries around the world maintain an Anglo-Saxon board structure, as seen in the United States, in which executive and nonexecutive directors are organized into a single board. However, companies in a number of countries maintain two-tiered board structures, comprising a supervisory board of nonexecutive directors and a management board with executive directors. The supervisory board oversees the actions of the management board, while the management board is responsible for the company’s daily operations. Companies with two-tiered boards elect members to the supervisory board only; management board members are appointed by the supervisory board.

Depending on the country, shareholders will be asked to either elect directors or supervisory board members at annual meetings. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services considers director/supervisory board elections to be one of the most important voting decisions that shareholders make, especially because shareholders are only given the opportunity to review their companies’ operations once a year at the AGM. Thus, if detailed information on boards or nominees is available, analysis to the highest degree possible is warranted. Directors and supervisory board members function as the representatives of shareholders and stakeholders throughout the year and are therefore, a crucial avenue of ongoing influence on management.

Levels of disclosure regarding directors vary widely. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, companies publish detailed information such as director biographies, share ownership, and related information that aids shareholders in determining the level of director independence. In these cases, we apply standards of board and key board committee independence. In many other countries, the only information available on directors is their names, while still other countries disclose no information at all. In low-disclosure markets where sufficiently detailed information about directors is unavailable, it could be counterproductive to vote against directors on the basis of a lack of information. Opposition to specific nominees or boards should be supported by specific problems or concerns.

While Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the annual election of directors, boards in many countries are divided into two or more classes that are elected on a staggered basis. This system of classified boards is common across the world. Only Canadian companies routinely elect the entire board on an annual basis, but even in Canada companies may classify their board if an appropriate amendment is made to the articles. In certain countries, executive directors may be appointed for terms of up to six years, and a company’s articles may give executive directors protected board seats under which they are not subject to shareholder election. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes directors should stand for reelection annually and be accountable to shareholders on an annual basis, and opposes article amendment proposals seeking extensions of director terms. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also opposes protected board seats and preferential treatment of executive directors. In some countries the trend is moving toward limiting terms for directors. In The Netherlands, the corporate governance code recommends that management and supervisory board members be subject to maximum four-year terms. Although we recognize that four-year terms maybe the standard in the some markets, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose the election of new directors or the reelection of an existing director when their terms are not disclosed or where their term lengths exceed market norms.

B-206

When reviewing director election proposals (where possible given information disclosure), Taft-Hartley Advisory Services examines board composition, company performance, and any negative views or information on either the company or individual directors. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services determines the number of executive and independent directors on the board, the existence and composition of board committees, and the independence of the chairman. An independent director is one whose only significant relationship with the company is through its board seat. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services defines members of supervisory boards, which represent organized workers’ interests, as independent. In cases where board composition is of concern, the company’s general health and its recent financial performance may play a part in the evaluation of directors. Individual director information is also considered, including share ownership among director nominees. In markets where board independence composition information is routinely available, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally oppose all non-independent director nominees if the board is not at least 50 percent (majority) independent. For U.S. firms incorporated in offshore tax or governance havens that do not qualify for disclosure exemptions, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will apply its U.S. policy and vote against non-independent director nominees if the board is not two-thirds majority independent or where key board committees are not completely independent.

While complete independence on board committees is widely recognized as best practice, there are some markets in which it is still common to find executive directors serving as committee members. Whenever the level of disclosure is adequate to determine whether a committee includes company insiders, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally vote against these executive directors.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also takes into account the attendance records of directors when such information is provided to shareholders, using a benchmark attendance rate of 75 percent of board meetings. If an individual director fails to attend at least 75 percent of board meetings, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services makes further inquiries to the company regarding the absences. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against/withhold votes from the director unless the company has provided a reasonable explanation for the absences. International companies tend to have directors who reside in other countries on their boards, making attendance difficult. While Taft-Hartley Advisory Services understands the difficulties imposed on such directors, failing to attend meetings prevents directors from fulfilling their fiduciary obligations and adequately representing shareholder interests. Other business obligations and conflicting travel schedules are not acceptable reasons for consistently poor attendance records. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the use of teleconferencing and videoconferencing to cope with the increasing time and travel demands faced by directors in global business.

For shareholder nominees, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services places the persuasive burden on the nominee or the proposing shareholder to prove that they are better suited to serve on the board than management’s nominees. Serious consideration of shareholder nominees will be given in cases where there are clear and compelling reasons for the nominee to join the board. These nominees must also demonstrate a clear ability to contribute positively to board deliberations; some nominees may have hidden or narrow agendas and may unnecessarily contribute to divisiveness among directors.

In many countries it is customary to elect a single slate of directors. We do not approve of this practice because shareholders may wish to express differing views as to the suitability of the director nominees and should have the ability to cast ballots with respect to individuals rather than the entire slate. Given improving best practice in more sophisticated markets, which are moving away from single slate director election items, we will generally oppose director nominees if their election is not presented to shareholders as an individual item in these markets, and will oppose slate nominees in markets where the practice is prevalent and there are concerns with a particular director nominee up for election.

In recent years, the concept that directors should not serve on an excessive number of boards has gained more support as a legitimate governance concern. A common view among many investors is that a director will not be an effective monitor on any board if he/she serves on numerous boards. In markets where disclosure is sufficient (such as detailed director biographies which include information on the director’s role on the board and

B-207

other external appointments both in the local market and abroad), and markets permit individual election of directors, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against a candidate when he/she holds an excessive number of board appointments. Executive directors are expected not to hold other executive or chairmanship positions. They may, however, hold up to two other non-executive directorships. Chairmen are expected not to hold other executive positions or more than one other chairmanship position. They may, however, hold up to three other non-executive directorships. NEDs who do not hold executive or chairmanship positions may hold up to four other non-executive directorships. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will take into account board positions held in global publicly-listed companies. An adverse vote will not be applied to a director within a company where he/she serves as CEO or chair; instead, any negative votes will be applied to his/her additional seats on other company boards.

Director accountability and competence have become issues of prime importance given the failings in oversight exposed by the global financial crisis. There is also concern over the environment in the boardrooms of certain markets, where past failures appear to be no impediment to continued or new appointments at major companies and may not be part of the evaluation process at companies in considering whether an individual is, or continues to be, fit for the role and best able to serve shareholders’ interests. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider a potential negative vote at the board, committee, or individual level, if a director has had significant involvement with a failed company, or has in the past appeared not to have acted in the best interests of all shareholders, and/or where substantial doubts have been raised about a director’s ability to serve as an effective monitor of management and in shareholders’ best interests including consideration of past performance on other boards.

CONTESTED DIRECTOR ELECTIONS

For contested elections of directors (e.g. the election of shareholder nominees or the dismissal of incumbent directors) Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, considering the factors below in determining which directors are best suited to add value for shareholders:

• Company performance relative to its peers;

• Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;

• Independence of directors/nominees;

• Experience and skills of board candidates and their ability to contribute positively to board deliberations and overall board performance;

• Governance profile of the company;

• Evidence of management entrenchment;

• Responsiveness to shareholders;

• Whether a takeover offer has been rebuffed;

• Whether minority or majority representation is being sought.

When analyzing a contested election of directors, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally focuses on two central questions: (1) Have the dissidents proved that board change is warranted? And (2) if so, are the dissident board nominees likely to effect positive change? (i.e., maximize long-term shareholder value)

Discussion

Once fairly infrequent, contested elections, (also referred to as proxy contests) have become increasingly common in recent years as large shareholders, frustrated by poor returns and unresponsive boards, have sought to challenge the status quo. Even when dissidents do not achieve board seats, studies indicate that at least some of their objectives are often achieved because the response to a proxy contest, or one that was narrowly averted,

B-208

usually includes new strategic initiatives, a restructuring program, governance changes, or selected management changes. Based on these considerations, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ framework for the evaluation of contested elections has the ultimate the goal of increasing long-term value for shareholders.

DIRECTOR FEES

Vote FOR proposals to award director fees unless the amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

Vote AGAINST proposals to introduce retirement benefits for nonexecutive directors.

Vote non-executive director compensation proposals that include both cash and share-based components on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote proposals that bundle compensation for both non-executive and executive directors into a single resolution on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Director fees in most countries are not controversial. Fees for nonexecutive directors have been rising in recent years, as such directors around the world are being asked to take on more responsibility for company affairs. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports increases in director fees unless they are excessive relative to fees paid by other companies in the same country or industry. The primary focus of Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ evaluation is on fees paid to nonexecutive directors or fees paid to all directors, separate from the salaries of executive directors. In many countries, only an aggregate amount payable to nonexecutives or to all directors is disclosed.

Retirement benefits for nonexecutive directors are inappropriate, as they increase the directors’ financial reliance on the company and could call into question the objectivity of their decision-making. In addition, most directors have served as senior executives of other companies, and adequate retirement benefits should be provided through these companies. The only caveat to this policy would be for professional nonexecutive directors such as those found in the United Kingdom. However, requests for such benefits in the United Kingdom are rare, and the appropriateness of using shareholder funds in this manner is questionable.

DISCHARGE OF BOARD AND MANAGEMENT

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the discharge of the board and management:

Vote AGAINST the discharge of directors, including members of the management board and/or supervisory board, if there is reliable information about significant and compelling controversies that the board is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties warranted by:

• A lack of oversight or actions by board members which invoke shareholder distrust related to malfeasance or poor supervision, such as operating in private or company interest rather than in shareholder interest; or

• Any legal issues (e.g. civil/criminal) aiming to hold the board responsible for breach of trust in the past or related to currently alleged actions yet to be confirmed (and not only the fiscal year in question), such as price fixing, insider trading, bribery, fraud, and other illegal actions; or

• Other egregious governance issues where shareholders will bring legal action against the company or its directors.

B-209

For markets which do not routinely request discharge resolutions (e.g. common law countries or markets where discharge is not mandatory), Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may express its concern with the board in other appropriate agenda items, such as approval of the annual accounts or other relevant resolutions to express discontent with the board.

Discussion

The annual formal discharge of board and management represents shareholder approval of actions taken during the year. Discharge is a tacit vote of confidence in the company’s management and policies. It does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of future shareholder action, although it does make such action more difficult to pursue. Meeting agendas normally list proposals to discharge both the board and management as one agenda item.

This is a routine item in many countries, and discharge is generally granted unless a shareholder states a specific reason for withholding discharge and plans to undertake legal action. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will withhold discharge when there are serious questions about actions of the board or management for the year in question or legal action is being taken against the board by other shareholders. Withholding discharge is a serious matter and is advisable only when a shareholder has concrete evidence of negligence or abuse on the part of the board or management, has plans to take legal action, or has knowledge of other shareholders’ plans to take legal action.

If evidence suggests that one or more board or management members are responsible for problems such as fraud or grave mismanagement, shareholders can withhold discharge from these individuals and pursue further legal action. Poor performance that can be directly linked to flagrant error or neglect on the part of the board or management, or board actions that are detrimental to shareholders’ interests, may also constitute grounds for voting against discharge.

If shareholders approve discharge of the board and management, they may face a greater challenge if they subsequently decide to pursue legal action against these parties. Shareholders would be required to prove that management or the board did not supply correct and complete information regarding the matter in question.

DIRECTOR AND OFFICER LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION, AND AUDITOR INDEMNIFICATION

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, proposals seeking indemnification and liability protection for directors and officers.

Vote AGAINST proposals to indemnify auditors.

Discussion

Management proposals typically seek shareholder approval to adopt an amendment to the company’s charter to eliminate or limit the personal liability of directors to the company and its shareholders for monetary damages for any breach of fiduciary duty to the fullest extent permitted by law. In contrast, shareholder proposals seek to provide for personal monetary liability for fiduciary breaches arising from gross negligence. While Taft-Hartley Advisory Services recognizes that a company may have a more difficult time attracting and retaining directors if they are subject to personal monetary liability, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes the great responsibility and authority of directors justifies holding them accountable for their actions. Each proposal addressing director liability will be evaluated consistent with this philosophy. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may support these proposals when the company persuasively argues that such action is necessary to attract and retain directors, but Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may often oppose management proposals and support shareholder proposals in light of our philosophy of promoting director accountability.

B-210

Specifically, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose management proposals that limit a director’s liability for (i) a breach of the duty of loyalty, (ii) acts or omissions not in good faith or involving intentional misconduct or knowing violations of the law, (iii) acts involving the unlawful purchases or redemptions of stock, (iv) the payment of unlawful dividends, or (v) the receipt of improper personal benefits. In addition, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally oppose proposals to reduce or eliminate directors’ personal liability when litigation is pending against current board members.

By indemnifying its directors and officers, a company promises to reimburse them for certain legal expenses, damages, and judgments incurred as a result of lawsuits relating to their corporate actions, thereby effectively becoming the insurer for its officers and directors (the company usually purchases insurance to cover its own risk). Proposals to indemnify a company’s directors differ from those to eliminate or reduce their liability because with indemnification directors may still be liable for an act or omission, but the company will bear the expense.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote in favor of indemnification proposals that contain provisions limiting such insurance to acts carried out on behalf of the company. The directors covered under the indemnification must be acting in good faith on company business and must be found innocent of any civil or criminal charges for duties performed on behalf of the company. Additionally, the company may persuasively argue that such action is necessary to attract and retain directors, but we will oppose indemnification when it is being proposed to insulate directors from actions they have already taken.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes providing indemnity insurance to auditors. These payments call into question the objectivity of the auditor in carrying out the audit, as the fees paid on its behalf could be greater than the audit fees alone. Eliminating concerns about being sued for carelessness could also lead to a decrease in the quality of the audit. Given the substantial settlements against auditors in recent years for poor audit practices, the cost of such insurance to the company and its shareholders is unwarranted.

BOARD STRUCTURE

Vote FOR proposals to fix board size.

Vote AGAINST the introduction of classified boards and mandatory retirement ages for directors.

Vote AGAINST proposals to alter board structure or size in the context of a fight for control of the company or the board.

Discussion

Resolutions relating to board structures range from fixing the number of directors or establishing a minimum or maximum number of directors to introducing classified boards and director term limits.

Board Size

Proposals to fix board size are common and are routinely approved. Proposals to establish a range of board size are also frequent; a range of two or three open slots relative to the existing board size is reasonable, as it gives the company some flexibility to attract potentially valuable board members during the year. Latitude beyond this range is inappropriate, however, because companies can use this freedom to hinder unwanted influence from potential acquirers or large shareholders.

Adopt Classified Board

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers that all directors stand for reelection every year. All directors should be accountable to shareholders on an annual basis, as the ability to elect directors is the single most important use of the shareholder franchise.

B-211

While classified boards are the norm in most countries, some companies have chosen to place their directors up for annual election. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports initiatives to declassify boards and opposes proposals to classify previously unstaggered boards. Classifying the board makes it more difficult to effect a change of control through a proxy contest; because only a minority of the directors are elected each year, a dissident shareholder would be unable to win control of the board in a single election.

Introduction of Mandatory Age of Retirement

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that age should not be the sole factor in determining a director’s value to a company. Rather, each director’s performance should be evaluated on the basis of their individual contribution and experience.

Altering Board Size

Companies may attempt to increase board size in order to add related or like-minded directors to the board. Conversely, establishing a minimum number of directors could make it easier to remove independent directors from the board. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services considers these proposals on a case-by-case basis.

All proposals to alter board size during a proxy fight or other possible contests for control should be opposed. Allowing directors to alter the terms of a contest while it is underway is not in shareholders’ interests, as this tactic could be used to thwart a takeover that is in shareholders’ interests.

CAPITAL SYSTEMS

Companies have one of two main types of capital systems: authorized and conditional. Both systems provide companies with the means to finance business activities, but they are considerably different in structure. Which system is used by a company is determined by the economic and legal structure of the market in which it operates.

Authorized Capital System

The authorized capital system sets a limit in a company’s articles on the total number of shares that can be issued by the company’s board. The system allows companies to issue shares from this preapproved limit, although in many markets shareholder approval must be obtained prior to an issuance. Companies also request shareholder approval for increases in authorization when the amount of shares contained in the articles is inadequate for issuance authorities. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews proposals for such increases based on the following criteria: the history of issuance requests; the size of the request; the purpose of the issuance (general or specific) associated with the increase in authorization; and the status of preemptive rights (see pol.19 and pol.21).

Conditional Capital System

Under the conditional capital system, companies seek authorizations for pools of capital with fixed periods of availability. For example, if a company seeks to establish a pool of capital for general issuance purposes, it requests the creation of a certain number of shares with or without preemptive rights, issuable piecemeal at the discretion of the board for a fixed period of time. Shares unissued after the fixed time period lapse. This type of authority would be used to carry out a general rights issue or small issuances without preemptive rights.

Requests for a specific issuance authority are tied to a specific transaction or purpose, such as an acquisition or the servicing of convertible securities. Such authorities cannot be used for any purpose other than that specified in the authorization. In this case, a company requests the creation of a certain number of shares with or without preemptive rights, issuable as needed for the specific purpose requested. This pool of conditional capital also carries a fixed expiration date.

B-212

In reviewing these proposals, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services takes into consideration the existence of pools of capital from previous years. Because most capital authorizations are for several years, new requests may be made on top of the existing pool of capital. While most requests contain a provision to eliminate earlier pools and replace them with the current request, this is not always the case. Thus, if existing pools of capital are being left in place, the aggregate potential dilution amount from all capital should be considered.

SHARE ISSUANCE REQUESTS

Vote FOR general issuance requests with preemptive rights up to 50 percent of issued capital;

Vote FOR general issuance requests without preemptive rights up to 10 percent of issue capital; and

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis specific issuance requests with or without preemptive rights up to any amount depending on the purpose for the issuance.

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis those issuance requests that exceed one-year periods.

General Issuances

General issuance requests under both authorized and conditional capital systems allow companies to issue shares to raise funds for general financing purposes. Approval of such requests gives companies sufficient flexibility to carry out ordinary business activities without having to bear the expense of calling shareholder meetings for every issuance.

Issuances can be carried out with or without preemptive rights. Preemptive rights permit shareholders to share proportionately in any new issuances of stock. These rights guarantee existing shareholders the first opportunity to purchase shares of new issuances of stock in the class they own in an amount equal to the percentage of the class they already own. Corporate law in many countries recognizes preemptive rights and requires shareholder approval for the disapplication of such rights.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that the ability to increase share capital by 50 percent through a rights issue (with preemptive rights) provides the company with sufficient financing to meet most contingencies. Rights issues for general capital needs of less than 50 percent of outstanding capital warrant shareholder approval. Issuance authorities of more than 50 percent can lead to excessive cash calls on shareholders, requiring them to provide the funds necessary to maintain their relative positions in the company or to accept substantial dilution.

In some cases, companies may need the ability to raise funds for routine business contingencies without the expense of carrying out a rights issue. Such contingencies could include the servicing of option plans, small acquisitions, or payment for services. When companies make issuance requests without preemptive rights, shareholders suffer dilution as a result of such issuances. Therefore, authorizations should be limited to a fixed number of shares or a percentage of capital at the time of issuance. While conventions regarding this type of authority vary widely among countries, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services routinely approves issuance requests without preemptive rights for up to ten percent of a company’s outstanding capital.

In certain markets, issuance requests are made for several years. This is often the case in France, Germany and Spain. In these situations, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider the per annum dilution equivalent as well as consider whether or not the authority can be renewed before the lapse of the specified period. Whenever possible, we will monitor actual share issuances to assure that the company is not abusing the privilege.

Specific Issuances

Specific issuance requests should be judged on their individual merits. For example, a company may request the issuance of shares for an acquisition in the form of a rights issue to raise funds for a cash payment, or else a

B-213

company could request an issuance without preemptive rights for use in a share-based acquisition or issuance to a third party. Such a request could be of any size, and Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally support the request as long as the proposal is sound. A more routine request would be an authority to issue shares without preemptive rights for issuance as needed upon conversion of convertible securities or to service a share option plan. These shares can only be used for the purpose defined in the resolution.

INCREASES IN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL

Vote FOR nonspecific proposals to increase authorized capital up to 50 percent over the current authorization.

Vote FOR specific proposals to increase authorized capital to any amount unless the specific purpose of the increase (such as a share-based acquisition or merger) does not meet Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ guidelines for the purpose being proposed.

Vote AGAINST proposals to adopt unlimited capital authorizations.

Discussion

Increases in authorized capital are requested both for general financing flexibility and to provide for a specific purpose. Companies need an adequate buffer of unissued capital in order to take advantage of opportunities during the year, and thus they often request increases in authorized capital for no specific purpose other than to retain this flexibility. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that approving such requests is reasonable.

An increase of 50 percent over the existing authorization gives the company sufficient flexibility in any given year but also limits the company’s ability to abuse this privilege. If a company wishes to issue shares for any unforeseen reason during the year that would double (or possibly triple) outstanding share capital, an EGM to seek shareholder approval is justified.

Another important consideration is the status of preemptive rights. Not all countries recognize shareholders’ preemptive rights, and excessive authorizations could lead to substantial dilution for existing shareholders. When preemptive rights are not guaranteed, companies do not need shareholder approval for share issuances as long as the issuance does not result in an increase above the authorized capital limit.

For specific requests, increases in capital up to any size may be justified if the purpose of the new authorization is in shareholders’ interests. Such increases may be needed to fund a variety of corporate activities, and thus each proposal must be reviewed on its individual merits.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against proposals seeking to increase authorized capital to an unlimited number of shares. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services does not believe that companies need unlimited financial flexibility to transact ordinary business because such an arrangement precludes management from periodically consulting shareholders for new capital. Unlimited authorizations may also be used as antitakeover devices, and they have the potential for substantial voting and earnings dilution. As such, they are not in shareholders’ best interests.

REDUCTION OF CAPITAL

Vote FOR proposals to reduce capital unless the terms are unfavorable to shareholders.

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to reduce capital in connection with corporate restructurings.

B-214

Discussion

Proposals to reduce capital are usually the result of a significant corporate restructuring in the face of bankruptcy. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports such proposals because opposition could lead to insolvency, which is not in shareholders’ interests. Evaluation of this type of proposal should take a realistic approach to the company’s situation.

CAPITAL STRUCTURES

Vote FOR resolutions that seek to maintain or convert to a one share, one vote capital structure.

Vote AGAINST requests for the creation or continuation of dual class capital structures or the creation of new or additional super-voting shares.

Discussion

A key decision for any business is determining its capital structure. When timed correctly, sophisticated capital management — finding the right mix of equity, long-term debt, and short-term financing — can enhance shareholder returns. This process involves coordination of important issues, including dividend policy, tax and interest rates, types of assets, opportunities for growth, ability to finance new projects internally, and cost of obtaining additional capital.

These decisions are best left to a company’s board and senior management, who should be given the latitude to determine the company’s capital structure. However, shareholders should be aware that many financing decisions could have an adverse effect on shareholder returns. For example, additional equity financing may reduce an existing shareholder’s ownership interest and can dilute the value of the investment. Some capital requests can be used as takeover defenses; in response to this situation, company laws establish limits on management’s authority to issue new capital and often require shareholder approval for significant changes in management’s existing authorizations.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports a one share, one vote policy and opposes mechanisms that skew voting rights. Shareholders’ voting rights should accrue in accordance with their equity capital commitment to the company. Dual class capital structures entrench certain shareholders and management, insulating them from possible takeovers or other external influence or action. The interests of parties with voting control may not be the same as those of shareholders constituting a majority of the company’s capital. Additionally, research and market experience have shown that companies with dual class capital structures or other antitakeover mechanisms consistently trade at a discount to similar companies without such structures.

When companies with dual class capital structures seek shareholder approval for the creation of new shares, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes the creation of additional super-voting shares because this perpetuates the dual class structure. If companies are seeking to increase ordinary or subordinate share capital, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews such requests on a case-by-case basis. If the shares are needed for a specific purpose, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will approve as long as the proposal meets the issuance guidelines for specific requests. Refusing such requests could cause an immediate loss of shareholder value by not allowing the company to carry out its ordinary business. However, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes general share creation requests on the grounds that they would perpetuate unequal voting structures. If shareholders routinely approve the creation of ordinary or subordinate voting shares, the company has no incentive to reform its capital structure. By not approving such requests, shareholders can send a signal of dissatisfaction to management.

PREFERRED STOCK

Vote FOR the creation of a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of preferred stock up to 50 percent of issued capital unless the terms of the preferred stock would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders.

B-215

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible preferred stock as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets Taft-Hartley Advisory Services guidelines on equity issuance requests.

Vote AGAINST the creation of blank check preferred stock unless the board expressly states that the authorization will not be used as a takeover defense.

Vote proposals to increase blank check preferred authorizations on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST the creation of a new class of preference shares that would carry superior voting rights to the common shares.

Discussion

Preferred stock (also known as preference shares) is an equity security, but it has certain features that liken it to debt instruments, such as fixed dividend payments, seniority of claims relative to regular common stock, and (in most cases) no voting rights except on matters that affect the seniority of preferred stock as a class. Preferred stock usually ranks senior to a company’s ordinary shares with respect to dividends and the distribution of assets or winding down of the company. Companies often request approval for the creation of a new class of preferred stock, the issuance of preferred stock, and the introduction of blank check preferred stock authorization. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers that the terms of preferred stock be set out at the time of the issuance or authorization request.

Preferred stock can be an effective means of raising capital without increasing debt levels, especially if a company has recently concluded a series of acquisitions. In determining the acceptability of proposals relating to preferred stock, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services examines the rights and terms of the proposed shares, including their designation, conditions, restrictions, and limitations. Whether or not the preferred shares carry voting rights is also considered, along with their conversion ratio (if the shares are convertible into common shares). Also important is the company’s justification for issuing or authorizing preferred stock. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports proposals that would not result in excessive dilution or adversely affect the rights of holders of common shares.

BLANK CHECK PREFERRED STOCK

Companies may also seek shareholder approval for blank check preferred stock, which are blanket authorities to issue preferred stock under which the directors are allowed to set the size, terms, and recipient of such shares at the time of issuance. Blank check preferred stock can be used for legitimate corporate purposes such as raising capital or making acquisitions. By not establishing the terms of preferred stock at the time the class of stock is created, companies maintain the flexibility to tailor their preferred stock offerings to prevailing market conditions. However, blank check preferred stock can also be used as an entrenchment device. The ability to issue a block of preferred stock with multiple voting or conversion rights to a friendly investor is a powerful takeover defense. As such, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services does not support the creation of blank check preferred stock unless the board clearly states that the authorization will not be used to thwart a takeover bid.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also considers, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to increase authorizations of blank check preferred stock when shareholders have already approved the class of stock and the company has a history of issuing such stock for legitimate financing purposes. Theoretically, companies with authorized blank check preferred stock can use these shares for antitakeover purposes as long as there are a few shares remaining, as they are free to set voting or conversion terms with each issue. Therefore, an increase in authorization may have little effect on the usage of this stock. In cases where a company has issued preferred stock from its authorization for legitimate financing purposes, there is no reason to object to an increase.

B-216

DEBT ISSUANCE REQUESTS

Vote non-convertible debt issuance requests with or without preemptive rights on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST the creation or issuance of convertible debt with preemptive rights if the conversion increases the company’s share capital by more than 50 percent over the current outstanding capital.

Vote AGAINST the creation or issuance of convertible debt without preemptive rights if the conversion increases the company’s share capital by more than 10 percent over the current outstanding capital.

Vote FOR proposals to restructure existing debt arrangements unless the terms of the restructuring would adversely affect the rights of shareholders.

Discussion

Debt issuance is a popular financing strategy. Debt instruments are often issued with the right to convert into equity securities. Many companies issue debt denominated in currencies other than their own. Bonds may be issued with or without preemptive rights.

Companies routinely issue bonds directly to shareholders in order to raise funds while enjoying low borrowing costs. Convertible bonds give holders the choice of becoming shareholders, thereby increasing the shareholder base and liquidity of the company’s stock, or selling their newly converted shares on the open market. The issuance of unsecured debt often includes warrants, which are detached at the time of bond issuance. Warrants are usually attached to a debt issuance in order to enhance the marketability of the accompanying fixed income security.

When evaluating a debt issuance request, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services examines the issuing company’s present financial situation. The main factor for analysis is the company’s current debt-to-equity ratio, or gearing level. A high gearing level may incline markets and financial analysts to downgrade the company’s bond rating, increasing its investment risk factor in the process. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services routinely approves of debt issuances for companies when the gearing level is between zero and 50 percent. If the company’s gearing level is higher than 50 percent, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services then factors in other financial statistics, such as the company’s growth over the past five years relative to earnings or market capitalization, recent corporate events that might affect the company’s bottom line (such as the acquisition of a major competitor or the release of a revolutionary product), and the normal debt levels in the company’s industry and country of origin. In the case of convertible bonds, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also takes into consideration the total level of dilution that would result at the time of conversion. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ guidelines for capital increases would then be applied.

PLEDGING OF ASSETS FOR DEBT

Vote proposals to approve the pledging of assets for debt on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

In certain countries, shareholder approval is required when a company needs to secure a debt issuance with its assets. In many cases, this is a routine request and is a formality under the relevant law. When reviewing such proposals, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services takes into account the terms of the proposed debt issuance and the company’s overall debt level. If both of these factors are acceptable, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will support these requests.

INCREASE IN BORROWING POWERS

Vote proposals to approve increases in a company’s borrowing powers on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

B-217

Vote AGAINST the removal of a limit on borrowing powers.

Discussion

In some countries, companies are required to seek shareholder approval for increases in their aggregate borrowing power authorities. The aggregate limit on the board’s ability to borrow money is often fixed in a company’s articles, and shareholder approval to change this limit is therefore legally required. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that a company’s financing needs are best determined by the board, and modest increases in borrowing powers are necessary to allow the company to take advantage of new acquisition opportunities or to complete development and restructuring projects. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ analysis of borrowing power increase requests take into account management’s stated need for the increase, the size of the increase, and the company’s current gearing level. Large increases in borrowing powers can sometimes result in dangerously high debt-to-equity ratios that could harm shareholder value. If an increase is excessive without sufficient justification and if a company already has exceptionally high gearing compared to its industry, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose the request.

SHARE REPURCHASE PLANS

Vote FOR share repurchase programs/market repurchase authorities, unless:

• Maximum volume: 10 percent for market repurchase within any single authority and 10 percent of outstanding shares to be kept in treasury (“on the shelf”);

• Duration does not exceed 18 months;

In addition, vote AGAINST any proposal where:

• The repurchase can be used for takeover defenses;

• There is clear evidence of abuse;

• There is no safeguard against selective buybacks;

• Pricing provisions and safeguards are deemed to be unreasonable in light of market practice.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may support share repurchase plans in excess of 10 percent volume under exceptional circumstances, such as one-off company specific events (e.g. capital re-structuring). Such proposals will be assessed case-by-case based on merits, which should be clearly disclosed in the annual report, provided that following conditions are met:

• The overall balance of the proposed plan seems to be clearly in shareholder’s interests;

• The plan still respects the 10 percent maximum of shares to be kept in treasury.

For Italy and Germany, vote FOR share-repurchase plans and share reissuance plans that would use call and put options if the following criteria are met:

• The duration of the authorization is limited in time to no more than 18 months;

• The total number of shares covered by the authorization is disclosed;

• The number of shares that would be purchased with call options and/or sold with put options is limited to a maximum of five percent of currently outstanding capital (or half of the total amounts allowed by law in Italy and Germany);

• A financial institution, with experience conducting sophisticated transactions, is indicated as the party responsible for the trading; and

• The company has a clean track record regarding repurchases.

B-218

Discussion

Proposals regarding share repurchase plans are routine in most countries, and such plans are usually sufficiently regulated by local laws or listing requirements to protect shareholder interests.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services looks for the following conditions in share repurchase plans: limitations on a company’s ability to use the plan to repurchase shares from third parties at a premium; limitations on the exercise of the authority to thwart takeover threats; and a requirement that repurchases be made at arm’s length through independent third parties and that selective repurchases require shareholder approval.

Some shareholders object to companies repurchasing shares, preferring to see extra cash invested in new businesses or paid out as dividends. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that when timed correctly, stock repurchases are a legitimate use of corporate funds and can add to long-term shareholder returns.

However, in certain instances, share buybacks are used to fund stock option plans. In these cases, cash is being used to fund stock options plans, which in most cases are a form of management compensation. When possible, we will make efforts to learn whether share repurchase plans are being used to fund stock option plans. In these instances, extra scrutiny will be paid, and a repurchase plan may be opposed.

For markets that either generally do not specify the maximum duration of the authority or seek a duration beyond 18 months that is allowable under market specific legislation, we will assess the company’s historic practice. If there is evidence that a company has sought shareholder approval for the authority to repurchase shares on an annual basis, we will support the proposed authority.

REISSUANCE OF SHARES REPURCHASED

Vote FOR requests to reissue any repurchased shares unless there is clear evidence of abuse of this authority in the past.

Discussion

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally believes that properly timed repurchases of company shares can enhance shareholder value and improve general shareholder returns. With good timing and proper safeguards, the same returns and improvements in shareholder value can be generated through the reissuance of the shares repurchased. In most countries, the text of this general mandate provides sufficient shareholder protection to make this item routine. When reviewing such proposals, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services takes into account the country’s legal framework for such reissuances and the company’s history of reissuing shares under the authority.

CAPITALIZATION OF RESERVES FOR BONUS ISSUES/INCREASE IN PAR VALUE

Vote FOR requests to capitalize reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase par value.

Discussion

Companies routinely carry out bonus issues of shares or increases in par value to existing shareholders, usually through the capitalization of reserves from either the share premium reserve or the retained earnings account. Capitalization of these reserves — transferring them into the share capital account — usually requires shareholder approval. These issuances essentially function as dividends.

When companies increase par value or capitalize reserves and distribute new fully paid shares to shareholders free of charge through a bonus issue, there is no cost to shareholders to maintain their stakes and no risk of dilution. This procedure transfers wealth to shareholders and does not significantly impact share value. The only impact on shareholders is that by increasing the number of shares on issue, the company could increase liquidity, enhance marketability, and ultimately expand its shareholder base.

B-219

REORGANIZATIONS/RESTRUCTURINGS

Vote reorganizations and restructurings on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Requests to approve corporate reorganizations or restructurings range from the routine shuffling of subsidiaries within a group to major rescue programs for ailing companies. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services usually approves such resolutions unless there are clear conflicts of interest among the various parties, shareholders’ rights are being negatively affected, or certain groups or shareholders appear to be getting a better deal at the expense of general shareholders.

In the case of routine reorganizations of assets or subsidiaries within a group, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ primary focus with the proposed changes is to ensure that shareholder value is being preserved. This includes the effect of the reorganization on the control of group assets, the final ownership structure, the relative voting power of existing shareholders if the share capital is being adjusted, and the expected benefits arising from the changes.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also assesses the proposed restructuring and its impact on job loss with an emphasis on the company’s U.S. operations. In certain circumstances, jobs may be lost due to economic inefficiencies. However, we will not support reorganizations that unnecessarily eradicate employment, harming the beneficiaries, communities, and the company’s economic position.

In the case of a distress restructuring of a company or group, shareholders’ options are far more limited; often, they have no choice but to approve the restructuring or lose everything. In such cases, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services first determines the company’s degree of distress by determining whether or not the company still has a positive net asset value — that is, if realizable assets are greater than liabilities. Although rare, liquidation should be considered an option in these situations.

In most cases, however, the company has a negative asset value, meaning that shareholders would have nothing left after a liquidation. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services seeks to ensure that the degree of dilution proposed is consistent with the claims of outside parties and is commensurate with the relative commitments of other company stakeholders. Existing shareholders usually must accept the transfer of majority control over the company to outside secured creditors. Ultimately, ownership of a small percentage of something is worth more than majority ownership of nothing.

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

For every M&A analysis, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews publicly available information as of the date of our analysis and evaluates the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following:

• 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, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services places emphasis on the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale;

• Market reaction — How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction will elicit greater scrutiny on 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;

B-220

• Conflicts of interest — Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? We will consider whether any special interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger;

• Governance — impact of the merger on and shareholder rights. 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;

• The possibility of a high degree of job loss with no reasonable explanation; and

• Any significant reduction in basic labor standards.

Vote AGAINST if the companies do not provide sufficient information upon request to make an informed voting decision.

ABSTAIN if there is insufficient information available to make an informed voting decision.

Discussion

When evaluating the merits of a proposed acquisition, merger, or takeover offer, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services focuses on the financial and corporate governance impact on shareholder value, both in the immediate and long term. The primary concern is to determine whether or not the proposal is beneficial to shareholders’ existing and future earnings stream and to ensure that the impact on voting rights is not disproportionate to that benefit. Generally, we are interested in the long-term shareholder interests as opposed to short-term gains that devalue assets and have a negative impact on workers and communities.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will evaluate proposed mergers by looking at the justification for the merger; whether a reasonable financial arrangement has been proposed and a fairness opinion rendered; and the long-term impact of the business plans of the competing parties. We will assess the impact of the proposed merger on the affected workforce and community. For example, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will assess the proposed merger’s impact on job loss with an emphasis on the company’s U.S. operations. In certain circumstances, jobs may be lost due to economic inefficiencies. However, we will not support mergers that unnecessarily eradicate employment, harming the beneficiaries, and the company’s economic position.

In the case of a cross-border merger, we consider the proposed merger affect on labor standards. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will not support mergers that diminish basic labor standards. The resulting entity should comply with applicable laws and principles protecting employees’ wages, benefits, working conditions, freedom of association, and other rights.

In the case of an acquisition, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services examines the level of voting or earnings dilution and the logic of the proposed purchase if large share issuances are required. The method of financing is also important, as various methods can result in different valuations than originally perceived. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also checks for an independent valuation of the terms, particularly if the target of the acquisition is not a publicly traded entity or asset and precise market valuations are not readily available.

This is important when determining whether or not a specific premium is justified. Control premiums on acquisitions vary widely depending on the industry, the time period, and the country. During the late 1980s in the United States, control premiums of up to 70 percent in certain sectors were considered reasonable. Broad averages over time indicate that premiums in the range of 20 percent to 30 percent are normal, but this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For publicly traded entities or assets, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services looks at the price of the acquisition relative to the average market price prior to any announcement, as well as the historical price trends for 60 days prior. For non-publicly traded entities or assets, an independent financial evaluation becomes even more important.

B-221

In the case of mergers, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services examines whether or not the merger makes commercial or strategic sense for the company. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also considers the method of effecting the merger and the ultimate impact on shareholders of the proposed financial and corporate governance structure. While historical relative valuations based on market prices are useful in the financial evaluation process, the often-complicated financial details of such proposals make an independent fairness opinion of extreme importance. The proposed board structure, share capital structure, and relative share ownership of the new company are all important factors for consideration in this evaluation process.

If the details of a given proposal are unclear or not available and a fairness opinion is also not available, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will either abstain on or vote against the proposal. Abstention would most likely be the result of a lack of information about the proposal. If a company is uncooperative in providing information about the proposal or is evasive when responding to questions, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against it.

REINCORPORATION PROPOSALS

Vote reincorporation proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Discussion

Reincorporation proposals are most commonly seen in Canada, where companies may register under one of the provincial business statutes. However, companies in other countries may also seek shareholder approval to reincorporate in a U.S. state or another country. Many companies, including U.S. companies, choose to reincorporate in places such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, or the British Virgin Islands for tax purposes.

When examining a reincorporation proposal, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services first examines the reasons for the move. Sometimes a reincorporation proposal is part of a restructuring effort or merger agreement that contributes significantly to a company’s growth, financial health, and competitive position more than the anticipated negative consequences of incorporating in another province or country. Some reincorporations allow firms to realize lower taxes or incorporation fees. In addition, there may be advantages to incorporating in the province in which the company conducts the bulk of its business.

Companies often adopt a new charter or bylaws with increased protection for management upon reincorporation. For instance, many reincorporation proposals are bundled with the ratification of a new charter that increases the company’s capital stock or imposes a classified board. When such changes to the charter include the addition of negative corporate governance provisions, the impact of these new provisions on shareholders must be balanced against the anticipated benefits of the reincorporation.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that reincorporations to countries, states, or provinces with less stringent disclosure requirements or corporate governance provisions are often management attempts to lessen accountability to shareholders. In such cases, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote AGAINST the proposal. The expenses involved in a change of domicile relating to legal and administrative fees, plus the greater entrenchment such a reincorporation could provide management, would likely harm shareholders’ interests. In cases where companies propose to move to a more protective province or country and supply reasonable financial reasons for doing so, the benefits of the reincorporation must be weighed against the costs of possible management entrenchment.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also considers the reincorporation’s impact on the employment environment. We do not support reincorporations to new jurisdictions that diminish basic labor rights and standards.

B-222

EXPANSION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

Vote FOR resolutions to expand business activities unless the new business takes the company into risky areas.

Discussion

Companies are usually required by law to include in their articles of association or memorandum of association specific business purposes in the form of an objects clause. Because most countries require shareholder approval before articles can be amended, any change to the company’s objects clause requires shareholder approval. Countries often seek shareholder approval to amend the objects clause to expand business lines.

Expanding business lines is a decision usually best left to management, but there are some instances where Taft-Hartley Advisory Services withholds support for such changes. If a company has performed poorly for several years and seeks business expansion into a risky enterprise, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services would require further clarification from management regarding the purpose of the expansion. If the company does not provide a satisfactory business plan, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will not support the proposal. Furthermore, if the company does not adhere to basic labor principles or codes of conduct in the expansion of its business, then Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will not support the proposal. For example, the expansion must comply with applicable laws and regulations, provide legitimate policies regarding workplace health and safety, and recognize basic labor rights. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that these policies and practices affect long-term corporate performance and increase shareholder value.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, resolutions that seek shareholder approval on related party transactions considering factors including, but not limited to, the following:

• The parties on either side of the transaction;

• The nature of the asset to be transferred/service to be provided; the pricing of the transaction (and any associated professional valuation);

• The views of independent directors (where provided);

• The views of an independent financial adviser (where appointed);

• Whether any entities party to the transaction (including advisers) is conflicted; and

• The stated rationale for the transaction, including discussions of timing.

If there is a transaction that RMG deemed problematic and that was not put to a shareholder vote, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may vote against the election of the director involved in the related-party transaction or the full board.

Vote AGAINST related party transactions when details of a particular arrangement are not available.

Discussion

Shareholders are often asked to approve commercial transactions between related parties. A transaction between a parent company and its subsidiary, or a company’s dealings with entities that employ the company’s directors, are usually classified as related party transactions and are subject to company law or stock exchange listing requirements that mandate shareholder approval. Shareholder approval of these transactions is meant to protect shareholders against insider trading abuses.

B-223

In most cases, both the rationale and terms of such transactions are reasonable. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services looks for evidence of an evaluation of the transaction by an independent body, but this is not always available. Unless the agreement requests a strategic move outside the company’s charter or contains unfavorable terms, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will support the proposal. However, in many countries, detailed information about related-party transactions is not available. In some cases, no information is available. When sufficient information is not available, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote AGAINST the arrangement.

COMPENSATION PLANS

Vote AGAINST a company’s compensation-related proposal due to one or a combination of several of the following factors:

• The proposed compensation policy/report was not made available to shareholders in a timely manner;

• The level of disclosure of the proposed compensation policy is below what local market best practice standards dictate;

• Concerns exist with respect to the disclosure or structure of the bonus or other aspects of the remuneration policy such as pensions, severance terms, and discretionary payments;

• Concerns exist surrounding the company’s long-term incentive plan(s), including but not limited to, dilution, vesting period, and performance conditions; Excessive severance arrangements/payments;

• Provision of stock option grants, or similarly structured equity-based compensation, to non-executive directors; and/or

• Where boards have, otherwise, failed to demonstrate good stewardship of investors’ interests regarding executive compensation practices.

Vote AGAINST other appropriate resolutions as a measure of discontent against egregious remuneration practices (as a result of one or a combination of several factors highlighted above) or where a company has not followed market practice by submitting a resolution on executive compensation.

A negative vote could be applied to any of the following resolutions on a case-by case basis:

• The (re)election of members of the remuneration committee;

• The discharge of directors; or

• The annual report and accounts.

Failure to propose a resolution on executive compensation to shareholders in a market where this is routine practice may, by itself, lead to one of the above adverse votes regardless of the companies’ remuneration practices.

Management Proposals Seeking Shareholder Approval of the Company’s Compensation Policy (Say on Pay)

Vote on a CASE-By-CASE basis, management proposals seeking ratification of a company’s compensation policy.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that seeking annual shareholder approval of a company’s compensation policy is a positive corporate governance provision, and considers the following compensation best practices in evaluating shareholder votes on corporate compensation practices:

• Appropriate pay-for-performance alignment with emphasis on long-term shareholder value.

• Avoidance of arrangements that risk “pay for failure”.

B-224

• Independent and effective compensation committees.

• Provision of clear and comprehensive compensation disclosures to shareholders.

• Avoidance of inappropriate pay to non-executive directors.

Non-Executive Director Compensation

Vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors unless the amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

Vote on non-executive director compensation proposals that include both cash and share-based components on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote on proposals that bundle compensation for both non-executive and executive directors into a single resolution on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST proposals to introduce retirement benefits for non-executive directors.

Vote AGAINST non-executive director remuneration if documents (general meeting documents, annual report) provided prior to the general meeting do not mention fees paid to non-executive directors.

Vote AGAINST non-executive director remuneration if the company intends to excessively increase the fees in comparison with market/sector practices, without stating compelling reasons that justify the increase.

Vote AGAINST proposals that provide for the granting of stock options, or similarly structured equity-based compensation, to non-executive directors.

Discussion

The recent financial crisis has shown that poor remuneration systems can lead to the inefficient allocation of company resources and can incentivize behavior that is detrimental to long-term shareholder interests. More than ever, shareholders have become concerned with how companies compensate their executives. Scrutiny has been applied to ascertain whether executive pay is appropriate for a company’s size, market, and industry, and whether remuneration structures sufficiently incentivize long-term share value growth and avoid “pay for failure”. In response to this growing trend, many legislatures/regulators have taken steps to strengthen shareholders’ role in the determination of remuneration practices by increasing companies’ disclosure requirements with respect to compensation practices as well as by recommending (or requiring) that companies provide voting resolutions on remuneration practices at their annual shareholder meetings.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports plans that motivate participants to focus on maximizing long-term shareholder value and returns, encourage employee stock ownership, and more closely align employee interests with those of shareholders. However, we recognize that in many markets, the degree of information available to evaluate compensation proposals is usually limited in detail. For this reason, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services applies its compensation policies and methodology to the extent that market disclosure practices allow.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews three main types of compensation plans: stock option plans, incentive plans, and share purchase plans. Also included in this section are grants outside of plans.

Stock Option Plans

Stock option plans grant participants an option to buy company shares at a set price (the exercise price). Shares are usually granted at market prices and may be exercised when the company’s share price reaches the exercise price. Participants may then purchase the promised shares at the strike price and may later sell the shares

B-225

after their purchase (or after a defined holding period when the shares may not be sold). Among the criteria that Taft-Hartley Advisory Services examines in evaluating stock option plans are the following, generally organized from criteria of greater importance to criteria of lesser importance:

Shares Reserved for Issuance of Options Under the Plan

The maximum number of shares Taft-Hartley Advisory Services approves under a plan depends on the classification of a company’s stage of development as growth or mature. Growth companies are usually smaller, in new industries requiring significant research and development, and have restricted cash flows. A company in an established industry but expanding rapidly, or a mature company that is experiencing an extended period of rapid expansion, may also be classified as growth. Mature companies are characterized by stable sales and revenue growth, production efficiencies resulting from volume gains, and strong cash flow resulting from developed products in the payoff stage.

For mature companies, shares available under stock option plans should be no more than five percent of the issued capital at the time of approval under all plans. For growth companies, shares available should be no more than ten percent of the issued capital at the time of approval under all plans (and five percent under the proposed plan.) For all companies, an absolute number of shares fixed at the time of approval is ideal, but many countries do not include such a limit. In these cases, revolving limits (a certain percentage of issued shares at any one time) of five or ten percent are common. The practice of setting a percentage of shares issuable over a certain number of years before or after the plan is adopted appears to be a compromise between these first two methods. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers plans where the limits are sufficiently spread out, e.g., five percent in five years, ten percent in ten years.

Exercise Price

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers that options be priced at 100 percent of the shares’ fair market value on the date of grant. Usually this is taken as the closing price of the company’s shares on the day prior to the date of grant. Some countries determine fair market value as an average of the trading price for the five days prior to the date of grant. This is a common and acceptable practice. Some emerging market countries use a 30-day average or longer to determine fair market value; these resolutions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although provisions of longer than 30 days increase the possibility of discounted options.

Exercise Price Discounts

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services strongly opposes grants of discounted options to both executive and nonexecutive directors. In the absence of vesting periods or performance criteria (see below), discounted option grants to directors amount to a cash bonus at shareholder expense. Under such circumstances, option holders have an incentive to cash in their grants for an immediate return rather than hold on to their options for future gains. This undermines the incentive value underlining these plans. A few countries allow for options to be granted at a discount to market prices. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services approves of discounts up to 20 percent, but only for grants that are a part of a broad-based employee plan, including all nonexecutive employees.

Plan Administration

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes allowing the administering committee to grant options to itself due to the potential for “backscratching” abuse. Administration of plans should be in the hands of directors who are unable to participate in the plan. Plans administered by the full board should not allow voting by executive directors; plans administered by remuneration committees should be composed entirely of independent directors. Plans that allow nonexecutive directors to participate should not give them any discretion on individual grants; instead, an automatic system of grants should be introduced with fixed annual grants at market prices on a fixed date. Alternatively, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services approves of separate nonexecutive director option plans with independent administration.

B-226

Eligibility and Participation

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers separate plans for employees, directors, and nonexecutive directors, but most plans include all or some combination of these categories of participants. Other global plans distinguish between full-time and part-time employees or establish a set length of service to the company (usually one year) before options may be granted. Most plans allow the administrating committee to select plan participants.

Performance Criteria and Vesting Provisions

Performance criteria and vesting provisions are important considerations when evaluating a compensation plan, and the existence of long vesting provisions and realistic performance criteria are highly preferred. The ultimate goal of share option plans is to tie executive and employee remuneration to company performance and to give key employees and executives incentive to stay with the firm. Generally in markets where disclosure is an issue, if a plan meets all other aspects of Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ guidelines, these two criteria are not mandatory. However, whenever greater disclosure is the market norm, we will oppose plans that do not include sufficiently challenging performance criteria or carry a minimum three-year vesting period. This information is commonly provided in markets such as the United Kingdom, Canada, The Netherlands and Australia. Finally, any matching shares that are provided by companies should be subject to additional performance conditions.

Retesting of Performance Criteria

Remuneration plans should not allow for the retesting of performance criteria over another time period if these conditions were not met within the initial period. Retesting is destructive to the incentive value of such plans and undermines the worth of performance criteria. Whenever disclosure is sufficient enough to determine if retesting is allowed under a company’s plan, we will take this feature into consideration for our overall evaluation of the plan.

Market Specifics:

•   In the UK, whether the terms of a compensation plan are to be satisfied by the issuance of new shares or through the use of treasury shares, the maximum commitment of the aggregate awards under all of the company’s plans should not exceed 10% of issued ordinary capital over a rolling 10-year period for broad-based plans. Within these limits, awards for discretionary plans should not exceed 5% for a rolling 10-year period.

Other Features Specific to Option Plans

Issue Terms

Some countries require optionees to pay a nominal fee (often equivalent to $0.01) for every option received. This is common and acceptable, although many companies that once enforced this provision are now deleting it from the rules of their plans.

Option Repricing

Some plans include specific provisions allowing for the repricing of options at the board’s discretion. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes plans that include option repricing when the exercise price is reduced in response to a dropping share price. Repricing outstanding options reduces the incentive that options provide to raise the share price for shareholders.

Financial Assistance

Some plans offer participants loans to pay the full exercise price on their options. If loans are part of a company’s option plan, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers that loans be made to employees as part of a

B-227

broad-based, company-wide plan to encourage ownership rather than being given only to executive directors. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also prefers loans with interest set at market rates that must be paid back in full over a reasonable length of time. The absence of these features does not necessary warrant a recommendation against an option plan, but they are taken into consideration in Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ analysis of the plan.

Plans for International Employees

Many overseas companies introduce separate plans or delegate a special section of their option plan to deal with tax considerations raised by having a large number of employees working in other countries. Many of these plans contain provisions that deal directly with particular U.S. tax code provisions on stock options. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services applies the same criteria to these plans as to country-specific plans.

Stock Appreciation Rights

Stock appreciation rights (SARs) allow participants to receive the difference between the exercise price and the market price at the date of exercise. Many companies use SARs in lieu of regular options. While SARs do not result in the dilution associated with large option exercises, there is little difference between an SAR and a regular option from a shareholder perspective because the financial cost to the company is the same. However, SARs do not encourage stock ownership by participants because they involve no purchase or sale of company stock. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews SARs in the context of the option plan under which they are issued.

Phantom Stock Option Plans

Phantom stock options offer participants cash bonuses based on the increase in share price during a set period of time. Phantom plans are distinct from SARs in that they often form their own separate plan. Some companies will create a phantom stock option plan to award employees who reside in countries that do not allow stock-based compensation. Participants are designated a set number of hypothetical (phantom) shares, on which the award is based. While Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers compensation plans that encourage employee ownership, SARs and phantom options are an effective way to provide incentive.

Super Options

Super options exceed the limits in a particular country for the value of options granted to any one individual, although they are usually tied to significantly more restrictive vesting provisions and performance criteria. U.K. super options, for example, exceed the Association of British Insurers’ recommended limit that options represent no more than four times a participant’s salary, yet the stricter performance criteria and longer vesting periods usually mitigate excessive grants. Additionally, dilution resulting from super options has historically been fairly moderate. Super options appear most often in advanced markets with developed stock option plans.

Restricted Stock

Restricted stock is specifically designated stock offered at a discount to executives, often under U.S. option plans but increasingly among overseas plans as well. Company shares may be granted outright to optionees with no payment required for the receipt of the shares. Such awards can be extremely expensive, as participants exercise awards at fixed prices far below the current market price. If restricted stock is included as part of a stock option plan, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services expects strict limits on the amount of shares that may be issued in this form.

Dividends Under Option and Dividend Equivalent Payment Provisions

Most holders of stock options do not receive dividend payments. However, some option plans allow participants to receive dividends or dividend equivalent payments prior to the exercise of options. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that any economic benefit derived from option plans should occur at the time of exercise.

B-228

Incentive Plans

Share incentive plans tie key employees’ compensation more directly to company performance. Though most popular in the United Kingdom, incentive plans are becoming increasingly popular across the globe. Incentive plans provide participants with free grants of company shares (or, less frequently, cash grants) in proportion with prearranged performance criteria—often earnings per share measured against inflation or total shareholder return. These indicators are frequently compared with those of other firms in the company’s industry or stock market index, creating a benchmark and a further determinant of the number of shares granted to a particular participant. Proponents of incentive plans note that they offer shareholders the potential for less dilution and that they more directly encourage participants to focus on long-term company performance through strict performance criteria tied to more than just share price movements.

Most incentive plans are organized with strict vesting provisions, where participants may not receive the share awards until after a period of three years or more. Many plans also grant a percentage of the total amount reserved for each participant on a sliding scale measured against performance criteria. Performance criteria targets that have been satisfied only to a certain point may represent disbursement of 25 percent of the shares or cash to a participant, while 100-percent satisfaction may represent the full allotment of the grant. From a shareholder perspective, this graduated system of performance criteria is a major advance.

Evaluation of incentive plans is similar to that of option plans in that acceptable dilution and impartial administration and eligibility remain key factors for a positive recommendation. Insufficient performance criteria or abbreviated vesting provisions are deciding factors as well.

Share Purchase Plans

Share purchase plans allow participants to purchase shares in the company, often at a discount to market prices. These plans are often broad-based in nature, as they are usually open to all employees. Other plans operate via monthly deductions from employees’ paychecks, gathered and held for safe keeping by a trust or a bank and used every month or year to purchase company stock.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will approve many of these plans because they encourage wide share ownership in the company among employees. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally approves broad-based, employee-directed share purchase plans with discounts up to 20 percent. Dilution, eligibility, and administration are the key factors in determining Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ recommendation

Other Features Specific to Share Purchase Plans

Eligibility

While eligibility under share purchase plans is evaluated similarly to stock option plans, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services affords more flexibility with the terms of broad-based employee purchase plans. The inclusion of permanent part-time employees and employees who have been with the company for less than one year are provisions of employee plans that are routinely approved.

Loan Terms

Some plans offer participants loans to pay for the shares. If loans are part of a share purchase plan, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers that loans be made to employees as part of a broad-based, company-wide plan to encourage ownership rather than being given only to executive directors. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also prefers loans with interest set at market rates that must be paid back in full over a reasonable length of time. The absence of these features does not necessary warrant a recommendation against a share purchase plan, but they are taken into consideration in Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ analysis of the plan.

B-229

Grants Outside of Plans

Resolutions asking shareholders to approve specific grants of shares or cash outside of established plans are problematic. Some companies prefer not to adopt formal share plans, instead asking shareholders to approve yearly grants to specific employees. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services prefers that companies make such grants in the context of an established plan.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ primary concern with grants outside of plans is the level of dilution they afford. The number of shares issued as part of the grants, when combined with the number of shares reserved for the company’s other share plans, must fall within acceptable dilution limits. Vesting provisions and performance criteria are also important and are evaluated on the same basis as if the grants were part of a formal plan.

ANTITAKEOVER MECHANISMS

Vote AGAINST all antitakeover proposals unless they are structured in such a way that they give shareholders the ultimate decision on any proposal or offer.

Discussion

Common antitakeover mechanisms include staggered boards, super-voting shares, poison pills, unlimited authorized capital authorizations (including blank check preferred stock), and golden shares. Some of these restrictions are aimed solely at limiting share ownership by foreign or unwanted minority shareholders, and others are designed to preclude an unwanted takeover of the target company by any party. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services opposes all forms of such mechanisms, as they limit shareholder value by eliminating the takeover or control premium for the company. As owners of the company, shareholders should be given the opportunity to decide on the merits of takeover offers.

Renew Partial Takeover Provision (Australia)

Australian law allows companies to introduce into their articles a provision to protect shareholders from partial takeover offers, to be renewed by shareholders every three years. If a partial takeover of the company is announced, directors are required to convene a shareholder meeting at least 15 days before the closing of the offer to seek approval of the offer. If shareholders reject the resolution, the offer is considered withdrawn under company law and the company can refuse to register the shares tendered to the offer. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services approves of consulting shareholders on takeover offers, and this article provides protection for minority shareholders by giving them ultimate decision-making authority based on their own interests, not the interests of directors or outside parties. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the adoption of this proposal in almost all cases.

Golden Shares

Recently privatized companies across the world often include in their share structure a golden share held by their respective governments. These shares often carry special voting rights or the power of automatic veto over specific proposals. Golden shares are most common among former state-owned companies or politically sensitive industries such as utilities, railways, and airlines. While the introduction of golden shares is not a desirable governance practice, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services recognizes the political importance certain companies hold for governments and treats the introduction or amendment of government shares on a case-by-case basis.

Poison Pills (Canada, Japan)

Otherwise known as shareholder rights plans, poison pills are seen primarily in the Canadian and Japanese markets. Companies generally state that they seek to adopt or renew pills in order to protect shareholders against unfair, abusive, or coercive takeover strategies and to give the target company’s board time to pursue alternatives to a hostile takeover bid. Theoretically, the board will refuse to redeem the pill in the face of an unfair offer in order to force a bidder to negotiate for a better offer, at which point it will redeem the pill.

B-230

In accomplishing these goals, however, many rights plans place too much of the decision-making powers in the hands of the board and management and out of the hands of shareholders. However, we note that many Canadian companies have adopted new shareholder rights plans that address the concerns of institutional investors, namely providing for three-year sunset provisions, allowing for partial bids to proceed despite board opposition, and curtailing the overall level of discretion afforded the board in interpreting the pills.

Nonetheless, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services guidelines generally do not support the adoption of poison pills on the grounds that they serve to entrench management. Improperly structured rights plans have been used by boards to ward off offers beneficial to shareholders. Current owners should decide who will own the company, with advice and negotiation from the board and management. When considering the merits of a poison pill, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also examines what other antitakeover devices the company has and the company’s treatment of shareholders in past situations.

Poison pills often have a sunset provision, which requires shareholder confirmation of the plan. Most pills have either a three-year or a five-year sunset provision, requiring that shareholders confirm the continuation of the plan three or five years from the date of adoption. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services guidelines support a three-year sunset provision, which affords shareholders the ability to reconsider the plan in light of changing market conditions and to review management’s use of the plan. Canadian pills also typically include of a permitted bid clause, under which the takeover bid must be made on equal terms to all holders of the company’s voting shares; the company must extend the expiration of the bid, usually by 45 or 60 days following the date of the bid. Management sets the terms of the permitted bid clause, and therefore it influences the level of protection that will be provided to shareholders.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services determines whether the permitted bid feature offers shareholders adequate powers relative to the board in the event of a bid not being approved by the board. Allowing shareholders the right to override the board as a means of balancing power is crucial, but the specifics of the permitted bid clause are usually insufficient. Under the clause, a shareholder who is not intent on a complete acquisition but merely wishes to purchase a significant stake in the company may trigger the pill. This gives the board power to deny shareholders the benefit of a large semi-controlling shareholder and precludes partial bids that may be in shareholders’ interests. In addition to the sunset provision and the structure of the permitted bid clause, in order to qualify for approval, a shareholder rights plan must satisfy ALL of the following conditions:

• Permitted bid clause structure: a permitted bid clause must allow for partial bids supported by a majority of shareholders to proceed despite board opposition; bid periods should generally not be greater than 60 days; the clause” should not contain a “toehold provision” that would any person who already controls a specified percentage of shares from making a permitted bid;

• Amendments: the ability of the board to amend key terms of the plan without shareholder approval following initial adoption of the plan must be limited to clerical and typographical changes and changes required to maintain the validity of the rights plan;

• Exchange option: a plan must not contain a provision that would enable the board to issue in exchange for the right, with or without further charge, debt or equity securities, other assets of the company, or any combination thereof;

• Definition of Fair Market Value: the board must not have the discretion to interpret the fair market value of the company’s shares if the board determines that the value was adversely affected by the news of an anticipated or actual bid or by other means of manipulation;

• Affiliates and Associates: the board’s discretion to decide which parties are acting in concert to determine the level of beneficial ownership, which could be used to trigger the pill should be limited and well-defined in the text of the plan;

• Mandatory Waiver: if the board waives the triggering of the pill with respect to one bidder, the board must be required to waive the pill in favor of any subsequent bids, preventing the board from favoring one bid over another regardless of shareholder interests.

B-231

Since 2006, the vast majority of Japanese poison pills have been so called “advance warning-type” (“advance notice-type”) defense plans. In these cases, the board announces in advance a set of disclosure requirements it expects any bidder to comply with, as well as a waiting period between the submission of this information and the launch of the bid. As long as the bidder complies with these rules, the company “in principle” will take no action to block the bid, but will allow shareholders to decide.

The exceptions are where the bid is judged to be clearly detrimental to shareholders, such as in situations defined by a Japanese court or in a report of the government’s Corporate Value Study Group. These include greenmail, asset stripping and coercive two-tier offers. Usually, such judgments are made by a “special committee” or “independent committee,” but the committee’s decision is usually subject to being overruled by the board. At some companies the decisions are made by the board with no committee input at all. Advance warning-type defenses do not require shareholder approval, although in most cases companies are choosing to put them to a shareholder vote, as it is believed that doing so will put the company in a stronger position in the event of a lawsuit.

Where a company implements an advance warning-type defense without a shareholder vote, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will similarly examine the details of the plan, and where we deem it to be detrimental to shareholder value, we will consider recommending votes against the company’s representative director(s).

Depositary Receipts and Priority Shares (The Netherlands)

Depositary receipts are an especially common antitakeover defense among large Dutch companies. In the event of a hostile takeover bid, ordinary voting shares are first issued to a company-friendly trust or foundation. The trust or foundation in turn issues depositary receipts, similar to banks in the United States issuing ADRs except that the foundation retains the voting rights of the issued security. The depositary receipts carry only the financial rights attached to the shares (i.e., dividends). In this manner, the company gains access to capital while retaining control over voting rights. Nonvoting preference shares can be issued to trusts or foundations in a similar fashion.

Priority shares, established in a company’s articles, may be awarded with certain powers of control over the rest of the company. In practice, priority shares are held by members of the supervisory board, company-friendly trusts or foundations, or other friendly parties. Depending on the articles, priority shareholders may determine the size of the management or supervisory boards or may propose amendments to articles and the dissolution of the company. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote against the introduction of depositary receipts and priority shares.

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

Vote all shareholder proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote FOR proposals that would improve the company’s corporate governance or business profile at a reasonable cost.

Vote AGAINST proposals that limit the company’s business activities or capabilities or result in significant costs being incurred with little or no benefit.

Discussion

Unlike in the United States where shareholders proposals are quite common, they are less common overseas. One market where proposals sponsored by shareholders are more common is the German market. There are two types of such proposals—shareholder proposals and counterproposals. Counterproposals are filed in direct

B-232

opposition to proposals put forward by management at a given shareholder meeting. Many shareholder and counterproposals in Germany focus on environmental and labor issues. The number of shareholder proposals is also on the rise in Canada, although the aggregate annual number still pales in comparison to the U.S. In general shareholder proposals seen at global companies cover a wide variety of issues, including fundamental corporate governance topics, social issues, direct action proposals, as well as many unique proposals.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ position on the issues covered in many of these proposals has already been discussed. Generally, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will evaluate shareholder proposals to determine whether they are in the best economic interests of the participants and beneficiaries we represent. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ clients, not Taft-Hartley Advisory Services, choose the companies in which they invest and, ultimately, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ responsibility is to protect their economic interests. This does not mean, though, that Taft-Hartley Advisory Services must take a short-term approach when evaluating these proposals. Rather, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote in consistency with the economic best interests of the participants and beneficiaries.

In general, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports proposals that request the company to furnish information helpful to shareholders in evaluating the company’s operations. In order to intelligently monitor their investments, shareholders often need information best provided by the company in which they have invested. Requests to report such information merit support. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will evaluate proposals seeking the company to cease taking certain actions that the proponent believes is harmful to society or some segment of society with special attention to the company’s legal and ethical obligations, its ability to remain profitable, and potential negative publicity if the company fails to honor the request.

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews all shareholder proposals to ascertain whether the proposal is beneficial or detrimental to shareholder value. Most resolutions fall into three basic categories: corporate governance, social, and environmental. While shareholder proposals in most countries are not as prevalent as they are in the United States, they are becoming more common, and standards for reviewing the various types of proposals are necessary.

Corporate Governance Proposals

Corporate governance-related proposals must be evaluated carefully because any changes can dramatically affect shareholder value. Support for such proposals must be measured against the likely impact that approval would have on the company’s operations. If a measure would improve disclosure of company activities in nonstrategic areas and at minimal costs, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the proposal. If a proposal seeks to improve the company’s corporate governance structure, such as adopting board committees, eliminating staggered board structures, or canceling antitakeover instruments, approval is also warranted. However, if acceptance of a proposal is likely to lead to a disruption in board or management operations and to cause the company to incur significant costs without clear benefit, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose the proposal.

Social and Environmental Proposals

The voting fiduciary should support social and environmental proposals if they either contribute to the long term interests of plan participants and beneficiaries, or will have no adverse impact on plan participants and beneficiaries.

Global codes of conduct for social, human, and economic standards are an important component in the stability of world economic conditions and in protecting the current lifestyle of plan beneficiaries and participants. Without agreement on international codes, some international companies could pursue a race to the bottom strategy that could ultimately undermine U.S. environmental and economic conditions.

B-233

Report on Environmental Policies

These resolutions request the company to disclose its environmental practices. For example, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally support proposals calling for a report on hazardous waste policies and issues regarding Maquiladora factories in Mexico.

Adoption of “CERES Principles”

These resolutions call for the adoption of principles that encourage the company to protect the environment and the safety and health of its employees. Many companies have voluntarily adopted these principles. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally support these proposals as they often improve the company’s public image, reduce exposure to liabilities, and establish standards so that environmentally responsible companies and markets are not at a competitive financial disadvantage.

Adoption of “MacBride Principles”

These resolutions call 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. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will support such proposals as an appropriate obligation for the company to undertake.

Contract Supplier Standards

These resolutions call for compliance with governmental mandates and corporate policies regarding nondiscrimination, affirmative action, work place safety and health and other basic labor protections. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally support 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.

• request a report summarizing the company’s current practices for enforcement of its Code of Conduct.

• establishes independent monitoring programs in conjunction with local and respected religious and human rights groups to monitor supplier and licensee compliance with the Code of Conduct.

• create incentives to encourage suppliers to raise standards rather than terminate contracts.

• implement policies for ongoing wage adjustments, ensuring adequate purchasing power and a sustainable living wage for employees of foreign suppliers and licensees.

• request public disclosure of contract supplier reviews on a regular basis.

Corporate Conduct and Human Rights

Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will generally support 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.

B-234

SCHEDULE C

Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form

Portfolio Manager Requesting Override/Making Decision:

Portfolio Management Product Area (check one):

¨ Growth
¨ Value	¨ International Equity	¨ Convertible
¨ Fixed (High Yield)	¨ Fixed (High Grade)

Security Issuer:

Security’s exchange ticker symbol:

Cusip #:

# of Shares held/par amount held:

Percentage of outstanding shares/par amount held:

Type of accounts holding security: Mutual Funds (name each fund):                                                                          

Separate Accounts (specify number):                                                                                                            

Other (describe):                                                                                                                                             

Applicable Guidelines (check one):

¨ MacKay Standard (A or B)

¨ Other (specify):

¨ N/A

Shareholder/Bondholder/Lender Meeting Date:

Response Deadline:

Brief Description of the Matter to be Voted On:

Proposal Type (check one):

¨ Management Proposal

¨ Shareholder Proposal (identify proponent:                                                                                            )

Recommended vote by issuer’s management (check one): ¨ For ¨ Against ¨ N/A

B-235

Recommended vote by ISS (check one):	¨ For	¨ Against
	¨ Abstain	¨ N/A
	¨ No Recommendation
Portfolio manager recommended vote (check one):	¨ For	¨ Against
	¨ Abstain

Describe in detail why you believe this override/decision is in the client’s best interest (attach supporting documentation):

Are you aware of any relationship between the issuer, or its officers or directors, and MacKay Shields or any of its affiliates?

¨ No        ¨ Yes (describe below)

Are you aware of any relationship between the issuer, including its officers or directors, and any executive officers of MacKay Shields or any of its affiliates?

¨ No        ¨ Yes (describe below)

Are you aware of any relationship between the proponent of the proxy proposal (if not the issuer) and MacKay Shields or any of its affiliates?

¨ No        ¨ Yes (describe below)

B-236

Are you aware of any relationship between the proponent of the proxy proposal (if not the issuer) and any executive officers of MacKay Shields or any of its affiliates?

¨ No        ¨ Yes (describe below)

Has anyone (outside of your portfolio management area) contacted you in an attempt to influence your decision to vote this proxy matter?

¨ No        ¨ Yes

If yes, please describe below who contacted you and on whose behalf, the manner in which you were contacted (such as by phone, by mail, as part of group, individually etc.), the subject matter of the communication and any other relevant information, and attach copies of any written communications.

Are you aware of any facts related to this proxy vote that may present a potential conflict of interest with the interests of the client(s) on whose behalf the proxies are to be voted?

¨ No        ¨ Yes (describe below)

Certification:

The undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of his or her knowledge, the above statements are complete and accurate, and that such override/decision is in the client(s)’ best interests without regard to the interests of MacKay Shields or any related parties.

Date:

Name:

Title:

B-237

Product Head Concurrence with Override Request/Decision:

Date:

Name:

Title:

Legal/Compliance Action:

¨ Override/decision approved

¨ Referred to Compliance Committee for Further Consideration

Date:

Name:

Title:

B-238

MARSICO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Statement of Policy

1. It is the policy of Marsico Capital Management, LLC (“MCM”) to seek to vote or otherwise process, such as by a decision to abstain from voting or to take no action on, proxies over which it has voting authority in the best interests of MCM’s clients, as summarized here.

• MCM’s security analysts generally review proxy proposals as part of their monitoring of portfolio companies. Under MCM’s investment discipline, one of the qualities that MCM generally seeks in companies selected for client portfolios is good management teams that generally seek to serve shareholder interests. Because MCM believes that the management teams of most companies it invests in generally seek to serve shareholder interests, MCM believes that voting proxy proposals in clients’ best economic interests usually means voting with the recommendations of these management teams (including their boards of directors).

• In certain circumstances, MCM’s vote-by-vote analysis of proxy proposals could lead it to conclude that particular management or board recommendations may not appear as closely aligned with shareholder interests as MCM may deem desirable, or could be disregarded in the best interests of shareholders. In those and other circumstances, MCM may, in its sole discretion, vote against a management or board recommendation (or abstain or take no action) based on its analysis if such a vote appears consistent with the best interests of clients.

• MCM may process certain proxies without voting them, such as by making a decision to abstain from voting or take no action on such proxies (or on certain proposals within such proxies). Examples include, without limitation, proxies issued by companies that MCM has decided to sell, proxies issued for securities that MCM did not select for a client portfolio (such as, without limitation, securities that were selected by a previous adviser, unsupervised securities held in a client’s account, money market securities, or other securities selected by clients or their representatives other than MCM), or proxies issued by foreign companies that impose burdensome or unreasonable voting, power of attorney, or holding requirements. MCM also may abstain from voting, or take no action on, proxies in other circumstances, such as when voting may not be in the best interests of clients, as an alternative to voting with (or against) management, or when voting may be unduly burdensome or expensive, or if MCM may have a material conflict of interest in voting certain proxies and alternative voting procedures are not desirable.

• In circumstances when there may be an apparent material conflict of interest between MCM’s interests and clients’ interests in how proxies are voted (such as when MCM knows that a proxy issuer is also an MCM client), MCM generally will resolve any appearance concerns by causing those proxies to be “echo voted” or “mirror voted” in the same proportion as other votes, by voting the proxies as recommended by an independent service provider, or by abstaining or taking no action. In other cases, MCM might use other procedures to resolve an apparent material conflict.

• MCM may use an independent service provider to assist in voting proxies, keep voting records, and disclose voting information to clients. MCM’s Proxy Voting policy and reports describing the voting of a client’s proxies are available to the client on request.

• MCM seeks to ensure that, to the extent reasonably feasible, proxies for which MCM receives ballots in good order and receives timely notice will be voted or otherwise processed (such as through a decision to abstain or take no action) as intended under MCM’s Proxy Voting policy and procedures. MCM may be unable to vote or otherwise process proxy ballots that are not received or processed in a timely manner due to functional limitations of the proxy voting system, custodial limitations, or other factors beyond MCM’s control. Such ballots may include, without limitation, ballots for securities out on loan under securities lending programs initiated by the client or its custodian, ballots not timely

B-239

forwarded by a custodian, or ballots for which MCM does not timely receive essential information such as the proxy proposal itself or modifications to the required voting date. Other ballots may be voted but not counted, or may be counted in an unexpected way, because of factors such as foreign voting requirements or other limitations.

Definitions

2. By “best interests of MCM’s clients,” MCM means clients’ best economic interests over the long term – that is, the common interest that all clients share in seeing the value of a common investment increase over time. Clients may have differing political or social interests, but their best economic interests are generally uniform.

3. By “material conflict of interest,” MCM means circumstances when MCM itself knowingly does business with a particular proxy issuer, other principal proponent of a proposal, or an entity closely affiliated with the proxy issuer or other principal proponent of a proposal, or other circumstances in which MCM may appear to have a significant conflict of interest between its own interests and the interests of clients in how proxies are voted.

Procedures: MCM Invests in Companies With Management Teams That Seek Shareholders’ Best Interests, and Usually Votes Proxies with Management Recommendations

4. MCM’s security analysts generally review proxy proposals as part of their monitoring of portfolio companies. Under MCM’s investment discipline, one of the qualities that MCM generally seeks in companies selected for client portfolios is good management teams that generally seek to serve shareholder interests. Because MCM believes that the management teams of companies it invests in generally seek to serve shareholder interests, MCM believes that voting proxy proposals in clients’ best economic interests usually means voting with the recommendations of these management teams (or their boards of directors). Therefore, when portfolio companies issue proxy proposals, MCM usually votes the proxies with management or board recommendations, because it believes that recommendations by these companies’ managements generally are in shareholders’ best interests, and therefore in the best economic interests of MCM’s clients.

5. In certain circumstances, MCM’s vote-by-vote analysis of proxy proposals could lead it to conclude that particular management or board recommendations may not appear as closely aligned with shareholder interests as MCM may deem desirable, or could be disregarded in the best interests of shareholders. For example, in some circumstances, certain proxy proposals or recommendations by management, shareholders, or other proponents – such as, without limitation, proposals that would affect corporate governance relating to anti-takeover measures, board election requirements, director qualifications, shared board and management responsibilities, capitalization changes, compensation programs, or other matters – could present circumstances in which management recommendations may not appear as closely aligned with shareholder interests as MCM in its sole discretion may deem desirable. In those and other circumstances, MCM may, in its sole discretion, vote against a management or board recommendation (or abstain or take no action) based on MCM’s analysis if in MCM’s view such a vote appears consistent with the best interests of clients. As further examples, in MCM’s sole discretion, it may vote against a management or board recommendation in order to, without limitation, support a shareholder proposal favoring safeguards against potential overreaching by management or enhancements of shareholder control that MCM believes are reasonable or appropriate, or vote against management or board recommendations in order to oppose management proposals that are not shareholder-friendly in MCM’s view.

6. MCM generally considers each proxy proposal on its merits, and periodically reassesses its views of the management teams of the companies that it invests in for clients. A decision to vote against a particular management or board recommendation or to otherwise abstain or take no action on a proxy proposal does not necessarily signal a departure from MCM’s general view that a management team or board is serving the best interests of shareholders. If MCM concludes, in its sole discretion, that a company’s management team or board no longer appears to be serving shareholders’ best interests, MCM may take any action it deems appropriate, including, without limitation, awaiting further developments, voting against selected management or board recommendations, or selling shares of the company.

B-240

Procedures: Use of an Independent Service Provider

7. MCM may engage an independent service provider to assist with the administrative and ministerial aspects of proxy voting. The independent service provider may perform functions that include, without limitation, voting proxies for MCM in accordance with MCM’s instructions based on MCM’s Proxy Voting policy, maintaining records of proxy votes, and assisting in preparing certain reports. To minimize the possibility that MCM’s proxy votes could be affected by potential conflicts of interest that may exist between an independent service provider and a proxy issuer, MCM rarely considers directing such a service provider to vote proxies for MCM based on the service provider’s recommendations (although MCM may do so in certain circumstances discussed in “Alternative Procedures for Potential Material Conflicts of Interest” below).

Procedures: Voting/Abstention/No Action/Other Exceptions

8. MCM seeks to ensure that, to the extent reasonably feasible, proxies for which MCM receives ballots in good order and receives timely notice will be voted or otherwise processed as intended under MCM’s Proxy Voting policy and procedures. MCM employs a number of measures, including certain reconciliations and other cross-check procedures, to attempt to verify that proxies are voted or otherwise processed as intended, although such checks may not be feasible or reliable in some cases because of the complexity of the proxy voting process. MCM’s ability to vote or otherwise process proxies may be limited by many factors, including MCM’s dependence on custodians and independent proxy voting service providers to assist in processing proxies. MCM may be unable to vote or otherwise process proxy ballots that are not received or processed in a timely manner due to functional limitations of the proxy voting system, custodial limitations, or other factors beyond MCM’s control. Such ballots may include, without limitation, ballots for securities out on loan under securities lending programs initiated by a client or its custodian, ballots not timely forwarded by a custodian, or ballots for which MCM does not timely receive essential information such as the proxy proposal itself or modifications to the required voting date. Other ballots may be voted but not counted, or may be counted in an unexpected way, because of factors such as foreign voting requirements or other limitations. For example, in a few foreign markets, ballots cast by MCM may not be counted if required powers of attorney between the client and the custodian are not maintained. Also in foreign markets, ballots for securities held by a custodian in an omnibus account for multiple customers may be voted in an unexpected manner if the custodian receives different voting instructions from its customers and cannot split its vote as each customer requested.

9.a MCM may process some proxies without voting them, such as by making a decision to abstain or take no action on such proxies (or on certain proposals within such proxies). For example, if MCM has decided to sell the shares of a company, MCM generally may abstain from voting proxies or may take no action on proxies issued by the company. If MCM receives proxies relating to securities acquired as a result of an account transition (such as, without limitation, securities delivered into a newly opened MCM account that were selected by a previous adviser), MCM may choose to abstain or take no action on the proxies. MCM also may abstain or take no action on proxies issued for other securities that MCM did not select for a client portfolio (such as, without limitation, unsupervised securities held in a client’s account, or money market securities or other securities selected by clients or their representatives other than MCM).

9.b. MCM may abstain or take no action on proxies (or on certain proposals within such proxies) in other circumstances. MCM may determine, for example, that abstaining or taking no action on proxies is appropriate if voting may be unduly burdensome or expensive, such as when foreign proxy issuers impose burdensome or unreasonable voting, power of attorney, or holding requirements, or if MCM may have a material conflict of interest in voting certain proxies and alternative voting procedures are not desirable. MCM also may abstain or take no action when voting may not be in the best interests of clients in MCM’s view, or as an alternative to voting with (or against) management.

10. The procedures in this policy generally apply to all proxy voting matters over which MCM has voting authority, including changes in corporate governance structures, the adoption or amendment of compensation plans (including stock options), and matters involving social issues or corporate responsibility.

B-241

Alternative Procedures for Potential Material Conflicts of Interest

11. In certain circumstances such as when the issuer or other proponent of a proxy proposal is also a client of MCM, it is possible that an appearance might arise of a potential conflict between MCM’s interests and the interests of affected clients in how the proxies of that issuer are voted.

12. MCM seeks to vote or otherwise process proxies in the best interests of its clients, and believes that any potential conflict of interest would not actually affect MCM’s voting of the proxies.

13. Nevertheless, when MCM is aware that a material conflict of interest (as defined in section 3 above) between MCM’s interests and clients’ interests may appear to exist, MCM generally will, to avoid appearance concerns, follow an alternative procedure rather than vote or otherwise process ballots in accordance with its own determinations. Such an alternative procedure generally would involve either:

(i) Directing an independent service provider to cause the proxies of those MCM client accounts that MCM is responsible for processing to be “echo voted” or “mirror voted” in the same proportion as the votes of other proxy holders if the service provider indicates it can do so; or

(ii) Directing the proxies of those MCM client accounts that MCM is responsible for processing to be voted in accordance with the recommendations of an independent service provider that MCM may use to assist in voting proxies. This procedure generally may be used if it can be determined that the independent service provider appears able to make such recommendations and vote in an impartial manner. In making this determination, MCM may (1) require the independent service provider to represent or otherwise demonstrate that the service provider faces no conflict of interest with respect to the vote, or (2) ask the independent service provider to disclose to MCM relevant facts concerning the firm’s relationship with the proxy issuer or other persons and certify that the service provider has taken steps to ensure that no actual conflicts exist.

MCM seeks to document the identification of any material conflict of interest and its procedure for resolving the particular conflict.

14. MCM may use other alternative procedures to address circumstances when a material conflict of interest may appear to exist, such as, without limitation:

(i) Notifying affected clients of the conflict of interest (if it is reasonably feasible to do so), and seeking a waiver of the conflict to permit MCM to vote the proxies;

(ii) Abstaining or taking no action on the proxies in cases when, without limitation, service providers cannot echo vote proxies of certain securities (such as those issued by foreign companies), or in other cases when alternative voting procedures are not desirable; or

(iii) Forwarding the proxies to clients so that clients may vote the proxies themselves.

Voting by Client Instead of MCM

15. An MCM client may elect to vote proxies for its own account instead of directing MCM to do so. MCM recommends this approach if a client believes that proxies should be voted based on political or social interests or other client-specific considerations.

16. MCM generally cannot implement client proxy voting guidelines that do not delegate full discretion to MCM, or that are not fully consistent with these procedures. In particular, MCM encourages the client to vote its own proxies if the client seeks to impose client-specific voting guidelines that may be inconsistent with MCM’s policy or with MCM’s vote-by-vote analysis. MCM does not generally advise a client on proxy voting issues when the client retains authority to handle such matters itself.

B-242

17. MCM generally may abstain or will take no action on proxy votes relating to legal proceedings such as shareholder class actions or bankruptcy proceedings, or may refer such votes to clients.

Persons Responsible for Implementing MCM’s Policy

18. MCM’s Operations/Client Services staff has primary responsibility for implementing MCM’s Proxy Voting policy and procedures, including ensuring that proxies are timely submitted. MCM also generally uses a service provider to assist in voting proxies, recordkeeping, and other matters.

19. Members of MCM’s Investment staff, such as security analysts, generally review proxy proposals as part of their ongoing assessment of companies.

Recordkeeping

20.a. MCM or a service provider maintains, in accordance with Rule 204-2 under the Investment Advisers Act:

(i) Copies of all proxy voting policies and procedures;

(ii) Copies of proxy statements received (unless maintained elsewhere as described below);

(iii) Records of proxy votes cast on behalf of clients;

(iv) Documents prepared by MCM that are material to a decision on how to vote or memorializing the basis for a decision;

(v) Written client requests for proxy voting information, and

(vi) Written responses by MCM to written or oral client requests.

20.b. MCM seeks to document instances in which it identifies a material conflict of interest, as well as the procedure utilized for resolving the particular conflict. MCM’s Operations/Client Services Department also documents certain other non-routine proxy voting issues, including: the basis for (1) any decision to vote against a management or board recommendation for reasons other than general matters affecting corporate governance issues discussed in section 5 above; and (2) any decision to abstain or take no action on a proxy that is intended by MCM to demonstrate divergence from a management or board recommendation.

20.c. MCM will not document other, more routine instances in which it may take certain actions with respect to a particular proxy, including certain situations identified in this Proxy Voting policy and procedures. MCM generally will not document, for example, the basis for routine decisions (i) to vote against corporate governance proposals such as those described above, or (ii) to abstain or take no action on proxies in circumstances (A) when foreign issuers impose burdensome or unreasonable voting, power of attorney, or holding requirements, (B) when MCM has sold or determined to sell a security, or when MCM did not select the securities for the client portfolio (such as, without limitation, securities that were selected by a previous adviser, unsupervised securities held in a client’s account, or money market securities or other securities selected by clients or their representatives other than MCM), or (C) when other routine situations arise such as those identified in section 9 above. MCM also cannot document decisions not to vote or otherwise process proxies that were not received in good order, not received in a timely fashion, or otherwise not processed for reasons beyond MCM’s control, such as in certain situations addressed in section 8 above.

21. MCM will obtain an undertaking from any service provider that the service provider will provide copies of proxy voting records and other documents promptly upon request if MCM relies on the service provider to maintain related records.

22. MCM or its service provider may rely on the SEC’s EDGAR system to keep records of certain proxy statements issued by domestic (and some foreign) issuers if the proxy statements are maintained by issuers on that system (as is generally true in the case of larger U.S. – based issuers).

B-243

23. All proxy-related records will be maintained in an easily accessible place for five years (and at an appropriate office of MCM or a service provider for the first two years).

Availability of Policy and Proxy Voting Records to Clients

24. MCM will initially inform clients of this policy and provide information regarding how a client may learn of MCM’s voting record for the client’s securities through summary disclosure in Part II of MCM’s Form ADV. Upon receipt of a client’s request for more information, MCM will provide the client with a copy of this Proxy Voting policy. Reports describing how MCM voted proxies for the client during the period since this policy was adopted are also available upon request.

* * *

MCM’s Chief Compliance Officer will review this policy at least annually to determine whether it should be amended or updated. Any amendments to this policy require the written approval of the Chief Compliance Officer.

Approved by:	Steven Carlson /s/
Title:	Chief Compliance Officer
Effective Date:	October 1, 2004
Policy Amended:	February 10, 2006
Approved by:	Steven Carlson /s/
Title:	Chief Compliance Officer
Effective Date:	February 10, 2006
Policy Amended:	July 19, 2006
Approved by:	Steven Carlson /s/
Title:	Chief Compliance Officer
Effective Date:	July 19, 2006
Amendment Approved:	August 8, 2008
Approved by:	Steven Carlson
Title:	Chief Compliance Officer
Effective Date:	September 1, 2008

B-244

BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.

PROXY VOTING POLICY

B-245

BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.

PROXY VOTING POLICY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	OBJECTIVE		B-28
II.	ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH BRANDES HAS PROXY VOTING RESPONSIBILITY		B-28
III.	ADHERENCE TO CLIENT PROXY VOTING POLICIES		B-29
IV.	ARRANGEMENTS WITH Proxy Service Providers		B-29
V.	CONFLICTS		B-30
VI.	SPECIAL ISSUES WITH VOTING FOREIGN PROXIES		B-30
VII.	REPORTS		B-31
VIII.	OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES		B-31
	A.	Role of the Reorganization Department	B-31
	B.	Role of the Investments Group in Voting Proxies	B-32
	C.	Role of the Corporate Governance Committee	B-32
	D.	Disclosures of Proxy Voting Intentions	B-32
IX.	SECURITIES SUBJECT TO LENDING ARRANGEMENTS		B-32
X.	RECORDKEEPING		B-32
XI.	PROXY VOTING REVIEW COMMITTEE		B-33
XII.	PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES SUMMARY		B-34
XIII.	PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES		B-34
	A.	The Board of Directors	B-34
	B.	Auditors	B-36
	C.	Proxy Contests, Tender Offer Defenses, and Miscellaneous Governance Provisions	B-36
	D.	Capital Structure	B-39
	E.	Executive and Director Compensation	B-40
	F.	Mergers and Corporate Restructurings	B-42
	G.	Reincorporation	B-42
	H.	Money Market Funds	B-42
	I.	Social, Political, and Environmental Issues	B-43
XIV.	PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR BRANDES INVESTMENT TRUST		B-43

B-246

EFFECTIVE AS OF

MAY 1, 2009

BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.

PROXY VOTING POLICY

Brandes Investment Partners, L.P. (“Brandes”) generally is responsible for voting proxies with respect to securities held in client accounts, including clients that are pension plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA Plans”). This document sets forth Brandes’ policy with respect to proxy voting and its procedures to comply with SEC Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Specifically, Rule 206(4)-6 requires that we:

• Adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that we vote client securities in the best interest of clients;

• Disclose to clients how they may obtain information from us about how we voted proxies for their securities; and

• Describe our proxy voting policies and procedures to clients and furnish them a copy of our policies and procedures on request.

I. OBJECTIVE

Where Brandes is given responsibility for voting proxies, we must take reasonable steps under the circumstances to ensure that proxies are received and voted in the best interest of our clients, which generally means voting proxies with a view to enhancing the value of the shares of stock held in client accounts.

The financial interest of our clients is the primary consideration in determining how proxies should be voted. In the case of social, political, and environmental responsibility issues that in our view do not primarily involve financial considerations, it is not possible to represent fairly the diverse views of our clients and, thus, unless a client has provided other instructions, Brandes generally votes in accordance with the recommendations of management and/or a third-party proxy service provider (see discussion below) on these issues, although, on occasion Brandes abstains from voting on these issues.

When making proxy-voting decisions, Brandes generally adheres to its Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), as revised from time to time by Brandes’ Corporate Governance Committee. The Guidelines are described generally in an insert to our Form ADV, Part II and on our website, and are made available to clients on request. The Guidelines, which have been developed with reference to the positions of certain third party proxy service providers, set forth Brandes’ positions on recurring issues and criteria for addressing non-recurring issues.

II. ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH BRANDES HAS PROXY VOTING RESPONSIBILITY

Brandes generally is responsible for voting proxies with respect to securities selected by Brandes and held in client accounts. Brandes’ form Investment Advisory Agreement provides that Brandes is generally responsible for proxy voting unless the client has directed Brandes to the contrary in writing. As a general rule, Brandes does not, however, vote proxies for securities not selected by Brandes but that are nevertheless held in a client account or where Brandes otherwise is not vested with discretionary authority over securities held in a client account.

Although clients may reserve to themselves or assign to another person proxy voting responsibility, certain formalities must be observed in the case of ERISA Plans. Where authority to manage ERISA Plan assets has been delegated to Brandes, this delegation automatically includes responsibility to vote proxies unless the named

B-247

fiduciary that appointed Brandes has expressly reserved to itself or another named fiduciary proxy voting responsibility. To be effective, a reservation of proxy voting responsibility for a given ERISA Plan should:

• Be in writing;

• State that Brandes is “precluded” from voting proxies because proxy voting responsibility is reserved to an identified named fiduciary; and

• Be consistent with the plan’s documents (which should provide for procedures for allocating fiduciary responsibilities among named fiduciaries).

III. ADHERENCE TO CLIENT PROXY VOTING POLICIES

Although clients do not always have proxy voting policies, if a client has such a policy and instructs Brandes to follow it, Brandes will follow those instructions except in any instance in which doing so would be contrary to the economic interests of the plan or otherwise imprudent or unlawful. In the case of ERISA Plans, Brandes, as a fiduciary, is required to discharge its duties in accordance with the documents governing the plan (insofar as they are consistent with ERISA). These documents include statements of proxy voting policy.

Brandes must, to the extent possible, comply with each client’s proxy voting policy (unless in the particular situation voting in such a manner would be imprudent or otherwise inconsistent with applicable law).

IV. ARRANGEMENTS WITH PROXY SERVICE PROVIDERS

Brandes presently uses the following firms as third-party proxy service providers (“PSP”) to assist in voting proxies.

• Risk Metrics Group (“RMG”) is a proxy research, advisory, voting and vote-reporting service that specializes in global proxy voting. RMG’s primary function with respect to Brandes is to appraise it of shareholder meeting dates of all securities holdings, translate proxy materials received from companies, provide associated research and provide considerations and recommendations for voting on particular proxy proposals.

• Broadridge Financial Solutions’ Proxy Edge service is an electronic proxy voting and vote-tracking service. Broadridge’s primary function with respect to Brandes is to apprise it of the shareholder meeting dates of securities holdings, forward copies of proxy materials, and vote proxies in accordance with our instructions.

• Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC is a leading research and professional services firm that assists institutions globally that have investment, financial or reputational exposure to public companies. It provides research and recommendations for Brandes for voting on proxy proposals.

• Proxy Governance, Inc. provides research and proxy voting recommendations on U.S. and non-U.S. publicly traded companies. Coverage is based on securities held in client portfolios. For non-U.S. companies, research and recommendations may be provided through partnerships with other leading proxy advisory firms, or directly by Proxy Governance when proxy materials are reasonably available in a timely manner.

Although we may consider RMG’s and others’ recommendations on proxy issues, Brandes bears ultimate responsibility for proxy voting decisions. For ERISA Plans for which Brandes votes proxies, Brandes is not relieved of its fiduciary responsibility by following directions of a PSP or the ERISA Plans’ named fiduciaries or by delegating proxy voting responsibility to another person.

B-248

V. CONFLICTS

Brandes is sensitive to conflicts of interest that may arise in the proxy decision-making process. For example, conflicts of interest may arise when: (i) proxy votes regarding non-routine matters are solicited by an issuer who has an institutional separate account relationship with Brandes; (ii) Brandes has material business relationships with participants in proxy contests, corporate directors or director candidates; or (iii) a Brandes employee has a material personal interest in the outcome of a particular matter before shareholders.

Brandes is committed to resolving all such and similar conflicts in its clients’ best interests. Brandes has developed these policies and procedures to serve the best interests of its clients, and accordingly, will generally vote pursuant to its Guidelines when conflicts of interest arise. When there are proxy voting proposals, however, that give rise to conflicts of interest that are not addressed by the Guidelines, the Corporate Governance Committee will consult the Head of Compliance (“HOC”) and the approach taken to address the conflict situation shall be documented in writing. If necessary, the Corporate Governance Committee, the HOC, and senior management will consult with an independent consultant or outside counsel to resolve material conflicts of interest. Possible resolutions of such conflicts may include: (i) voting in accordance with the guidance of an independent consultant or outside counsel; (ii) erecting information barriers around the person or persons making voting decisions; (iii) designating a person or committee to vote that has no knowledge of any relationship between Brandes and the issuer, its officers or directors, director candidates, or proxy proponents; or (iv) voting in other ways that are consistent with Brandes’ obligation to vote in its clients’ best interests.

Brandes has taken various steps to neutralize potential conflicts that may arise with PSPs, such as RMG, that also provide other products and services to issuers. RMG has made a copy of its policies, procedures and practices regarding potential conflicts of interest available to Brandes. In addition, RMG shall, on a periodic basis, provide Brandes with a list of those companies that have a business relationship with RMG. Brandes exercises best efforts to compare this list to proxies it votes on behalf of clients so that potential conflicts of interest are made known at the time of voting proxies. In addition, Brandes’ Corporate Governance Committee reviews, not less than annually, potential material conflicts of interest disclosed to Brandes by RMG. Finally, Brandes obtains additional proxy voting information from other PSPs as an additional check on the independence of the voting recommendations provided to Brandes by RMG.

VI. SPECIAL ISSUES WITH VOTING FOREIGN PROXIES

Although Brandes has arrangements with PSPs, voting proxies with respect to shares of foreign companies may involve significantly greater effort and corresponding cost due to the variety of regulatory schemes and corporate practices in foreign countries with respect to proxy voting. Logistical problems in voting foreign proxies include the following:

• Each country has its own rules and practices regarding shareholder notification, voting restrictions, registration conditions, and share blocking.

• To vote shares in some countries, the shares may be “blocked” by the custodian or depository (or bearer shares deposited with a specified financial institution) for a specified number of days (usually five or fewer but sometimes longer) before or after the shareholder meeting. When blocked, shares typically may not be traded until the day after the blocking period. Brandes may refrain from voting shares of foreign stocks subject to blocking restrictions where, in Brandes’ judgment, the benefit from voting the shares is outweighed by the interest of maintaining client liquidity in the shares. This decision generally is made on a case-by-case basis based on relevant factors, including the length of the blocking period, the significance of the holding, and whether the stock is considered a long-term holding.

• Often it is difficult to ascertain the date of a shareholder meeting because certain countries do not require companies to publish announcements in any official stock exchange publication.

B-249

• Time frames between shareholder notifications, distribution of proxy materials, book-closure and the actual meeting date may be too short to allow timely action.

• Language barriers will generally mean that an English translation of proxy information must be obtained or commissioned before the relevant shareholder meeting.

• Some companies and/or jurisdictions require that, in order to be eligible to vote, the shares of the beneficial holders be registered in the company’s share registry.

• Lack of a “proxy voting service” by custodians in certain countries. In countries in which custodians do not offer a “proxy voting service”, Brandes will attempt, on a best efforts basis, to lodge votes in such countries.

• Presence of voting fees in countries in which custodians do not offer a “proxy voting service”, may limit Brandes’ ability to lodge votes in such countries.

Because the cost of voting on a particular proxy proposal could exceed the expected benefit to a client (including an ERISA Plan), Brandes may weigh the costs and benefits of voting on proxy proposals relating to foreign securities and make an informed decision on whether voting a given proxy proposal is prudent.

VII. REPORTS

An insert to Brandes’ Form ADV, Part II and the Brandes website describe how clients may obtain information from Brandes about how we voted proxies with respect to their securities. If requested, Brandes provides clients with periodic reports on Brandes’ proxy voting decisions and actions for securities in their accounts, in such forms or intervals as the clients reasonably request. In the case of ERISA Plans, the named fiduciary that appointed Brandes is required to monitor periodically Brandes’ activities, including our decisions and actions with regard to proxy voting. Accordingly, Brandes provides these named fiduciaries on request with reports to enable them to monitor Brandes’ proxy voting decisions and actions, including our adherence (as applicable) to their proxy voting policies.

VIII. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

A. Role of the Reorganization Department

Brandes’ Reorganization Department is primarily responsible for receiving, processing and voting proxies for securities held in the portfolios of our clients.

Once a client account is established, the Reorganization Department will monitor for the client’s custodian to forward proxy materials it receives to Brandes and certain PSPs. The Reorganization Department is also responsible for providing the PSPs with a list of client holdings on a regular basis to enable them to track meeting dates and notify Brandes of upcoming meetings.

The Reorganization Department logs the receipt of the materials from various sources in a pending file until the PSPs provide voting recommendations electronically. The Reorganization Department confirms that the correct amount of shares, as of the record date, is generally reflected on the proxy.

It is Brandes’ general policy to have proxies voted at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the deadline. Unfortunately, in some instances, proxy materials are received with less than a week’s time before the deadline, and in such cases, Brandes uses reasonable efforts to exercise its vote.

The Reorganization Department also compiles and maintains information, for each client for which Brandes votes proxies, showing the issuer’s name, meeting date and manner in which it voted on each proxy proposal. The Reorganization Department is also responsible for developing compliance procedures with respect to client proxy voting policies.

B-250

B. Role of the Investments Group in Voting Proxies

Once the PSP’s recommendations and associated research are received electronically, the recommendations and associated materials are transmitted to the relevant investment research team(s) and/or investment committee(s) for consideration. In determining how to vote a given proxy, Brandes generally adheres to the Guidelines, as revised from time to time by the Corporate Governance Committee, except to the extent superseded by client proxy voting policies. Proposals not covered by the Guidelines and contested situations are, at the relevant analyst’s request, evaluated on case-by-case basis by a member of the Corporate Governance Committee and/or the relevant investment research team(s) or investment committee(s). The firm’s voting decisions are then communicated by the Reorganization Department to Broadridge, or other 3rd party voting agents.

C. Role of the Corporate Governance Committee

Brandes’ Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for setting, reviewing from time to time, but at least annually, and making appropriate changes to the firm’s position on various corporate governance issues, as set forth in the Guidelines. The Corporate Governance Committee shall also provide oversight to the firm’s investment research teams and/or investment committees from time to time on significant proxy voting proposals or issues. Generally, a member of the Corporate Governance Committee must approve a decision to vote proxies contrary to the recommendation of the PSPs.

D. Disclosures of Proxy Voting Intentions

Brandes personnel should not discuss with members of the public how Brandes intends to vote on any particular proxy proposal without the advance approval of its General Counsel. This does not restrict communications in the ordinary course of business with named fiduciaries of ERISA Plans or other clients for which Brandes votes proxies. Disclosure of Brandes’ proxy voting intentions – especially where done with the purpose or effect of influencing the management or control of a company – could trigger various restrictions under the federal securities laws, including under the proxy solicitation, beneficial ownership and short-swing profit liability provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

IX. SECURITIES SUBJECT TO LENDING ARRANGEMENTS

For various legal or administrative reasons, Brandes is often unable to vote securities that are, at the time of such vote, on loan pursuant to a client’s securities lending arrangement with the client’s custodian. Brandes will refrain from voting such securities where the costs to the client and/or administrative inconvenience of retrieving securities then on loan are perceived to outweigh the benefit of voting, assuming retrieval under such circumstances is even feasible and/or possible. In certain extraordinary situations, Brandes may seek to have securities then on loan pursuant to such securities lending arrangements retrieved by the clients’ custodians for voting purposes. This decision will generally be made on a case-by-case basis depending on whether, in Brandes’ judgment, the matter to be voted on has critical significance to the potential value of the securities in question, the relative cost and/or administrative inconvenience of retrieving the securities, the significance of the holding, and whether the stock is considered a long-term holding. There can be no guarantee that any such securities can be retrieved for such purpose.

X. RECORDKEEPING

The Brandes Reorganization Department will maintain copies of the following records for a period of five years, the first two in an easily accessible place, in accordance with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Specifically, Rule 204-2 requires that we:

• Copies of all policies and procedures relating to proxy voting.

• A copy of each proxy statement received regarding client securities.

B-251

• A record of each vote cast on behalf of a client.

• A copy of any document created by Brandes that was material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of the client or that memorializes the basis for that decision.

• A copy of each written client request for information on how Brandes voted proxies on behalf of the client, and a copy of any written response by Brandes to any (written and oral) client request for information on how Brandes voted proxies on behalf of the requesting client.

XI. PROXY VOTING REVIEW COMMITTEE

No less frequently than annually, the Proxy Voting Review Committee shall meet to review and discuss the operation of Brandes’ proxy voting procedures. The Committee shall consist of, at least, the following individuals:

• The HOC (who shall act of the Chair of the committee)

• The General Counsel or his/her designee

• A representative of the Corporate Governance Committee

• A representative of the Reorganization Department

• A representative of the Research Department

In reviewing the proxy voting procedures, the Committee shall consider the operation of the policies and procedures since the previous review, including but not limited to the following areas:

• Operational aspects of the policies and procedures (e.g., is information getting to the necessary people in a timely fashion or have any votes been missed)

• Maintenance of all required records

• Performance of service providers (RMG, Broadridge, Glass Lewis and Proxy Governance)

• Conflict of interest issues

• Any instances where Brandes has failed to comply with its policies

• Any suggested revisions to the policies and procedures

The HOC shall meet with the Office of the CEO no less frequently than annually to discuss the results of the Proxy Voting Committee’s review of the policies and procedures.

B-252

BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.

XII. PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES SUMMARY

Summary

With the understanding that many of the issues below are dealt with in detail in these Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), Brandes’ current policies with respect to a number of more common issues are briefly summarized as follows:

• Brandes typically votes with the recommendations of a company’s Board of Directors on routine or non-controversial issues.

• In general, Brandes opposes anti-takeover proposals and supports the elimination of anti-takeover policies, unless unusual circumstances dictate otherwise.

• In general, Brandes supports proposals that enhance shareholder rights through protecting the ability to call special meetings, act by written consent, access proxy voting materials, and by lowering the requirement for supermajority shareholder vote requirements on certain important governance issues.

• It is not possible to represent fairly the diverse views of our clients on proposals regarding social, political, and environmental issues and, therefore, unless directed by a client to vote in a certain manner, we will generally vote in accordance with the recommendations of management and/or RMG or abstain from voting on the respective issues.

• Proposals not covered by the Guidelines and contested situations will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a member of the relevant investment research team(s) or investment committee(s) and/or the Corporate Governance Committee, typically with reference to third-party recommendations and analysis.

XIII. PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

The following guidelines have been developed with reference to the positions of Risk Metrics Group (“RMG”), formerly Institutional Shareholders Services, Inc, (“ISS”). Exceptions and modifications to these guidelines may occur with respect to issues that arise relating to certain companies and/or unique circumstances in certain countries.

A. The Board of Directors

1. Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

We generally support the election of a company’s nominees for director and believe that the board’s nominating committee is in the best possible position to evaluate the qualification of directors and the needs of a particular board. Brandes believes that the election of a majority of independent directors is critical to long term shareholder value. In determining whether to support a board nominee, we will consider the following factors:

• Long-term corporate performance record relative to a market index;

• Composition of board and key board committees;

• Nominee’s attendance at meetings (past two years);

• Nominee’s investment in the company;

• Whether a retired CEO sits on the board; and

• Whether the chairman is also serving as CEO.

B-253

In cases of significant votes and when information is readily available, we also review:

• Corporate governance provisions and takeover activity;

• Board decisions regarding executive pay;

• Director compensation;

• Number of other board seats held by nominee; and

• Interlocking directorships.

2. Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

We review on a case-by-case basis the directors nominated for election in contested elections, considering the following factors:

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

• Management’s track record;

• Background to the proxy contest;

• Qualifications of director nominees (both slates);

• Strategic plan of dissident nominated directors and quality of critique against management;

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

• Stock ownership positions.

3. Voting on Director Nominees by Bundled Slate

In countries where directors are voted on by slate, we will generally abstain from voting on the board of directors when presented as a slate and there is no disclosure on the individual directors.

Disclosure of director background, experience, performance and accountability to shareholder interests is favored in order that shareholders may vote appropriately for the most qualified director nominees who would add value to the management of the company.

4. Separating Chairman/CEO

We will generally vote for resolutions to separate the Chairman and CEO positions unless the company has a strong countervailing governance structure, which includes an independent lead director that is elected by and from the independent board members with clearly delineated duties, a minimum two-thirds independent board, all key committees comprised of independent directors, and established governance guidelines.

5. Majority of Independent Directors

We vote for shareholder proposals that request that the board be comprised of a majority of independent directors. In determining the independence of a board member, we base the classification on the standards issued by the primary stock exchange in which the company is listed.

We generally vote for shareholder proposals that request that the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committees include independent directors exclusively.

B-254

6. Stock Ownership Requirements

We generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

7. Term of Office

We generally vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors.

8. Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

Proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

We generally vote against proposals to limit or eliminate entirely director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care.

We generally vote against indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to acts, such as negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.

We generally vote for only those proposals that provide such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if: (1) the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, and (2) only if the director’s legal expenses would be covered.

B. Auditors

We generally rely on the judgment of the board’s audit committee in selecting the independent auditors that will provide the best service to the company. In doing so, we generally support the ratification or reappointment of the company’s auditor unless:

• The auditor has a significant professional or personal relationship with the issuer that compromises the firm’s independence;

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

• The auditors receive a significant amount of compensation for non-auditing activities or consulting activities.

C. Proxy Contests, Tender Offer Defenses, and Miscellaneous Governance Provisions

1. Board Structure: Staggered vs. Annual Elections

We vote against proposals to classify the board.

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

2. Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors

We vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

We vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.

B-255

We vote for proposals that require director nominees to be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders, provided such proposals include adequate provisions which address vote standards in contested elections of directors.

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

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

3. Cumulative Voting

We will generally vote against proposals to eliminate cumulative voting and will generally vote for proposals to provide for or restore cumulative voting unless the company currently provides for Proxy Access or a similar structure or has adopted a Majority Vote Standard.

In situations where insider voting power is greater than 50%, i.e. controlled company, we will generally vote for proposals to provide for cumulative voting.

4. Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

We vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.

We vote for proposals that remove restrictions on the right of shareholders to act independently of management.

5. Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

We vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.

We vote for proposals to allow or make easier shareholder action by written consent.

6. Poison Pills

We vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

We generally vote for shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill.

We generally vote against management proposals to ratify a poison pill.

We generally advocate withholding votes from board members who adopt or renew dead-hand poison pills or their variants.

7. Greenmail

We vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

We review on case-by-case basis anti-greenmail proposals, when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

B-256

8. Unequal Voting Rights

We vote against dual class exchange offers.

We vote against dual class recapitalizations.

9. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws

We vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.

We vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for charter and bylaw amendments.

10. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers

We vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve mergers and other significant business combinations.

We vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for mergers and other significant business combinations.

11. Confidential Voting

We generally vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators and use independent inspectors of elections. We vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

12. Equal Access

We vote for shareholder proposals that would allow significant company shareholders equal access to management’s proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees, and in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.

13. Bundled Proposals

We review on a case-by-case basis, bundled or “conditioned” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, we 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, we vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, we support such proposals.

14. Majority-Supported Shareholder Proposals

We will consider a recommendation on withholding votes from board members who fail to take action on shareholder proposals supported by a majority of votes cast for two consecutive years or a majority of shares outstanding for one year on a case-by-case basis. A vote to withhold votes will be based, in part, on the following principles:

• Our “withhold” policy applies to incumbent board members and excludes new nominees to the board (i.e., those being nominated for the first time).

• A board ignoring two different majority-supported proposals in back-to-back years will face a “withhold” recommendation.

B-257

• If after two or more years of majority votes the proposal is not resubmitted, our decision to continue withholding votes in subsequent years will be case-by-case, based on whether or not shareholders are still engaging the company on the issue in some manner, such as a “vote no” campaign.

15. Miscellaneous Governance Provisions

All other governance related issues not specifically addressed elsewhere in these Guidelines are voted on a case-by-case basis upon evaluating each proposal on its merits, based on the particular facts and circumstances.

D. Capital Structure

1. Common Stock Authorization

We review on case-by-case basis proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issue.

We vote against proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing issued share capital by more than 100% unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company.

We vote against proposed common stock authorizations without preemptive rights that are in excess of 5% of the company’s issued share capital.

2. Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

We vote for management proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the split does not result in an increase of authorized but unissued shares of more than 100% after giving effect to the shares needed for the split.

3. Blank Check Preferred Authorization

We vote for proposals to create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense or carry superior voting rights.

We review on a case-by-case basis proposals that would authorize the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend and distribution, and other rights.

We review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares.

4. Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock

We vote for shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.

5. Adjust Par Value of Common Stock

We vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

6. Preemptive Rights

We review on case-by-case basis proposals to create or abolish preemptive rights. In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, we look at the size of a company and the characteristics of its shareholder base.

B-258

7. Debt Restructurings

We review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. We consider the following issues:

• Dilution — How much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be?

• Change in Control — Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company?

• Bankruptcy — Is the threat of bankruptcy, which would result in severe losses in shareholder value, the main factor driving the debt restructuring?

Generally, we vote for proposals that facilitate debt restructurings unless there are clear signs of self-dealing or other abuses.

8. Share Repurchase Programs

We vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

E. Executive and Director Compensation

In general, we vote on a case-by-case basis on executive and director compensation plans with the view that viable compensation programs reward the creation of shareholder wealth by having high payout sensitivity to increases in shareholder value.

In evaluating a compensation plan, we consider equity-based compensation along with the cash components of pay and attempt to determine the dilutive effect both on shareholder wealth and on voting power. However, in recognition of the fact that it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to develop specific quantitative rules regarding compensation plans that apply to all companies, we instead tend to focus on the following:

• The process used by a company to establish compensation plans. Is it fundamentally sound (i.e., is the process logical; are outside experts employed) and replete with independence?

• The structure of the overall compensation program. Does the total potential compensation (cash and non-cash elements) appear reasonable and fair for this company and industry?

• The link between compensation and the creation of long-term shareholder value. Does the plan:

• Incentivize long-term thinking and stewardship of the company instead of focusing on achieving short-term metrics?

• Provide for adequate compensation to attract and retain competent managerial talent suitable to the challenges and opportunities faced by the individual company?

• Directly tie incentive compensation to performance with above-average rewards only being earned if shareholders are being rewarded with above-average corporate performance?

• Include downside potential as well as up-side rewards without the possibility for a material “second chance” (i.e. repricing of options)?

• Measure performance on clearly objective criteria that are consistent with increases in shareholder value (i.e., ROIC, EVA, etc.)?

• Require significant ongoing share ownership by the executive or director?

B-259

Other factors we consider in evaluating compensation plans include the following:

1. Disclosure Policy for Compensation Plans

When reviewing compensation plans in markets where information is limited, at the very minimum, we seek to obtain information regarding (1) the total dilution level and (2) the exercise price.

In markets where certain terms are regularly disclosed and a company has not disclosed this information, we generally a vote against the plan for substandard disclosure.

2. Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation – Say-on-Pay

We will generally vote for shareholder sponsored Say-on-Pay proposals, calling for advisory votes on executive compensation, unless the company currently provides for Proxy Access or a similar structure and/or has adopted a Majority Vote Standard.

In cases where a company has adopted an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation, we will generally vote on a case-by-case basis, considering the above mentioned factors.

3. Discounted Options and Restricted Stock

We oppose discounted options and restricted stock without performance criteria, with the exception of restricted stock in U.S.-style stock option plans, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

We consider supporting option plans that allow for discounted options if exercise is contingent on the achievement of well defined and challenging performance criteria.

4. Options Expensing

We will generally vote for shareholder proposals to expense options. We will not support such a shareholder resolution if the company has already publicly committed to expensing options by a specific date.

5. Option Repricing

We generally oppose the repricing of options, which includes all of the following that constitute repricings

• Reduction in exercise price of outstanding options.

• Cancellation and regrant of options at lower exercise prices. This will include 6&1 (six-month and one-day) cancellations/regrants and bullet options (a type of 6&1 with accelerated vesting).

• Substitution of restricted stock for underwater options.

• Buyback of underwater options and issuance of new awards.

6. Performance-Based Stock Options

We will examine shareholder proposals advocating the use of performance-based stock options on a case-by-case basis. Voting decision will therefore take into account the following:

• Whether the proposal mandates that all awards be performance-based.

• Whether the proposal extends beyond executive awards to those of lower ranking employees.

• Whether the company’s stock-based compensation plans meet certain shareholder value transfer criteria and do not violate our repricing guidelines.

B-260

7. Plan Amendments

We generally vote for amendments that improve the overall structure of given compensation plan, even if the underlying plan does not necessarily meet our guidelines.

F. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

1. Mergers and Acquisitions

Votes on mergers and acquisitions are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account at least the following:

• Anticipated financial and operating benefits;

• Offer price (cost vs. premium);

• Prospects of the combined companies;

• How the deal was negotiated; and

• Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

2. Corporate Restructuring

Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeeze outs, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales are considered on a case-by-case basis.

3. Spin-offs

Votes on spin-offs are considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

4. Asset Sales

Votes on asset sales are made on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of diseconomies.

5. Liquidations

Votes on liquidations are made on a case-by-case basis after reviewing management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

6. Appraisal Rights

We vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

G. Reincorporation

Proposals to change a company’s state or country of incorporation are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance factors including the reason for reincorporation, a comparison of the governance provisions and jurisdictional laws, and potential economic costs and benefits.

H. Money Market Funds

For money market funds in which we have not selected the fund, we will not review proxies, but instead we will vote with the recommendations of a third party proxy service provider on all proposals. In rare circumstances when no such entity provides recommendations, we vote proposals in accordance with the recommendations of management.

B-261

I. Social, Political, and Environmental Issues

In the case of social, political, and environmental responsibility issues that in our view do not primarily involve financial considerations, it is not possible to represent fairly the diverse views of our clients and, thus, unless a client has provided other instructions, we generally vote in accordance with the recommendations of RMG on these issues, although, on occasion we abstain from voting on these issues.

XIV. PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR BRANDES INVESTMENT TRUST

The Board of Trustees of Brandes Investment Trust (the “Company”) has adopted the following policy and procedures with respect to voting proxies relating to portfolio securities held by the Company’s investment portfolio (“Fund”).

A. Proxy Voting Policy

The policy of the Company is to delegate the responsibility for voting proxies relating to portfolio securities held by the Fund to Brandes Investment Partners (the “Adviser”) as a part of the Adviser’s general management of the Fund, subject to the Board’s continuing oversight.

B. Fiduciary Duty

The right to vote proxies with respect to portfolio securities held by the Fund is an asset of the Company. The Adviser acts as a fiduciary of the Fund and must vote proxies in a manner consistent with the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders.

C. Proxy Voting Procedures

1. At least annually, the Adviser shall present to the Board its policies, procedures and other guidelines for voting proxies. In addition, the Adviser shall notify the Board promptly of materials changes to any of these documents.

2. At least annually, the Adviser shall provide to the Board a record of each proxy voted with respect to portfolio securities of the Fund during the year. With respect to those proxies that the Adviser has identified as involving a conflict of interest, the Adviser shall submit a separate report indicating the nature of the conflict of interest and how that conflict was resolved with respect to the voting of the proxy. For this purpose, a “conflict of interest” shall be deemed to occur when the Adviser or an affiliated person of the Adviser has a financial interest in a matter presented by a proxy to be voted on behalf of the Fund, which may compromise the Adviser’s independence of judgment and action in voting the proxy.

D. Revocation of Authority to Vote

The delegation by the Board of the authority to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Fund may be revoked by the board, in whole or in part, at any time.

E. Annual Filing of Proxy Voting Record

1. The Company shall include in its Form N-1A registration statement:

a. A description of this policy and of the policies and procedures used by the Adviser to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities; and

B-262

b. A statement disclosing that information regarding how the Company voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request, by calling the Company’s toll-free telephone number (or through a specified Internet address or both) and on the SEC website.

2. The Company shall include in it Annual and Semi-Annual Report to shareholders:

a. A statement that a description of the policies and procedures used by or on behalf of the Company to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Fund is available without charge, upon request, by calling the Company’s toll-free telephone number or through a specified Internet address, and on the SEC website.

b. A statement that information regarding how the Company voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request, by calling the Company’s toll-free number (or through a specified Internet address or both) and on the SEC website.

B-263

APPENDIX C — SALES CHARGE WAIVERS

Front-End Sales Charge Waivers

In addition to the eligible investors described in the prospectuses, the investors listed below can buy Class A shares, Class E shares or Class T shares, without paying a front-end sales charge:

• Employees of Bank of America, its affiliates and subsidiaries.

• Employees or partners of Columbia Wanger Asset Management, LLC and Marsico Capital Management, LLC (or their successors).

• Individuals receiving a distribution from a Bank of America trust, fiduciary, custodial or other similar account may use the proceeds of that distribution to buy Class A shares without paying a front-end sales charge, as long as the proceeds are invested in the funds within 90 days of the date of distribution.

• Any shareholder who owned shares of any fund of Columbia Acorn Trust (formerly named Liberty Acorn Trust) on September 29, 2000 (when all of the then outstanding shares of Columbia Acorn Trust were re-designated Class Z shares) and who since that time has remained a shareholder of any Fund, may buy Class A shares of any Fund without paying a front-end sales charge in those cases where a Columbia Fund Class Z share is not available.

• Galaxy Fund shareholders prior to December 1, 1995; and shareholders who (i) bought Galaxy Fund Prime A shares without paying a front-end sales charge and received Class A shares in exchange for those shares during the Galaxy/Liberty Fund reorganization; and (ii) continue to maintain the account in which the Prime A shares were originally bought.

• (For Class T shares only) Shareholders who (i) bought Galaxy Fund Retail A shares at net asset value and received Class T shares in exchange for those shares during the Galaxy/Liberty Fund reorganization; and (ii) continue to maintain the account in which the Retail A shares were originally bought; and Boston 1784 Fund shareholders on the date that those funds were reorganized into Galaxy Funds.

Class I shares are only available to the Funds and are sold without a front-end sales charge.

Class R shares and Class R4 shares are offered to certain institutional investors identified in the Fund’s prospectus. Class R shares and Class R4 shares are sold without a front-end sales charge.

Class W shares are offered to qualifying discretionary accounts. Class W shares are sold without a front-end sales charge.

Investors can also buy Class A shares without paying a sales charge if the purchase is made from the proceeds of a sale from any Columbia Fund Class A, B, C or T shares within 90 days, up to the amount of the sales proceeds. In addition, shareholders of the money market fund series of BofA Funds Series Trust, which were formerly referred to as the Columbia Money Market Funds (the Former Columbia Money Market Funds), can also buy Class A shares of the Columbia Funds without paying a sales charge if the purchase is made from the proceeds of a sale of shares from a Former Columbia Money Market Fund within 90 days, up to the amount of the sales proceeds, provided that the proceeds are from the sale of shares of a Former Columbia Money Market Fund purchased on or before April 30, 2010. To be eligible for these reinstatement privileges the purchase must be made into an account for the same owner, but does not need to be into the same Columbia Fund from which the shares were sold. The Transfer Agent, Distributor or their agents must receive a written reinstatement request within 90 days after the shares are sold and the purchase of Class A shares through this reinstatement privilege will be made at the NAV of such shares next calculated after the request is received in good order.

C-1

Restrictions may apply to certain accounts and certain transactions. The Fund may change or cancel these terms at any time. Any change or cancellation applies only to future purchases. Unless you provide your financial advisor with information in writing about all of the factors that may count toward a waiver of the sales charge, there can be no assurance that you will receive all of the waivers for which you may be eligible. You should request that your financial advisor provide this information to the Fund when placing your purchase order. For more information about the sales charge reductions and waivers described here, as well as additional categories of eligible investors, please see the prospectuses.

Contingent Deferred Sales Charge Waivers (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class T Shares)

In addition to the redemptions eligible for CDSC waivers described in the prospectuses, shareholders won’t pay a CDSC in the following circumstances:

Disability: For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on sales after the sole shareholder on an individual account or a joint tenant on a joint tenant account becomes disabled (as defined by Section 72(m)(7) of the Code). To be eligible for such a waiver: (i) the disability must arise after the account is opened and (ii) a letter from a physician must be signed under penalty of perjury stating the nature of the disability. If the account is transferred to a new registration and then shares are sold, the applicable CDSC will be charged.*

Health savings accounts: For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on shares sold by health savings accounts sponsored by third party platforms, including those sponsored by Bank of America affiliates.*

Medical payments: For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on (i) shares sold for medical payments that exceed 7.5% of income and (ii) distributions made to pay for insurance by an individual who has separated from employment and who has received unemployment compensation under a federal or state program for at least twelve weeks.*

Systematic Withdrawal Plan (SWP): For shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on sales occurring pursuant to a SWP established with the Transfer Agent, to the extent that the sales do not exceed, on an annual basis, 12% of the account’s value as long as distributions are reinvested. Otherwise, a CDSC will be charged on SWP sales until this requirement is met.

Qualified retirement plans: CDSCs may be waived on shares (except for Class B shares) sold by certain group retirement plans held in omnibus accounts. However, CDSC may not be waived for Class C shares if the waiver would occur as a result of a plan-level termination.

Redemptions under certain retirement plans and accounts: CDSCs may be waived on shares sold in connection with distributions from qualified retirement plans, government (Section 457) plans, individual retirement accounts or custodial accounts under Section 403(b)(7) of the Code, following normal retirement or the attainment of age 59 1?2 for shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010.**

Loans from qualified retirement plans: For Class B shares, and for Class A and Class C shares purchased prior to September 7, 2010, CDSCs may be waived on shares sold in connection with loans from qualified retirement plans to shareholders.*

* Fund investors and selling and/or servicing agents must inform the Fund or the Transfer Agent in writing that the Fund investor qualifies for the particular sales charge waiver and provide proof thereof.

** For direct trades on non-prototype retirement accounts where the date of birth of the Fund shareholder is not maintained, the shareholder or selling and/or servicing agent must inform the Fund or the Transfer Agent in writing that the Fund investor qualifies for the particular sales charge waiver and provide proof thereof.

C-2

Class I shares, Class R shares, Class R4 shares and Class W shares are sold without a CDSC.

Restrictions may apply to certain accounts and certain transactions. The Distributor may, in its sole discretion, authorize the waiver of the CDSC for additional classes of investors. The Fund may change or cancel these terms at any time. Any change or cancellation applies only to future purchases. For more information about the sales charge reductions and waivers described here, as well as additional categories of eligible redemptions, please see the prospectuses.

C-3

APPENDIX D — DESCRIPTION OF STATE CONDITIONS

STATE SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Each Fund’s investments are highly dependent on and sensitive to the general fiscal and economic stability of the state in which the Fund invests, as well as the general fiscal and economic stability of the state’s subdivisions, agencies, instrumentalities or authorities, which issue the securities in which the Fund invests. The following information supplements information set forth in each Fund’s prospectuses, constitutes only a brief summary and does not purport to be a complete description of certain state-specific considerations and is provided to investors in view of each Fund’s policy of concentrating its investments in securities issued by issuers of a single state. The information is based on publicly available sources and has not been independently verified by the Adviser but is believed to be accurate in all material respects. It is expected that the information will be updated only on an annual basis and thus may be out of date at any time that you make an investment decision to purchase or sell shares of a Fund.

To the extent that any statements made below involve matters of forecasts, projections, assumptions, opinions or estimates, whether or not expressly stated to be such, they are made as such and not as representations of fact or certainty, and no representation is made that any of these statements has been or will be realized. All forecasts, projections, assumptions, opinions or estimates are “forward looking statements” that must be read with an abundance of caution and that may not be realized or may not occur in the future.

California

The following information relates specifically to the California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (the Fund). This summary does not purport to be a comprehensive description of all relevant facts. Although the Fund has no reason to believe that the information summarized below is not correct in all material respects, such information has not been independently verified for accuracy or thoroughness. Rather, this information has been obtained from official statements, prospectuses and other disclosure provided in connection with various securities offerings of the State of California (California or the State) and local agencies in California available as of the date of this Statement of Additional Information. Further, all estimates and projections contained in the following information should not be construed as statements of fact. They are based on assumptions that may be affected by numerous factors and there can be no assurance that such estimates and projections will be realized or achieved.

General Economic Factors.

California’s economy, the largest among the 50 states and one of the largest and most diverse in the world, has major components in high technology, trade, entertainment, agriculture, manufacturing, government, tourism, construction and services. The relative proportion of the various components of the California economy closely resembles the make-up of the national economy.

In the May Revision of the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget (as defined below), released May 14, 2010 (the “2010-11 May Revision”), the California Department of Finance (the “Department of Finance”) reported that the California economy started to recover from the recession in the latter part of 2009, but projected that growth in calendar year 2010 and beyond would be slow and would continue to lag slightly behind the national economic recovery as a whole. As of May 2010, unemployment in the State was 12.4%, compared to 12.5% in January 2010 and 9.7% in January 2009. The United States unemployment rate for May 2010 was 9.7%.

Current Financial Stress.

The State experienced a severe economic recession that began in the first quarter of 2008 and ended at some point in the second half of 2009. Personal income fell in the first three quarters of 2009 before increasing moderately in the fourth quarter of 2009. Taxable sales fell sharply in the first half of 2009 before increasing

D-1

substantially in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010. The State’s unemployment rate increased from 5.9% in January 2008 to 12.4% in May 2010. The rate of increase has slowed in 2010. There can be no assurances that the fiscal stress and cash pressures currently facing the State will not continue or become more difficult, or that continuing declines in State tax receipts or other impacts of the current economic situation will not further materially adversely affect the financial condition of the State.

In response to the most severe economic downturn in the United States since the Great Depression, in the State’s budget plan for fiscal year 2009-10 adopted on February 20, 2009, as amended by the revisions enacted on July 28, 2009, together with other related budget legislation (the “Amended 2009 Budget Act”), the State implemented substantial spending reductions, program eliminations, revenue increases, and other solutions in order to close an estimated $60 billion budget gap over the combined 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years. The State adopted reforms in nearly every area of government to better contain costs in the future. The 2010-11 May Revision included further reductions to many programs. If these proposals are adopted, it would bring overall General Fund spending to a level well below what it was a decade ago in fiscal year 1998-99 adjusted for population and inflation growth.

The State is slowly emerging from the recession, but economic growth is modest and the level of unemployment is still very high. Consequently, baseline General Fund revenues in fiscal year 2009-10 (consisting of total revenues adjusted to remove temporary tax law changes and one-time receipts) are projected to fall by more than 20% from their peak in fiscal year 2007-08. Major components of the revenue decline are capital gains taxes ($8 billion below peak levels), income tax on wages (approximately $6 billion below peak levels), tax on other types of income ($7 billion below peak levels), sales taxes ($10 billion below peak levels), corporate taxes ($2 billion below peak levels), and all other taxes (approximately $1 billion below peak levels). Consumer spending driven by easy credit and growth in home values is also not likely to return to prior levels in the foreseeable future. Future revenues will also be affected by the expiration of temporary tax increases enacted in fiscal year 2009-10.

In January 2010, California’s projected budget gap for fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11 was $19.9 billion. The deterioration of the State’s fiscal condition since adoption of the Amended 2009 Budget Act was due to a combination of lower than projected revenues, failure to achieve expected savings (due in part to adverse court decisions), and population and caseload growth. A special session of the California Legislature in February 2010 enacted several bills that addressed approximately $2.1 billion of this gap. Further reduced revenue estimates ($0.6 billion) and higher expenditure estimates ($0.7 billion) added approximately $1.3 billion to the gap, so that the 2010-11 May Revision projected the remaining budget gap at $19.1 billion. This figure is comprised of a fiscal year 2009-10 shortfall of $7.7 billion, a fiscal year 2010-11 shortfall of $10.2 billion, and a $1.2 billion reserve for fiscal year 2010-11.

The 2010-11 May Revision proposed additional solutions to close the remaining budget gap. Additional federal funds (over and above the $2.2 billion already approved) account for $3.4 billion in solutions, a reduction from the $6.9 billion of additional federal funds contained in Governor’s Proposed Budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year released on January 8, 2010 (the “2010-11 Governor’s Budget”). Spending reductions account for $12.4 billion in solutions. Additional solutions include $1.3 billion in alternative funding and $2.1 billion in fund shifts and other revenues. In response, California Legislative leaders have proposed two different budget plans, one of which calls for significant tax increases, and another that would rely on a borrowing plan using certain significant non-General Fund revenues. All such proposals are now being considered by the California Legislature. Even if all the Governor’s proposals were to be adopted, the Administration still projects that there will be multi-billion dollar budget gaps in future years, as temporary fiscal measures adopted in recent years have to be repaid or temporary tax increases expire.

The sharp drop in revenues over the last two fiscal years also resulted in a significant depletion of cash resources to pay the State’s obligations. For a period of one month, in February 2009, the State deferred making certain payments from the General Fund in order to conserve cash resources for high priority obligations, such as

D-2

education and debt service. By July 2009, as new budget gaps were identified and with the failure to adopt corrective actions, the State’s cash resources had dwindled so far that, commencing July 2, 2009, the State Controller began to issue registered warrants (or “IOUs”) for certain lower priority obligations in lieu of warrants (checks), which registered warrants could not be immediately cashed. The registered warrants, the issuance of which did not require the consent of the recipients thereof, bore interest. The registered warrants were all called for redemption on September 4, 2009, once the State was able to access the public credit markets for cash management purposes following enactment of the Amended 2009 Budget Act. No registered warrants were used to make high-priority payments, including debt service on bonds, payments to schools, or employee payrolls. The issuance of State registered warrants in 2009 was only the second time the State has issued State registered warrants since the 1930s.

The 2010-11 May Revision projected that the State would have sufficient cash resources to pay all of its obligations through the end of fiscal year 2009-10, including repayment of all outstanding revenue anticipation notes in June 2010 (a first maturity of $2.825 billion was paid on May 25, 2010). Legislation enacted during the fiscal emergency special session of the California Legislature in early March 2010 will provide the State with additional tools to manage cash in the summer of 2010 and during key months of the budget year by authorizing short-term deferral of certain State payments, primarily to schools and local governments. Proposals to close the budget shortfall will substantially reduce this cash gap. In addition to budget solutions, the State will need to obtain external financing early in fiscal year 2010-11. At the Governor’s direction, the Department of Finance has begun working with the State Controller’s Office and the State Treasurer’s Office to develop additional cash solutions as needed to meet the State’s payment obligations.

The national and California economies improved between the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget and the 2010-11 May Revision. Output of the national economy grew for the third consecutive quarter in the first quarter of 2010, and California payroll employment grew in four of the six consecutive months ending in March 2010. However, some sectors of both economies have yet to show any positive signs – construction being a prime example.

There are signs that home prices have begun to stabilize and have improved in many regions of the State. Existing home sales peaked during the summer of 2005 and fell steadily through November 2008. A robust recovery in sales took place between November 2008 and November 2009, as sales were boosted by the first-time homebuyers’ tax credit. The tax credit was initially set to expire at the end of November 2009, but, prior to its expiration, it was extended through April 30, 2010. Following the tax credit’s extension, there was a moderate rebound in sales in March 2010. The tax credit’s expiration on April 30, 2010, coupled with severe winter weather, caused home sales to fall again.

The longest and deepest recession in the post-Depression era is most likely over. Both the State and national economies appear poised to make modest comebacks, and many indicators released since the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget forecast have been more encouraging than originally expected. Still, the recovery will probably be moderate and prolonged by historical standards.

The pension funds managed by the State’s principal retirement systems, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, have sustained significant investment losses during the economic downturn and currently have substantial unfunded liabilities that will require increased contributions from the General Fund in future years. The State also has an unfunded liability relating to retirees’ post-employment healthcare benefits that was estimated to be $51.8 billion as of June 30, 2009.

Recent Developments.

On May 14, 2010, the Governor released the 2010-11 May Revision. The 2010-11 May Revision disclosed that General Fund revenues in April 2010 were approximately $3.6 billion lower than projected in the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget, reversing three consecutive months of revenue results that exceeded forecasts. The majority

D-3

of the shortfall was in personal income tax receipts and occurred for several reasons. First, extraordinary amounts of 2008 capital losses were carried forward into the 2009 tax year. Second, small business owners had less income in 2009 than had been projected at the time of the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget. Lastly, in response to tax law changes, it appears that many quarterly filers paid a greater percentage of their estimated payments prior to April 2010 than was predicted at the time of the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget, thus reducing final payments in April 2010.

On May 4, 2010, a California Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the State in the case of California Redevelopment Association et al. v. Genest et al. This ruling upheld a provision in the Amended 2009 Budget Act that required redevelopment agencies around the State to transfer $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2009-10 and $350 million in fiscal year 2010-11 to support public school funding within their jurisdictions (thereby relieving the General Fund from an equal amount of payments under Proposition 98). The decision has been appealed by the redevelopment agencies; however, substantially all of the transfers have been made.

On May 19, 2010, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of individual students, school districts, and educational organizations against the State (Robles-Wong et al. v. State of California) alleging that the State’s system of financing public schools is inconsistent with the mandate of the State Constitution to support public education. The suit seeks a declaration that the current system of school financing is unconstitutional and orders for the California Legislature and Governor to devise an adequate system of school financing.

On June 9, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal decision upholding the Governor’s vetoes of spending in the Amended 2009 Budget Act. There is no time yet set for hearing or decision in this case but the California Supreme Court set an accelerated briefing schedule with all briefings due by July 14, 2010.

On June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review of the decision by a three-judge federal court which ordered a reduction of the State prison population. It is expected that the case will be heard and decided during the United States Supreme Court’s 2010-11 term.

A number of initiative petitions have been filed with the California Secretary of State and will be placed on the November 2, 2010, election ballot. A number of the proposals would, if ultimately approved by the voters, impact State finances in various ways, as briefly summarized below.

• Legalize sale of marijuana, which could produce increased State revenues if taxes are levied on such sales.

• Raise the vehicle license fee by $18 annually and dedicate these funds to support State parks, reducing General Fund expenditures.

• Restrict the ability of the State to use or borrow money from local governments and moneys dedicated to transportation financing.

• Reduce the required vote in each house of the California Legislature to adopt the annual budget to a majority from two-thirds.

• Repeal certain corporate tax breaks enacted as part of the Amended 2009 Budget Act, increasing future General Fund revenues.

On June 16, 2010, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CaIPERS”) adopted a proposal that will increase the amount the State must contribute to CaIPERS for State employee pensions in fiscal year 2010-11. The State projects this will result in an increase in contributions of approximately $281 million, approximately 55% of which must be paid from the General Fund.

Subsequent to the 2010-11 May Revision, the Administration entered into tentative contract agreements with representatives of several bargaining units, representing more than 22,000 employees. These tentative

D-4

agreements still require ratification by union members and the California Legislature. It is estimated that these contracts would save the State $72 million ($43 million General Fund savings) in fiscal year 2010-11.

Bond Ratings.

Three major credit rating agencies, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), Standard and Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”), and Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”), assign ratings to California long-term general obligation bonds. The ratings of Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch represent their respective opinions as to the quality of the municipal bonds they rate. It should be emphasized, however, that ratings are general and are not absolute standards of quality. Consequently, municipal bonds with the same maturity, coupon, and rating may have different yields while obligations with the same maturity and coupon with different ratings may have the same yield.

In April 2010, Fitch raised its rating assigned to California’s general obligation bonds from BBB to A-minus, and Moody’s raised its rating assigned to California’s general obligation bonds from Baa1 to A1. The changes in those ratings reflect a recalibration by Fitch and Moody’s, as applicable, of their United States municipal ratings from a municipal scale to a global scale, and neither change reflects a change in credit quality. In January 2010, S&P lowered its rating on California’s general obligation bonds from A to A-minus, indicating that the State’s “… severe fiscal imbalance and impending recurrence of a cash deficiency …” were factors in reaching its decision. It is not possible to determine whether or the extent to which Moody’s, S&P, or Fitch will change its respective rating on California general obligation bonds in the future.

California Finances.

General Fund. The moneys of the State are segregated into the General Fund and over 1,000 other funds, including special, bond, and trust funds. The General Fund consists of revenues received by the State Treasury and not required by law to be credited to any other fund, as well as earnings from the investment of State moneys not allocable to another fund. The General Fund is the principal operating fund for the majority of governmental activities and is the depository of most of the major revenue sources of the State. The General Fund may be expended as a consequence of appropriation measures enacted by the California Legislature and approved by the Governor (including the annual Budget Act, as defined herein), as well as appropriations pursuant to various constitutional authorizations and initiative statutes.

Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties. The State maintains a Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (“SFEU”), which is funded with General Fund revenues and which was established to protect the State from unforeseen revenue reductions and/or unanticipated expenditure increases. The State Controller may transfer amounts in the SFEU to the General Fund as necessary to meet cash needs of the General Fund and such transfers are characterized as “loans.” The State Controller is required to return moneys so transferred without payment of interest as soon as there are sufficient moneys in the General Fund. At the end of each fiscal year, the State Controller is required to transfer from the SFEU to the General Fund any amount necessary to eliminate any deficit in the General Fund.

The legislation creating the SFEU (California Government Code Section 16418) also contains a continuous appropriation authorizing the State Controller to transfer the unencumbered balance in the General Fund to the SFEU, as of the end of each fiscal year. However, if, at the end of any fiscal year in which it has been determined that there are revenues in excess of the amount that may be appropriated, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, this transfer shall be reduced by the amount of the excess revenues. The estimates of the transfer shall be made jointly by the State’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (the “LAO”) and the Department of Finance. For budgeting and accounting purposes, any appropriation made from the SFEU, other than appropriations contained in California Government Code Section 16418, is deemed an appropriation from the General Fund. For year-end reporting purposes, the State Controller is required to add the balance in the SFEU to the balance in the General Fund so as to show the total moneys then available for General Fund purposes.

D-5

Budget Stabilization Account. The Balanced Budget Amendment (“Proposition 58”), approved in March 2004, created the Budget Stabilization Account (the “BSA”) as a second budgetary reserve. Beginning with fiscal year 2006-07, a specified portion of estimated annual General Fund revenues (reaching a ceiling of 3% by fiscal year 2008-09) will be transferred by the State Controller into the BSA no later than September 30 of each fiscal year unless the transfer is suspended or reduced as described below. These transfers will continue until the balance in the BSA reaches $8 billion or 5% of the estimated General Fund revenues for that fiscal year, whichever is greater. The annual transfer requirement will go back into effect whenever the balance falls below the $8 billion or the 5% target. The annual transfers can be suspended or reduced for a fiscal year by an executive order issued by the Governor no later than June 1 of the preceding fiscal year. Proposition 58 also provides that one-half of the annual transfers shall be used to retire Economic Recovery Bonds (“ERBs”) of the State issued pursuant to the California Economic Recovery Bond Act (“Proposition 57”), until a total of $5 billion has been used for that purpose. A total of $1.495 billion of the $5 billion amount has now been applied to the retirement of ERBs. See “State Indebtedness – Economic Recovery Bonds” below.

The 2007, 2008, and 2009 Budget Acts give the Director of Finance the authority to transfer moneys from the BSA back into the General Fund in an amount determined by the Director of Finance to be sufficient to ensure there is a prudent General Fund balance. Using this authority, the Director of Finance ordered the transfer of the entire balance of $1.495 billion from the BSA to the General Fund to address a fiscal emergency proclaimed by the Governor on January 10, 2008. Once moneys are transferred out of the BSA, pursuant to the authority, they will not be replenished by a future fiscal year’s annual transfer unless the California Legislature, by statute, directs additional funds to be transferred from the General Fund into the BSA. Separate from the foregoing process for a budgetary transfer, the BSA may be used to make temporary loans to the General Fund, which must be repaid when the General Fund has available cash, as described under “Inter-Fund Borrowings” below.

In light of the condition of the General Fund, the Governor issued an Executive Order on May 28, 2008, suspending the fiscal year 2008-09 transfer of $3.018 billion from the General Fund to the BSA, as had been proposed in the Governor’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2008-09, released on January 10, 2008 (the “2008-09 Governor’s Budget”). Due to a drastic decline in General Fund revenues, the Governor issued an Executive Order on May 29, 2009, suspending the fiscal year 2009-10 transfer estimated at approximately $2.8 billion from the General Fund to the BSA. The 2010-11 May Revision retained the January 10 proposal to suspend the fiscal year 2010-11 transfer estimated at approximately $2.7 billion from the General Fund to the BSA. There are currently no moneys in the BSA.

Inter-Fund Borrowing. Inter-fund borrowing is used to meet temporary imbalances of receipts and disbursements in the General Fund. In the event the General Fund is or will be exhausted, the State Controller is required to notify the Governor and the Pooled Money Investment Board (“PMIB”) (comprised of the Director of Finance, the State Treasurer, and the State Controller). The Governor may then order the State Controller to direct the transfer of all or any part of the moneys not needed in Special Funds to the General Fund, as determined by the PMIB. All money so transferred must be returned to the special fund from which it was transferred as soon as there is sufficient money in the General Fund to do so. Transfers cannot be made which will interfere with the objective for which such special fund was created, or from certain specific funds. In general, when moneys transferred to the General Fund in any fiscal year from any special fund pursuant to the inter-fund borrowing mechanism exceed 10% of the total additions to such special fund as shown in the statement of operations of the preceding fiscal year as set forth in the Budgetary/Legal Basis Annual Report of the State Controller, interest must be paid on such excess at a rate determined by the PMIB to be the current earning rate of the Pooled Money Investment Account (“PMIA”). This provision does not apply to temporary borrowings from the BSA or other accounts within the General Fund.

The amount of loans from the SFEU, the BSA, and other internal sources to the General Fund as of the end of any month is displayed in the most recent State Controller’s Statement of General Fund Cash Receipts and Disbursements, on the first page under “Borrowable Resources – Outstanding Loans.” Copies of the State

D-6

Controller’s monthly Statement of General Fund Cash Receipts and Disbursements are available at the State Controller’s website. Neither the State Controller’s website, nor any of the information contained therein, is incorporated herein by this reference and no representation is made as to the accuracy of the information contained therein.

Any determination of whether a proposed borrowing from one of the Special Funds is permissible must be made with regard to the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the proposed borrowing. The State Attorney General has identified certain criteria relevant to such a determination. For instance, amounts in the Special Funds eligible for inter-fund borrowings are legally available to be transferred to the General Fund if a reasonable estimate of expected General Fund revenues, based upon legislation already enacted, indicates that such transfers can be paid from the General Fund promptly if needed by the Special Funds or within a short period of time if not needed. In determining whether this requirement has been met, the Attorney General has stated that consideration may be given to the fact that General Fund revenues are projected to exceed expenditures entitled to a higher priority than payment of internal transfers, i.e., expenditures for the support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education.

At the November 1998 election, voters approved Proposition 2. This proposition requires the General Fund to repay loans made from certain transportation special accounts (such as the State Highway Account) at least once per fiscal year, or up to 30 days after adoption of the annual Budget Act. Since the General Fund may re-borrow from the transportation accounts any time after the annual repayment is made, the proposition does not have any adverse impact on the State’s cash flow.

In connection with the adoption of the 2008 Budget Act, statutory changes sponsored by the Administration were enacted to clarify 18 existing State funds as borrowable resources for General Fund cash flow purposes. These funds increased the total amount of borrowable resources by approximately $3.5 billion as of September 2008. An additional $500 million of additional borrowable resources were previously made available in August 2008 as a result of administrative actions taken by the State Controller.

The February 2009 Budget Act also included clarification of an additional 19 funds as borrowable resources for General Fund cash flow purposes. These funds provide approximately $2 billion of additional borrowable cash to the General Fund.

In addition to temporary inter-fund cash flow borrowings described in this section, budgets enacted in the current and past fiscal years have included other budgetary transfers and long-term loans from special funds to the General Fund. In some cases, such budgetary loans and transfers have the effect of reducing internal borrowable resources.

The California Budget.

The Budget Process. California’s fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. The State’s General Fund budget operates on a legal basis, generally using a modified accrual system of accounting for its General Fund, with revenues credited in the period in which they are measurable and available and expenditures debited in the period in which the corresponding liabilities are incurred.

The California Constitution specifies that an annual budget shall be proposed by the Governor by January 10 of each year for the next fiscal year (the “Governor’s Budget”). Under State law, the annual proposed Governor’s Budget cannot provide for projected expenditures in excess of projected revenues for the ensuing fiscal year. State law also requires the Governor to update the Governor’s Budget projections and budgetary proposals by May 14 of each year (the “May Revision”). The May Revision is normally the basis for final negotiations between the Governor and Legislature to reach agreement on appropriations and other legislation to fund State government for the ensuing fiscal year (the “Budget Act”). The Budget Act must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of each House of the California Legislature. As required by the Balanced Budget

D-7

Amendment (“Proposition 58”), beginning with fiscal year 2004-05, the California Legislature may not pass a budget bill in which General Fund expenditures exceed estimated General Fund revenues and fund balances at the time of the passage and as set forth in the budget bill.

Under the State Constitution, money may be drawn from the State Treasury only through an appropriation made by law. The primary source of annual expenditure appropriations is the annual Budget Act as approved by the California Legislature and signed by the Governor. The Budget Act must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of each House of the California Legislature. The Governor may reduce or eliminate specific line items in the Budget Act or any other appropriations bill without vetoing the entire bill. Such individual line-item vetoes are subject to override by a two-thirds majority vote of each House of the California Legislature. An initiative Constitutional amendment will be included on the November 2, 2010, election ballot that would reduce the required vote to adopt a budget bill to majority from two-thirds.

Appropriations also may be included in legislation other than the Budget Act. Except as noted in the previous paragraph and in the next sentence, bills containing General Fund appropriations must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote in each House of the California Legislature and be signed by the Governor. Bills containing appropriations for K-12 schools or community colleges (“K-14 education”) require only a simple majority vote. Continuing appropriations, available without regard to fiscal year, may also be provided by statute or the State Constitution.

Funds necessary to meet an appropriation are not required to be in the State Treasury at the time an appropriation is enacted; revenues may be appropriated in anticipation of their receipt.

Constraints on the Budget Process. Over the years, a number of laws and constitutional amendments have been enacted, often through voter initiatives, which have increased the difficulty of raising State taxes, restricted the use of the General Fund or special fund revenues, or otherwise limited the California Legislature and the Governor’s discretion in enacting budgets. Historic examples of provisions that make it more difficult to raise taxes include Proposition 13, passed in 1978, which, among other things, required that any change in State taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto, whether by increased rates or changes in computation, be approved by a two-thirds vote in each House of the California Legislature. Examples of provisions restricting the use of General Fund revenues are Proposition 98, passed in 1988, which mandates that a minimum amount of General Fund revenues be spent on local education, and Proposition 10, passed in 1998, which raised taxes on tobacco products and mandated how the additional revenues would be expended.

Recent Constitutional amendments approved by the voters have also affected the budget process. These include Proposition 58, approved in 2004, which requires the adoption of a balanced budget and restricts future borrowing to cover budget deficits; Proposition 49, approved in 2002, which requires the expansion of funding for before and after school programs; Proposition 63, approved in 2004, which imposes a surcharge on taxable income of more than $1 million and earmarks this funding for expanded mental heath services; Proposition 1A, approved in 2004, which limits the California Legislature’s power over local revenue sources; and Proposition 1A, approved in 2006, which limits the California Legislature’s ability to use sales taxes on motor vehicle fuels for any purpose other than transportation.

The 2009-10 Budget. The State’s budget for fiscal year 2009-10 was enacted in an unusual sequence. The 2008 Budget Act was one of the latest ever enacted, having been delayed until mid-September 2008 as a result of the difficulty of balancing the budget with reduced revenues, as declining economic conditions were already evident. The 2008 Budget Act, however, was based on revenue assumptions made in the spring of 2008, which proved to be greatly overstated by the time actual revenue results for September and October 2008 were received. With the financial market meltdown starting in September 2008, which resulted in massive federal assistance and caused large drops in stock market and other asset values and reductions in consumer spending, projections of tax revenues, which are heavily dependent on capital gains taxes and sales taxes, had to be dramatically reduced. In November 2008, the Governor announced that the 2008 Budget Act would be billions of dollars out of balance, and called several special sessions of the California Legislature to enact corrective actions.

D-8

Because of strong disagreement in the California Legislature as to the amount of corrective actions that would be taken by tax increases versus expenditure reductions, a compromise was not reached until February 2009. At that time, the February 2009 Budget Package was enacted which included modifications to the 2008 Budget Act and the enactment, more than four months early, of a full budget act for fiscal year 2009-10.

Initial 2009 Budget Act. The Initial 2009 Budget Act was adopted by the California Legislature on February 19, 2009, along with a number of implementing measures, and signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009. In February 2009, the State enacted $36 billion in solutions to what was then estimated to be a $42 billion General Fund budget gap for the combined 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years. It also provided for five budget-related measures that would have provided an estimated $6 billion in additional budget solutions, to be placed before the voters on May 19, 2009. These measures were all rejected by the voters.

Under the Initial 2009 Budget Act, based on then-current assumptions about the State’s financial circumstances, and assuming receipt of approximately $8.0 billion of federal stimulus funds to offset General Fund costs ($4.9 billion of which was assumed to be received in fiscal year 2009-10) and voter approval of various ballot measures, General Fund revenues and transfers were projected to increase 9.3%, from $89.4 billion in fiscal year 2008-09 to $97.7 billion in fiscal year 2009-10. The Initial 2009 Budget Act contained General Fund appropriations of $92.2 billion, compared to $94.1 billion in fiscal year 2008-09, a 2.0% decrease. The June 30, 2010, total reserve was projected to be $2.1 billion, an increase of $5.5 billion compared to the estimated June 30, 2009, reserve deficit of negative $3.4 billion. The Amended 2009 Budget Act reflected vetoes by the Governor of $1.305 billion in appropriations from the General Fund, special funds, and bond funds (including $957.2 million in General Fund appropriations).

After adoption of the Initial 2009 Budget Act, the State continued to experience significant declines in revenues and other financial pressures. On May 14, 2009, the Governor released the May Revision of the Initial 2009 Budget Act (as subsequently updated, “2009-10 May Revision”). Together with subsequent revisions, the 2009-10 May Revision identified a further budget shortfall through the 2009-10 fiscal year of approximately $24 billion.

Amended 2009 Budget Act. On July 24, 2009, the California Legislature approved the amendments to the Initial 2009 Budget Act and the Governor signed the Amended 2009 Budget Act on July 28, 2009. The Amended 2009 Budget Act included another $24 billion in solutions to address the further deterioration of the State’s fiscal situation identified in the 2009-10 May Revision. Under the Amended 2009 Budget Act, General Fund revenues and transfers were projected to increase 6.4%, from a revised $84.1 billion in fiscal year 2008-09 to $89.5 billion in fiscal year 2009-10. A significant element of this increase was projected to come from certain new revenues enacted in February 2008. See “New Revenues” below. The Amended 2009 Budget Act contained General Fund appropriations of $84.6 billion in fiscal year 2009-10, compared to $91.5 billion in fiscal year 2008-09, a 7.5% decrease. The June 30, 2010, total reserve was projected to be $500 million as compared to the revised June 30, 2009, reserve of negative $4.5 billion. Subsequent events after adoption of the Amended 2009 Budget Act exceeded the reserve such that the Administration, as of May 2010, projected that fiscal year 2009-10 would end with a negative balance of $6.8 billion at June 30, 2010. The discussion below describes some of the elements of the Amended 2009 Budget Act that could not be implemented as originally expected.

The Amended 2009 Budget Act contained the following major General Fund components:

1. Addressing the Deficit. The $60 billion in budget solutions adopted for the combined fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10 ($36 billion in solutions were adopted in February 2009 and $24 billion in July 2009) were wide-ranging and touched all three of the State’s major revenue sources (personal income taxes, corporation taxes, and sales and use taxes). Spending cuts were implemented in virtually every State program that receives General Fund support. The budget solutions included spending reductions of $31.0 billion (52% of total solutions). The spending reductions consisted primarily of reductions in education spending under Proposition 98 ($14.9 billion reduction), higher education ($3.3 billion reduction), employee compensation ($2.0 billion reduction), and reductions in other spending due to the use of redevelopment agency revenues and fund balances to pay costs that

D-9

would otherwise be payable from the General Fund ($1.7 billion reduction). The budget solutions also included an estimated receipt of $8.0 billion (13% of total solutions) of federal stimulus funds to be used to offset General Fund expenditures. Additional solutions included $12.5 billion of tax increases (21% of total solutions), and $8.4 billion of other solutions (14% of total solutions). Significant elements of the budget solutions include:

• Proposition 1A of 2004 Borrowing from Local Governments. The Amended 2009 Budget Act authorized the State to exercise its borrowing authority under Proposition 1A, approved in the November 2004 election (“Proposition 1A of 2004”) to borrow from local agencies up to 8% of their fiscal year 2008-09 property tax revenues. The State utilized this authority and the borrowing generated $1.998 billion that was used to offset General Fund costs for a variety of court, health, corrections, and K-12 programs. The borrowed sums must be repaid by the State, with interest, by June 15, 2013.

• Redevelopment Agency Borrowing. The Amended 2009 Budget Act also contained a shift of $1.7 billion in local redevelopment agency funds to the State from current revenues and reserves in fiscal year 2009-10 and $350 million in fiscal year 2010-11. Under the Amended 2009 Budget Act, these revenues are ultimately shifted to schools that serve the redevelopment areas. An association of redevelopment agencies, and a group of counties, have filed separate suits to block this transfer that, if successful, could adversely affect the State’s financial condition. However, substantially all of the required transfers have been made. In May 2010, a trial court ruled in favor of the State in this challenge; the decision has been appealed. Subsequent to enactment of the Amended 2009 Budget Act, the California Legislature also passed clean-up legislation authorizing redevelopment agencies to borrow from prior-year balances in the low and moderate income housing funds to make the fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11 payments.

• Payroll Shift. One-time savings of $1.618 billion ($937.6 million General Fund) from shifting the payments for employee payroll covering the pay period ending June 30, 2010, to July for all entities that are paid through the Uniform State Payroll System. This shift will be repeated on an annual basis. This payment shift excludes the University of California, Community Colleges, staff of the California Legislature, the California Exposition and State Fair, and local trial courts.

• State Compensation Insurance Fund Sale. One-time revenues of $1 billion from the sale of certain assets of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (“SCIF”). Because of pending litigation, the State no longer expects the sale of SCIF assets to occur in fiscal years 2009-10 or 2010-11.

2. Federal Stimulus. The Amended 2009 Budget Act assumed the receipt of at least $8 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) to offset General Fund expenditures in fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Final estimates put this amount at approximately $8.7 billion. As of May 19, 2010, approximately $7.8 billion has been received by the State, and the remainder is expected by the end of June 2010.

3. Cash Flow Management. The deterioration of revenues resulted in a cash shortage in fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10. In order to manage cash flow and provide for timely payments of the State’s obligations, the Amended 2009 Budget Act included a number of cash solutions to better balance timing of receipts and disbursements. Further cash management solutions were adopted by the California Legislature as part of a special session in early 2010. The State expects to be able to meet its payment obligations in the final months of fiscal year 2009-10 through administrative actions.

4. Proposition 98. As of the Amended 2009 Budget Act, the minimum funding guarantee under Proposition 98 for K-14 education (the “Proposition 98 Guarantee”) for fiscal year 2009-10 was projected to be $50.4 billion, of which $35.0 billion was the General Fund portion. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, the Proposition 98 Guarantee for fiscal year 2009-10 was projected to be $49.9 billion, of which $34.7 billion was the General Fund portion.

5. K-12 Education. The Amended 2009 Budget Act included $66.7 billion for K-12 education programs for fiscal year 2009-10, of which $35.0 billion was funded from the General Fund. As of the Amended 2009 Budget

D-10

Act, total per-pupil expenditures were projected to be $11,259 in fiscal year 2009-10. Revised estimates in the 2010-11 May Revision reflected $65.9 billion for K-12 education programs for fiscal 2009-10, of which $35.9 billion was funded from the General Fund. Revised estimates in the 2010-11 May Revision reflected that total per-pupil expenditures were projected to be $11,121 in fiscal year 2009-10.

6. Higher Education. The Amended 2009 Budget Act reflected total funding of $20.9 billion, including $12.5 billion General Fund and Proposition 98 sources, for all major segments of higher education (excluding infrastructure and stem cell research), including approximately $2 billion from local property taxes that are included in the Proposition 98 Guarantee and expended on California Community Colleges. The 2010-11 May Revision included total funding of $20.5 billion for fiscal year 2009-10, including $12.6 billion General Fund and Proposition 98 sources for all major segments of higher education (excluding infrastructure and stem cell research).

7. Health and Human Services. The Amended 2009 Budget Act included $24.8 billion in non-Proposition 98 General Fund expenditures for health and human service programs for fiscal year 2009-10. Due to the State’s severe fiscal shortfall, the Amended 2009 Budget Act included $5.8 billion in proposed General Fund expenditure reductions in health and human services programs in fiscal year 2009-10. Apart from the reduction in General Fund funding for these programs, the Amended 2009 Budget Act reflected significant General Fund relief for Health and Human Services programs resulting from the ARRA. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, non-Proposition 98 General Fund expenditures for health and human service programs for fiscal year 2009-10 were projected to be $24.9 billion.

8. Transportation Funding. The Amended 2009 Budget Act included $1.441 billion of General Fund expenditures to fully fund local transportation programs under Proposition 42 in fiscal year 2009-10. Additionally, the Amended 2009 Budget Act directed $1.015 billion of funds from sales tax on fuels to offset costs of programs otherwise likely to be funded from the General Fund such as debt service on transit bonds and other transportation programs. Of this amount, approximately $878 million was for uses substantially similar to those that were the subject of litigation related to the 2008 Budget Act. On September 30, 2009, the State Supreme Court denied review of an adverse Court of Appeal decision in Shaw v. Chiang, which invalidated the use of these funds as appropriated. Consequently, these fuels sales taxes were retained in the public transportation account for appropriation. These funds are “borrowable” for short-term General Fund cash needs. Chapters 11 and 12, Statutes of 2010, were passed in the special session providing General Fund relief by eliminating the State sales tax on gas and increasing the State gas excise tax by a like amount. This effectively eliminates funding subject to the provisions of Proposition 42 and significantly reduces the funding going into the public transportation account, eliminating the so-called spillover allocation. Fuel excise tax revenues will be used to offset highway bond debt service thus providing increasing General Fund relief beginning in fiscal year 2009-10 and growing in future years. (Approximately $603 million of relief is projected for fiscal year 2010-11.) Remaining public transportation account funds and new diesel sales tax revenues are used to offset transit bond debt service allowable under the court ruling in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11. After these two fiscal years, the statute provides for no further use of public transportation account for debt service offset. Additionally, $650 million of excise tax proceeds available from this legislation in fiscal year 2010-11 is proposed to be lent to the General Fund. This funding is available without diminishing previously anticipated transportation program levels and will be repaid in three years.

The special session transportation legislation provides for ongoing highway and local road funding similar in distribution to the former provisions that governed Proposition 42 funds (sales tax on gasoline). Increased funding is provided for the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (highway safety and rehabilitation projects, primarily) as well as local streets and roads and the State Transportation Improvement Program (capacity projects, primarily). The legislation provides approximately $350 million in ongoing annual transit operations grants with a one-time appropriation of $400 million for fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Two initiatives have been submitted for the November 2010 ballot that, if either is approved, limit the ability of the State to implement the transportation legislation.

D-11

9. Budget Stabilization Account. Pursuant to Proposition 58, the State normally would be required to set aside a specified portion of estimated annual General Fund revenues for fiscal year 2009-10 in the BSA for reserves that may be used to offset future shortfalls in the General Fund. Given the magnitude and urgency of the State’s ongoing financial stress, in accordance with Proposition 58, the Amended 2009 Budget Act suspended the transfer to the BSA for fiscal year 2009-10.

10. Prison Funding. The Amended 2009 Budget Act included $7.9 billion in General Fund expenditures for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). In arriving at this figure, a total of $1.2 billion of savings for CDCR operations was assumed. Due to the delay in passage of legislation, and the failure of the California Legislature to adopt certain prison and parole reforms requested by the Governor, actual savings were approximately $587 million, with the result that CDCR costs were approximately $613 million higher than assumed in the Amended 2009 Budget Act, not including any changes as of the 2010-11 May Revision. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, CDCR costs in fiscal year 2009-10, excluding debt service and savings from employee compensation, were projected to exceed the level included in the Amended 2009 Budget Act by $906.6 million.

Fiscal Year 2009-10 Revised Estimates in the 2010-11 May Revision. The 2010-11 May Revision revised various revenue and expenditures estimates for fiscal year 2009-10. The 2010-11 May Revision projected, based on the various assumptions and proposals it contains, that the State would end fiscal year 2009-10 with a negative reserve of $6.8 billion, compared to the estimate of a negative $5.4 billion reserve at the time of the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget.

The 2010-11 May Revision reflected a net increase of $493.1 million in the General Fund beginning balance at the start of fiscal year 2009-10, since the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget. This change in the starting balance is primarily due to the following components:

• $317.4 million increase in fiscal year 2009-10 Corporate Income Tax accruals;

• $184.1 million increase in fiscal year 2008-09 Proposition 98 savings.

As of the 2010-11 May Revision, General Fund revenues and transfers for fiscal year 2009-10 were projected at a revised $86.5 billion, a decrease of $1.563 billion compared with the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget estimates. This change is primarily made up of the following components:

• $2.619 billion decrease in personal income tax;

• $816 million increase in sales and use tax;

• $240 million increase in other revenues and transfers.

Under the 2010-11 May Revision, General Fund expenditures for fiscal year 2009-10 were projected at $86.5 million, an increase of $373 million compared with the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget estimates. This increase in expenditures is primarily attributable to an increase in Proposition 98 expenditures of $1.2 billion, and a decrease in non-Proposition 98 expenditures of $803.3 million. The increase in Proposition 98 expenditures is primarily due to a decrease in Proposition 1A and redevelopment agency offset.

The non-Proposition 98 expenditure decrease is due primarily to the combined effects of an $814 million increase in health and human services expenditures, a decrease of $367.9 million in borrowing costs, increased federal funds offsets of $430.5 million, and an increase in Proposition 1A and redevelopment agency offsets of $890.2 million (previously budgeted as offset to Proposition 98 expenditures).

Budget Risks. The Amended 2009 Budget Act was based on a variety of assumptions. As described above, actual circumstances or conditions in fiscal year 2009-10 have differed from such assumptions in material respects, and the State’s financial condition may continue to be adversely impacted.

D-12

As of June 13, 2010, budget risks still remaining for the 2009-10 fiscal year included, but were not limited to, the following:

• Actual revenues through the end of fiscal year 2009-10 may be below projected amounts.

• Delays in or inability of the State to implement budget solutions, or increased costs, as a result of litigation. The following cases dealing with elements of the Amended 2009 Budget Act are still pending:

• There are almost three dozen separate cases dealing with the Governor’s furlough of State employees ($1.3 billion potential General Fund impact). The State Supreme Court has granted review of several cases, and several others are pending before the Court of Appeal. (In March 2010, the California Legislature passed legislation exempting from furlough State workers paid from sources other than the General Fund. The Governor vetoed this bill.); and

• Potential court orders for the State to expend moneys for prison healthcare improvements, in excess of the amounts included in the Amended 2009 Budget Act.

Although appeals are continuing, the Governor has prevailed at lower court levels on several cases challenging aspects of the Amended 2009 Budget Act, including his vetoes of appropriations in July 2009 and the transfer of redevelopment agency moneys.

New Revenues. The Amended 2009 Budget Act included several major changes in General Fund revenues described below. The Amended 2009 Budget Act did not include any additional tax increases over those provided for pursuant to the Initial 2009 Budget Act, though it did include certain tax law changes intended to increase tax compliance and accelerate some revenues that were not in the Initial 2009 Budget Act.

As part of the Initial 2009 Budget Act passed in February 2009, the following tax and fee increases were adopted:

• Temporary Sales Tax Increase. Effective April 1, 2009, the General Fund sales and use tax rate was temporarily increased by 1 cent, from 5% to 6% . This tax increase will be in effect through June 30, 2011. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, this tax law change was expected to generate additional sales tax revenues of $4.299 billion in fiscal year 2009-10 and $4.223 billion in fiscal year 2010-11 for the General Fund.

• Vehicle License Fees. Effective May 19, 2009, vehicle license fees were temporarily increased from 0.65% to 1.15% with 0.35% going to the General Fund and 0.15% going to the Local Safety and Protection Account for local law enforcement grant programs previously funded from the General Fund. Vehicle license fees apply to the value of the vehicle (initially its market value and then subject to a standard depreciation schedule). This increase will remain in effect through June 30, 2011. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, this law change was expected to generate additional revenues of approximately $1.386 billion in fiscal year 2009-10 and $1.472 billion in fiscal year 2010-11.

• Personal Income Tax Surcharge. The Initial 2009 Budget Act provided for a temporary addition of 0.25% to each personal income tax rate for tax years 2009 and 2010. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, this change is expected to generate approximately $2.707 billion of additional General Fund revenues in fiscal year 2009-10 and $1.073 billion in fiscal year 2010-11.

• Dependent Exemption Credit Reduction. The Initial 2009 Budget Act included a temporary reduction in the personal income tax-exemption credit for dependents to the amount provided for the personal credit for tax years 2009 and 2010 from $309 to $99 (tax year 2008 values). As of the 2010-11 May Revision, this change was expected to generate approximately $1.429 billion of additional General Fund revenues in fiscal year 2009-10 and $700 million in fiscal year 2010-11.

D-13

The Amended 2009 Budget Act, passed in July 2009, included tax law changes affecting the General Fund as described below:

• Non-Retailer Registration for Use Tax. Under current law in 2009, non-retailers – those who do not sell tangible personal property – were not required to register with the State Board of Equalization (“BOE”). This law change requires non-retailers that hold a business license and have at least $100,000 in gross receipts to register with the BOE and submit a return that details purchases made during the year that were subject to the use tax yet for which no use tax was paid. This law change was expected to increase General Fund sales and use tax revenue by $26 million in fiscal year 2009-10 and $123 million in fiscal year 2010-11, with increasing amounts thereafter.

• Accelerate Estimated Tax Payments. Under current law in 2009, individuals and corporations were required to pay 30% each with the first two estimated payments, and 20% each for the last two estimated payments. Under this law change, beginning with the 2010 tax year, the first quarter estimated payment percentage will remain at 30% payable on April 15, the second quarter will increase to 40% payable on June 15, the third estimated payment will be eliminated, and the fourth quarter estimated payment will increase from 20% to 30% payable on December 15 for corporations and January 15 for individuals. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, this law change was expected to accelerate $1.295 billion into fiscal year 2009-10 ($672 million in personal income tax receipts and $623 million in corporate tax receipts) and $98 million in fiscal year 2010-11 ($60 million in personal income tax receipts and $38 million in corporate tax receipts).

• Accelerate Wage Withholding. This tax law change increased current wage withholding rates by 10% and, as of the 2010-11 May Revision, was expected to accelerate $1.6 billion of personal income tax receipts into fiscal year 2009-10.

• Require Backup Withholding. Under current federal law, gambling winnings reported on Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Form W2G and payments made by banks and businesses reported on various IRS 1099 forms may be subject to backup withholding on those payments. Payments reported on IRS 1099 forms include payments to independent contractors, rents, commissions, and royalty payments. This law change conformed State law to federal law by requiring a withholding rate of 7% for State purposes whenever it is required for federal purposes. As of the 2010-11 May Revision, this law change was expected to increase personal income tax revenues by $32 million in fiscal year 2009-10 followed by an additional $31 million in fiscal year 2010-11.

State Office Building Sales Program. Pursuant to legislation enacted in 2009, the State Department of General Services (“DGS”) has solicited proposals for the disposition of 11 State office properties, through a sale, lease, or a sale with an option to lease back. A large number of bids were received in April 2010 and the DGS is still conducting due diligence on the bids received. Once a preferred buyer has been identified, DGS will notify the California Legislature. Under current law, the California Legislature has 30 days to review the sales agreement, but a bill adopted unanimously by the Assembly on June 3, 2010 (AB 2605) would require affirmative California Legislative approval for the building sale to proceed. This bill is pending in the Senate. At this time, the amount of potential revenue from the proposed sale is unknown. The 2010-11 May Revision assumed approximately $600 million of one-time net revenues to the General Fund over the next three years from the sale. (Approximately $1.1 billion of other sale proceeds would have to retire existing debt used to construct some of the buildings.)

State Indebtedness.

The California Treasurer (the “Treasurer”) is responsible for the sale of debt obligations of the State and its various authorities and agencies. The State has always paid when due the principal of and interest on its general obligation bonds, general obligation commercial paper notes, lease revenue obligations, and short-term obligations, including revenue anticipation notes and revenue anticipation warrants.

D-14

General Obligation Bonds. The State Constitution prohibits the creation of general obligation indebtedness of the State unless a bond measure is approved by a majority of the electorate voting at a general election or a direct primary. General obligation bond acts provide a continuing appropriation from the General Fund of all debt service payments on general obligation bonds, subject only to the prior application of moneys in the General Fund to the support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education. Under the State Constitution, the appropriation to pay debt service on the general obligation bonds cannot be repealed until the principal and interest on the bonds has been paid. Certain general obligation bond programs, called “self-liquidating bonds,” receive revenues from specified sources so that moneys from the General Fund are not expected to be needed to pay debt service, but the General Fund is liable as a back-up if the specified revenue source is not sufficient. The principal self-liquidating bond programs are the ERBs, supported by a special sales tax, and veterans general obligation bonds, supported by mortgage repayments from housing loans made to military veterans. General obligation bonds are typically authorized for infrastructure and other capital improvements at the State and local level. Pursuant to the State Constitution, general obligation bonds cannot be used to finance State budget deficits (except as already authorized by ERBs, as described below).

As of May 1, 2010, the State had outstanding $78,439,139,000 aggregate principal amount of long-term general obligation bonds, of which $68,917,429,000 were payable primarily from the General Fund, and $9,521,710,000 were “self-liquidating” bonds payable first from other special revenue funds. As of May 1, 2010, there were unused voter authorizations for the future issuance of $42,909,259,000 of long-term general obligation bonds, some of which may first be issued as commercial paper notes (see “General Obligation Commercial Paper Program” below). Of this unissued amount, $1,331,210,000 is for general obligation bonds payable first from other revenue sources.

Legislation enacted November 4, 2009, authorizes submission to the voters at the statewide election on November 2, 2010, of a ballot measure to approve the issuance of $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for a wide variety of purposes relating to improvement of California’s water supply systems, drought relief, and groundwater protection. The bill specifies that not more than one-half of the bonds may be sold before July 1, 2015. Additional bond measures may be included on the November 2, 2010, election ballot.

Variable Rate General Obligation Bonds. The general obligation bond law permits the State to issue as variable rate indebtedness up to 20% of the aggregate amount of long-term general obligation bonds outstanding. As of May 1, 2010, the State had outstanding $5,294,440,000 principal amount of variable rate general obligation bonds (which includes a portion of the ERBs described below), representing approximately 6.7% of the State’s total outstanding general obligation bonds as of that date. Under State law, except for the ERBs, the State must pay the principal of any general obligation bonds that are subject to optional or mandatory tender, and that are not remarketed or, if applicable, purchased by financial institutions that provide liquidity support to the State. The State has not entered into any interest rate hedging contracts in relation to any of its variable rate general obligation bonds, and it no longer has any auction rate bonds outstanding.

General Obligation Commercial Paper Program. Pursuant to legislation enacted in 1995, voter-approved general obligation indebtedness may be issued either as long-term bonds or, for some but not all bond issues, as commercial paper notes. Commercial paper notes may be renewed or may be refunded by the issuance of long-term bonds. It is currently the State’s policy to use commercial paper notes to provide flexibility for bond programs, such as to provide interim funding of voter-approved projects and to facilitate refunding of variable rate bonds into fixed rate bonds. Prior to late 2008, commercial paper notes were used primarily to repay internal loans from the PMIA, as a step toward issuance of long-term bonds. However, the internal loan program is no longer being used for general obligation bond programs and all such loans have been repaid from sale of long-term general obligation bonds. Pursuant to the terms of the bank credit agreement presently in effect, the general obligation commercial paper program may have up to $2 billion in aggregate principal amount at any time. This maximum amount may be increased or decreased in the future. As of May 7, 2010, $1,292,170,000 aggregate principal amount of general obligation commercial paper notes were outstanding, most of which relates back to retirement of PMIA loan expenditures in 2008. Commercial paper notes are not included in the calculation of permitted variable rate indebtedness described under “Variable Rate General Obligation Bonds.”

D-15

Bank Arrangements. In connection with the letters of credit or other credit facilities obtained by the State in connection with variable rate obligations and the commercial paper program, the State has entered into a number of reimbursement agreements or other credit agreements with a variety of financial institutions. These agreements include various representations and covenants of the State, and the terms (including interest rates and repayment schedules) by which the State would be required to repay any drawings (including drawings resulting from any failed remarketings) on the respective letters of credit or other credit enhancement to which such credit agreements relate. To the extent that any variable rate obligations cannot be remarketed over an extended period (whether due to reductions in the credit ratings of the institution providing credit enhancement or other factors), interest payable by the State pursuant to the reimbursement agreement or credit agreement would generally increase over current market levels relating to the variable rate obligations, and the principal repayment period would generally be shorter (typically less than five years) than the repayment period otherwise applicable to the variable rate obligation. On occasion the State’s variable rate obligations have not been remarketed resulting in draws on the applicable credit facilities.

During 2009, the State took a number of actions regarding its bank credit arrangements, including extending existing letter of credit facilities and converting standby purchase agreements to letters of credit for some of its floating rate ERBs and for its commercial paper program. The makeup of some of the State’s credit facilities was also revised with the deletion or substitution of banks. The State faces the need to renew approximately $1.37 billion of letters of credit for several series of variable rate general obligation bonds in November and December 2010.

Lease Revenue Obligations. In addition to general obligation bonds, the State has acquired and constructed capital facilities through the use of lease revenue borrowing (also referred to as lease-purchase borrowing). Under these arrangements, the State Public Works Board, another state or local agency, or a joint powers authority issued bonds to pay for the construction of facilities such as office buildings, university buildings, courthouses, or correctional institutions. These facilities are leased to a State agency, the California State University, the University of California, or the Judicial Council under a long-term lease that provides the source of payment of the debt service on the lease revenue bonds. In some cases, there was not a separate bond issue, but a trustee directly created certificates of participation in the State’s lease obligation, which were then marketed to investors. Under applicable court decisions, such lease arrangements do not constitute the creation of “indebtedness” within the meaning of the State Constitutional provisions that require voter approval. For purposes of this Statement of Additional Information, the terms “lease revenue obligation,” “lease revenue financing,” “lease-purchase obligation” or “lease-purchase” means, principally, bonds or certificates of participation for capital facilities where the lease payments providing the security are payable from the operating budget of the respective lessees, which are primarily, but not exclusively, derived from the General Fund, and also includes revenue bonds for a State energy efficiency program secured by payments made by various State agencies under energy service contracts. The State had $10,071,627,519 in lease revenue obligations outstanding as of May 1, 2010. The State Public Works Board, which is authorized to sell lease revenue bonds, had $9,834,701,000 authorized and unissued as of May 1, 2010.

Non-Recourse Debt. Certain State agencies and authorities issue revenue obligations for which the General Fund has no liability. Revenue bonds represent obligations payable from State revenue-producing enterprises and projects, which are not payable from the General Fund, and conduit obligations payable only from revenues paid by private users of facilities financed by the revenue bonds. The enterprises and projects include transportation projects, various public works projects, public and private educational facilities (including the California State University and University of California systems), housing, health facilities, and pollution control facilities. State agencies and authorities had approximately $56 billion aggregate principal amount of revenue bonds and notes, which are non-recourse to the General Fund outstanding as of December 31, 2009.

Build America Bonds. In February 2009, the United States Congress enacted certain new municipal bond provisions as part of the ARRA. One provision allows municipal issuers such as the State to issue “Build America Bonds” (“BABs”) for new infrastructure investments. BABs are bonds whose interest is subject to

D-16

federal income tax, but the U.S. Treasury will repay to the State an amount equal to 35% of the interest cost on any BABs issued during 2009 and 2010. This results in a net interest expense lower than what the State would have had to pay for tax-exempt bonds of similar maturity. The subsidy payments from general obligation bonds are General Fund revenues to the State, while subsidy payments for lease revenue bonds are deposited into a fund that is made available to the State Public Works Board for any lawful purpose. In neither instance are the subsidy payments specifically pledged to repayment of the BABs to which they relate. The cash subsidy payment with respect to the BABs, to which the State is entitled, is treated by the IRS as a refund of a tax credit and such refund may be offset by the U.S. Department of the Treasury by any liability of the State payable to the federal government, including in respect of any internal revenue tax (including any interest and penalties), past due child support, past due and legally enforceable debt due federal agencies, unemployment compensation debts, and past due legally enforceable State income tax debts.

Starting in April 2009 and through April 30, 2010, the State has issued a significant amount of BABs, including $10.39 billion of general obligation bonds and $551 million of lease revenue bonds. The aggregate amount of the subsidy payments to be received from fiscal year 2010-11 through the maturity of these bonds (mostly 20 to 30 years) is approximately $7.46 billion for the general obligation BABs and $338 million for the lease revenue BABs. The Obama Administration has proposed making the BABs program permanent, although at a lower subsidy rate for future issuances. In late May 2010 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 4213) that extends the BABs program for two years at successively lower subsidy rates, but higher than those proposed by the Obama Administration; this proposal has not yet been acted on by the Senate.

Future Issuance Plans; General Fund Debt Ratio. Between November 2006 and August 2009, voters and the California Legislature authorized more than $60 billion of new general obligation bonds and lease revenue bonds. This new authorization substantially increased the current amount of such General Fund-supported debt outstanding to more than $79 billion, while still leaving authorized and unissued approximately $51 billion of such bonds as of May 1, 2010. In order to address the expenditure needs for these new authorizations, along with those that existed before 2006, the State has increased the volume of issuance of both of these categories of bonds substantially, compared to previous years, starting in fiscal year 2007-08. The amounts and timing of future issuance of general obligation and lease revenue bonds will depend on a variety of factors, including the actual timing of expenditure needs for the various programs for which such bonds are to be issued, the amount and timing of interim financing provided to the programs, the interest rate and other market conditions at the time of issuance, and the timing and amounts of additional general obligation bonds or lease revenue bonds that may be approved.

Disruptions in financial markets and uncertainties about the State’s budget condition caused significant disruptions in the State’s bond issuance program during fiscal year 2008-09. Because of these factors, the State did not issue any new general obligation bonds between July 2008 and March 2009. In March 2009, the State it issued $6.54 billion of new tax-exempt bonds, the largest new money general obligation bond issue in the State’s history (excluding ERBs). A few weeks later, the State took advantage of the new federal rules to issue $6.86 billion of federally taxable general obligations bonds, of which $5.3 billion were BABs. A significant part of the over $13 billion of bonds issued in the spring of 2009 was used to retire internal borrowings used to fund construction projects, which had built up because of the long hiatus in bond issuance. An additional $6.546 billion of tax-exempt and taxable general obligation bonds ($2.66 billion BABs) were issued in the fall of 2009, together with $1.549 billion of lease revenue bonds ($250 million BABs).

The combination of unusual circumstances resulted in public offerings of a record $19.7 billion of general obligation bonds during calendar year 2009. Through May 31, 2010, the State has issued $5.9 billion of general obligation bonds and $721 million of lease revenue bonds in calendar year 2010. The 2010-11 May Revision projected issuance of approximately $15.8 billion of general obligation and lease revenue bonds in that fiscal year. These are preliminary estimates, and the actual amount of bonds sold in fiscal year 2010-11 will depend on many factors, including more detailed review of program needs, budget priorities, and market conditions.

D-17

Based on the current Department of Finance projections of program expenditure needs, without taking into account any future authorizations that may occur, the State Treasurer has estimated that the aggregate amount of outstanding debt supported by the General Fund, including general obligation, lease revenue, and Proposition 1A bonds, based on current voter and legislative authorizations, is estimated to peak at approximately $111.3 billion by fiscal year 2014-15, compared to the current outstanding amount of approximately $80.8 billion. The annual debt service costs on this amount of debt is estimated by the State Treasurer to increase to approximately $9.93 billion in fiscal year 2012-13 compared to approximately $6.09 billion budgeted in fiscal year 2009-10. The projected amounts for fiscal year 2010-11 through 2011-12 include the interest, and for fiscal year 2012-13, the interest and principal payable on the $1.90 billion of bonds issued in connection with Proposition 1A. After fiscal year 2012-13, projected peak debt service is $9.97 billion in fiscal year 2017-18. (These estimates do not include ERBs, described below, or veterans general obligation bonds supported by mortgage repayments from housing loans made to military veterans, nor do they take into account potential benefits from future refunding opportunities.)

In light of the substantial drop in General Fund revenues since fiscal year 2007-08, and the projections of substantial new bond sales in the future, the ratio of debt service on general obligation, lease revenue, and the Proposition 1A bonds supported by the General Fund, to annual General Fund revenues and transfers (the “General Fund Debt Ratio”) can be expected to increase significantly in future years. Based on the revised estimates contained in the 2010-11 May Revision, in fiscal year 2009-10, the General Fund Debt Ratio was estimated to equal approximately 7.03%. Based on the assumed debt issuance referred to in the preceding paragraph, and the assumed growth in General Fund revenues and transfers contained in the 2010-11 May Revision, through fiscal year 2013-14, the State’s General Fund Debt Ratio is projected to peak at 10.58% in fiscal year 2012-13, the year in which the Proposition 1A bonds mature. In the fiscal year following the maturity of the Proposition 1A bonds, fiscal year 2013-14, the State’s General Fund Debt Ratio is projected to decline to 9.34%. The State’s General Fund Debt Ratio after fiscal year 2013-14 will depend on the State’s future General Fund revenues, which will in turn depend on a variety of factors including but not limited to economic, population, and inflation growth. Based on the State’s current debt issuance projections and an assumed combined average annual General Fund revenue growth rate of between 2% to 5%, the State’s General Fund Debt Ratio in fiscal year 2019-20 is projected to range from 7.26% to 8.67%. The General Fund Debt Ratio is calculated based on actual gross debt service, without adjusting for receipts from the U.S. Treasury for the State’s current outstanding general obligation and lease revenue BABs, and an assumed interest rate of 6.25% and 6.75% for future issuances of general obligation and lease revenue bonds, respectively. The actual General Fund Debt Ratio in future fiscal years will depend on a variety of factors, including actual debt issuance (which may include additional issuance approved in the future by the California Legislature and, for general obligation bonds, the voters), actual interest rates, debt service structure, and actual General Fund revenues and transfers.

Economic Recovery Bonds. Proposition 57 was approved by the voters on March 2, 2004. Proposition 57 authorized the issuance of up to $15 billion in ERBs to finance the negative General Fund reserve balance as of June 30, 2004, and other General Fund obligations undertaken prior to June 30, 2004. Repayment of the ERBs is secured by a pledge of revenues from a one-quarter cent increase in the State’s sales and use tax that became effective July 1, 2004. In addition, as voter-approved general obligation bonds, the ERBs are secured by the State’s full faith and credit and payable from the General Fund in the event the dedicated sales and use tax revenue is insufficient to repay the bonds.

In May and June 2004, the State issued $10.896 billion principal amount of ERBs, resulting in the deposit of net proceeds to the General Fund of approximately $11.254 billion. In order to relieve cash flow and budgetary shortfalls identified in the 2008-09 Governor’s Budget, the State issued approximately $3.179 billion of additional ERBs on February 14, 2008, generating net proceeds of $3.313 billion, which were transferred to the General Fund. No further ERBs can be issued under Proposition 57, except for refunding bonds that may be issued in the future. (The Department of Finance had determined that the full $15 billion voter authorization could not be issued because of the previous repayment of certain June 30, 2004 obligations eligible for financing pursuant to Proposition 57.)

D-18

Because of the sharp reduction in taxable sales as a result of the recent economic recession, the Special Sales Tax Revenues (“SSTRs”) collected from the one-quarter cent tax dedicated to repayment of the ERB debt decreased to a level that did not provide adequate coverage above the required debt service amounts for the 2004 and 2008 ERBs. This resulted in downgrades of the ratings of the ERBs and would have required debt service to be paid from reserve funds for at least some period of time. In order to restore adequate coverage, the State restructured the ERB debt through the issuance of approximately $3.435 billion ERB refunding bonds on November 5, 2009. The restructuring reduced annual debt service costs to come into alignment with reduced tax revenues, with a coverage target of at least 1.3 times. The ratings for all ERBs have been raised to levels above the State’s general obligation bond ratings.

Three different sources of funds are required to be applied to the early retirement (generally by purchase or redemption) of ERBs: (i) all proceeds from the dedicated quarter cent sales tax in excess of the amounts needed, on a semi-annual basis, to pay debt service and other required costs of the bonds, (ii) all proceeds from the sale of specified surplus State property, and (iii) 50% of each annual deposit, up to $5 billion in the aggregate, of deposits in the BSA. As of January 2010, funds from these sources have been used for early retirement of approximately $3.5 billion of bonds during fiscal years 2005-06 through 2009-10, including $1.495 billion that was transferred from the BSA in fiscal year 2006-07 ($472 million) and fiscal year 2007-08 ($1.023 billion). The State reported that approximately $122 million of surplus tax revenues will be used to retire ERBs on June 24, 2010.

The Governor suspended each of the fiscal years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 BSA transfers due to the condition of the General Fund.

Tobacco Settlement Revenue Bonds. In 1998, the State signed a settlement agreement (the “Master Settlement Agreement” or “MSA”) with the four major cigarette manufacturers (the “participating manufacturers” or “PMs”). Under the MSA, the PMs agreed to make payments to the State in perpetuity, which payments at the time were predicted to total approximately $25 billion (subject to adjustments) over the first 25 years. Under a separate Memorandum of Understanding, half of the payments made by the cigarette manufacturers is paid to the State and half to local governments. The specific amount to be received by the State and local governments is subject to adjustment. Details in the MSA require reduction of the PMs’ payments for decreases in cigarette shipment volumes by the PMs, payments owed to certain “Previously Settled States” and certain other types of offsets. However, settlement payments are adjusted upward each year by at least 3% for inflation, compounded annually.

State law enacted in 2002 (the “Tobacco Securitization Law”) authorized the establishment of a special purpose trust to purchase the tobacco assets and to issue revenue bonds secured by the tobacco settlement revenues received beginning in the 2003-04 fiscal year. Legislation in 2003 amended the Tobacco Securitization Law to authorize a “back-up state guaranty” that requires the Governor to request an appropriation from the General Fund in the annual Budget Act to pay debt service and other related costs of the tobacco settlement revenue bonds secured by the second 2003 sale of tobacco settlement revenues when such tobacco settlement revenues are insufficient. The California Legislature is not obligated to make any General Fund appropriation.

In 2003, two separate sales of these assets financed with revenue bonds (the “2003 Bonds”) produced approximately $4.75 billion in proceeds, which were transferred to the General Fund. In 2005 and 2007, the State refunded all of the original 2003 Bonds, generating additional proceeds of approximately $1.783 billion, which were also transferred to the General Fund. The back-up State guaranty was applied to only the second 2003 sale of bonds and was continued when those bonds were refunded in 2005 (the “2005 Refunding Bonds”). The back-up State guaranty now applies to the $3.14 billion of 2005 Refunding Bonds.

The MSA provides for a potential reduction to the PMs’ payments under specified conditions relating to the loss of market share to non-participating manufacturers (“NPMs”). This potential reduction is called an “NPM adjustment.” The State disputes the PMs’ right to an NPM adjustment for any year. The MSA also allows the

D-19

PMs to withhold any portion of their annual payments that is disputed, until such time as the dispute is resolved. Since 2006, the annual amount of revenues received by the State has incurred some level of withholding based on the PMs’ assertion of their right to receive an NPM adjustment as is reflected in the table below. Nevertheless, the annual amount of tobacco settlement revenues received to date has been in excess of the required debt service payments.

Year of Scheduled Payment	Approximate NPM Adjustment Withheld
2006	$	50.9 million
2007		44.0 million
2008		33.9 million	*
2009		32.8 million
2010		35.3 million

* In February 2009, these funds were released and remitted to the State as part of the NPM arbitration negotiations.

Source: State of California, Department of Finance.

The State Attorney General is pursuing, in a multi-state arbitration proceeding, a determination compelling the PMs to pay the full amount scheduled, given that the State asserts that it has been diligently enforcing the statute governing the NPMs, as required in the MSA.

Tobacco settlement revenue bonds are neither general nor legal obligations of the State or any of its political subdivisions and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power nor any other assets or revenues of the State or of any political subdivision is or shall be pledged to the payment of any such bonds; provided that, in connection with the issuance of the 2005 Refunding Bonds, the State covenanted to request the California Legislature for a General Fund appropriation in the event tobacco settlement revenues fall short. Tobacco settlement revenues have been sufficient to pay debt service with respect to the tobacco settlement revenue bonds, and therefore the State’s covenant to request an appropriation has never been invoked.

Obligations In Connection with Proposition 1A of 2004. The Amended 2009 Budget Act provided for State borrowing, pursuant to Proposition 1A, of approximately $1.998 billion of local property tax revenues. In accordance with Proposition 1A, the State is required to repay such revenues no later than June 2013. Legislation implementing the borrowing in the Amended 2009 Budget Act provided authority to local governments to sell their right to receive the State repayment to a joint powers authority (JPA) and for the JPA to issue bonds backed by the State’s repayment obligation. The repayment obligation includes interest and issuance costs for the JPA bonds.

On November 19, 2009, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, a JPA, issued $1,895,000,000 of bonds that are secured by the State’s obligation to make these payments to approximately 1,300 local governments, representing approximately 95% of the State’s total borrowing from local governments. The 2010-11 Governor’s Budget includes $90.8 million General Fund for the interest payments that will be incurred in that fiscal year. In accordance with the authorizing legislation, these bonds will be repaid by June 15, 2013. In addition, for the obligations to entities not participating in the JPA bond program (which are $103 million in principal amount), the Director of Finance has set an interest rate of 2% per annum.

D-20

Cash Flow Borrowing. As part of its cash management program, the State has regularly issued short-term obligations to meet cash flow needs. The following table shows the amount of RANs issued in the past five fiscal years and through June 13, 2010, in fiscal year 2009-10:

State of California Revenue Anticipation Notes Issued

Fiscal Years 2004-05 to 2009-10

(Dollars in Billions)

Fiscal Year	Type	Principal Amount		Date of Issue	Maturity Date
2004-05	Notes Series A - D	$	6.0	October 6, 2004	June 30, 2005
2005-06	Notes		3.0	November 10, 2005	June 30, 2006
2006-07	Notes		1.5	October 3, 2006	June 29, 2007
2007-08	Notes		7.0	November 1, 2007	June 30, 2008
2008-09	Notes Series A-1		1.2	October 23, 2008	May 20, 2009
	Notes Series A-2		3.8	October 23, 2008	June 22, 2009
	Notes Series B-1		0.5	March 23, 2009	June 23, 2009
2009-10	Interim Notes		1.5	August 27, 2009	October 5, 2009*
	Notes Series A-1		2.825	September 29, 2009	May 25, 2010
	Note Series A-2		5.975	September 29, 2009	June 23, 2010

* Repaid on September 29, 2009 with a portion of the 2009-10 Notes Series A.

Source: State of California, Office of the State Treasurer.

Indirect, Nonpublic, or Contingent Obligations.

• Flood Litigation Judgment. In 2005, the State settled a lawsuit arising from liability for past flood damages through a stipulated judgment in the amount of $428 million, which provided for the State to make annual payments of $42.8 million, plus interest, for 10 years; the payments are subject to annual appropriation by the California Legislature. The California Legislature has included the required annual installment in each budget act since the settlement was approved. This matter is not treated as a “debt” of the State for any legal or constitutional purposes.

• Unemployment Insurance Fund Borrowing. Commencing in January 2011, the State will be required to pay interest payments on loans made by the federal government to the State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Fund.

• Special Fund Borrowings. As has been described in connection with various budget acts and current budget proposals, the General Fund has or may incur legal obligations to repay various Special Funds, or to repay schools or other local governments, for borrowings that have been treated as providing revenue to the General Fund. These loans may, in some cases, be further extended by the California Legislature. Such loans are not treated as “debt” for any legal or constitutional purposes.

• Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Guarantees. Pursuant to a law created in 1969, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (“OSHPD”) insures loans and bond issues for construction and renovation projects for nonprofit and publicly-owned healthcare facilities. The program (commonly called “Cal-Mortgage Loan Insurance”) is currently authorized in statute to insure up to $3 billion for health facility projects. State law established the Health Facility Construction Loan Insurance Fund (“Fund”) as a trust fund that is continuously appropriated and may only be used for program purposes. The Fund is used as a depository of fees and insurance premiums and is the initial source of funds used to pay administrative costs of the program and shortfalls resulting from defaults by insured borrowers. If the Fund were unable to make payment on an insured loan or bond, State law provides for the State Treasurer to issue debentures to the holders of the defaulted loan or bond which are payable on a parity with State general obligation bonds. All claims on insured loans to date have

D-21

been paid from the Fund. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, OSHPD insured approximately 134 loans to nonprofit or publicly owned health facilities throughout California for approximately $1.7 billion. As of that date, the cash balance of the Fund was approximately $192.6 million. The OSHPD reported to the California Legislature that, as of June 30, 2009, the Fund balance was $95.0 million (unaudited). The Fund balance is determined by taking the cash balance, adding the value of assets (obligations due to the OSHPD for defaulted projects) and subtracting the liabilities (obligations of the OSHPD for defaulted projects). The OSHPD engaged Oliver Wyman to perform the 2008 actuarial study of the Fund, which concluded, among other things, that it appeared to be sufficient, assuming “normal and expected” conditions, to maintain a positive balance over 30 years. Even assuming abnormal and unexpected events, the study found that the Fund’s reserves would protect against General Fund losses for 14 years. More information on the program can be obtained from OSHPD’s website.

Sources of Tax Revenues.

In fiscal year 2008-09, approximately 90% of the State’s General Fund revenues and transfers were derived from personal income taxes, corporation taxes, and sales and use taxes. The following are brief summaries of the major sources of tax revenues in the State. The sections below captioned “Sales and Use Tax” and “Corporation Tax” include descriptions of pending lawsuits relating to various taxes.

Personal Income Tax. The California personal income tax, which accounted for 52.4% of General Fund revenues and transfers in fiscal year 2008-09, is closely modeled after the federal income tax law. It is imposed on net taxable income (gross income less exclusions and deductions), with rates ranging from 1% to 9.3%. For tax years 2009 and 2010, the rates will range from 1.25% to 9.55%. The personal income tax is adjusted annually by the change in the consumer price index to prevent taxpayers from being pushed into higher tax brackets without a real increase in income. Personal, dependent, and other credits are allowed against the gross tax liability. In addition, taxpayers may be subject to an alternative minimum tax (“AMT”), which is much like the federal AMT. The personal income tax structure is considered to be highly progressive. For example, the Franchise Tax Board indicates that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 43% of the total personal income tax in tax year 2008.

Proposition 63, approved by the voters in the November 2004 election, imposes a 1% surcharge on taxable income over $1 million in addition to the 9.3% rate (9.55% for tax years 2009 and 2010). The surcharge became effective January 1, 2005. The proceeds of the tax surcharge are required to be used to expand mental health programs.

Taxes on capital gains realizations, which are largely linked to stock market performance, can add a significant dimension of volatility to personal income tax receipts. Capital gains tax receipts accounted for 14.8% of General Fund revenues and transfers in fiscal year 2000-01. The 2010-11 May Revision projected that capital gains would account for 3.6% of General Fund revenues and transfers in fiscal year 2009-10 and 5.8% in fiscal year 2010-11.

Sales and Use Tax. The sales and use tax (referred to herein as the “sales tax”), which accounted for 28.7% of General Fund revenues and transfers in fiscal year 2008-09, is imposed upon retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property in California. Most retail sales and leases are subject to the tax. However, exemptions have been provided for certain essentials such as food for home consumption, prescription drugs, gas delivered through mains, and electricity. Other exemptions provide relief for a variety of sales ranging from custom computer software to aircraft.

The California use tax is imposed at the same rates as the regular sales tax on consumers of tangible personal property that is used, consumed, or stored in this State. Use tax applies to purchases from out-of-state vendors that are not required to collect tax on their sales. Use tax also applies to most leases of tangible personal property.

D-22

As of May 1, 2010, the breakdown of the base State and local sales tax rate of 8.25% was as follows:

• 6% imposed as a State General Fund tax (this tax rate is scheduled to return to 5% on July 1, 2011);

• 0.5% dedicated to local governments for health and welfare program realignment (Local Revenue Fund);

• 0.5% dedicated to local governments for public safety services (Local Public Safety Fund);

• 1% local tax imposed under the Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, with 0.25% dedicated to county transportation purposes and 0.75% for city and county general-purpose use; and

• 0.25% deposited into the Fiscal Recovery Fund to repay the State’s ERBs (the “special sales tax”).

Existing law provides that 0.25% of the base State and local sales tax rate may be suspended in any calendar year upon certification by the Director of Finance, by November 1 in the prior year, that both of the following have occurred: (1) the General Fund reserve (excluding the revenues derived from the 0.25% special sales tax) is expected to exceed 3% of revenues in that fiscal year (excluding the revenues derived from the 0.25% special sales tax) and (2) actual revenues for the period May 1 through September 30 equal or exceed the previous May Revision forecast. The 0.25% rate will be reinstated the following year if the Director of Finance subsequently determines conditions (1) or (2) above are not met for that fiscal year. The Department of Finance estimates that the reserve level will be insufficient to trigger a reduction for calendar year 2010.

Existing law provides that the special sales tax will be collected until the first day of the calendar quarter at least 90 days after the Director of Finance certifies that all ERBs and related obligations have been paid or retired or provision for their repayment has been made or enough sales taxes have been collected to pay all ERBs and related obligations to final maturity. At such time the special sales tax will terminate and the city and county portion of taxes under the uniform local sales and use tax will be automatically increased by 0.25%.

Proposition 1A, approved by the voters in the November 2004 election, amended the State Constitution to, among other things, reduce the California Legislature’s authority over local government revenue sources by restricting the State from lowering the local sales tax rate or changing the allocation of local sales tax revenues without meeting certain conditions. A proposed initiative constitutional amendment would restrict the ability of the State to use or borrow money from local governments, and moneys dedicated to transportation financing. See “Recent Developments” above.

An appellate court decision from 2008 held that two Dell entities and two providers of maintenance and warranty services had improperly collected from customers and remitted to the BOE use tax on optional service contracts that were sold with computers. The State anticipates that a pending action will result in a judgment or settlement requiring the BOE to refund the tax with interest. Plaintiffs estimate that the refund amounts could be as much as $250 million. Identification and notification of consumers affected by the decision and thus due a refund is unresolved, and determination of the total refund amount depends upon such identification and notification. The 2010-11 May Revision projected that the refunds will not occur prior to fiscal year 2011-12.

Corporation Tax. The corporation tax accounted for 11.5% of General Fund revenues and transfers in fiscal year 2008-09. Corporation tax revenues are derived from the following taxes:

1. The franchise tax and the corporate income tax are levied at an 8.84% rate on profits. The former is imposed on corporations for the privilege of doing business in California, while the latter is imposed on corporations that derive income from California sources but are not sufficiently present to be classified as doing business in the State.

2. Banks and other financial corporations are subject to the franchise tax plus an additional tax at the rate of 2% on their net income. This additional tax is in lieu of personal property taxes and business license taxes.

3. The AMT is similar to that in federal law. In general, the AMT is based on a higher level of net income computed by adding back certain tax preferences. This tax is imposed at a rate of 6.65%.

D-23

4. A minimum franchise tax of up to $800 is imposed on corporations subject to the franchise tax but not on those subject to the corporate income tax. New corporations are exempted from the minimum franchise tax for the first year of incorporation.

5. Sub-Chapter S corporations are taxed at 1.5% of profits.

6. Fees paid by limited liability companies (“LLCs”), which account for 2.8% of corporation tax revenue, are considered “corporation taxes.” Three separate cases have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the LLC fee. Two have been resolved and one is pending. In California Taxpayers Association v. Franchise Tax Board, California Taxpayers Association (“Cal-Tax”), plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the corporate understatement penalty that was enacted in Chapter 1, Statutes of 2007-08 First Extraordinary Session (SB X1 28, 2008 Budget Act Trailer Bill) and sought an injunction precluding the Franchise Tax Board from enforcing the statute. The trial court ruled for the State and Cal-Tax appealed. A decision may be issued during fiscal year 2010-11. An adverse ruling would resulting a potential loss or revenue in fiscal year 2010-11 of between $500 million and $800 million, and an ongoing loss of approximately $500 million thereafter.

As part of the 2009 Budget Act, the California Legislature adopted certain additional tax benefits for corporations, affecting carryover of losses, sharing tax credits among affiliates, and changes to the unitary tax calculations for multinational corporations, all of which were to become effective in 2011 or later. An initiative statute will be included on the November 2010 ballot that would repeal all of these new tax benefits. It is estimated that such a repeal, if approved by the voters, would increase General Fund revenues by approximately $1.7 billion annually starting in fiscal year 2011-12.

Insurance Tax. The majority of insurance written in California is subject to a 2.35% gross premium tax. For insurers, this premium tax takes the place of all other State and local taxes except those on real property and motor vehicles. Exceptions to the 2.35% rate are certain pension and profit-sharing plans which are taxed at the lesser rate of 0.5%, surplus lines and non-admitted insurance at 3% and ocean marine insurers at 5% of underwriting profits. To provide interim funding for the Healthy Families and Medi-Cal programs, Chapter 157, Statutes of 2009 extends the 2.35% gross premiums tax to the Medi-Cal managed care plans in 2009 and 2010.

The BOE ruled in December 2006 that the premium tax insurers pay should be calculated on a cash basis rather than the accrual method required by the California Department of Insurance. This ruling is expected to result in a total loss of $406 million spread over several years; the impact was $15 million in fiscal year 2008-09 and is estimated to be $11 million in fiscal year 2009-10, $230 million in fiscal year 2010-11, and $149 million in fiscal year 2011-12.

Vehicle License Fee. The Amended 2009 Budget Act temporarily increased the vehicle license fee from 0.65% to 1.15%, effective May 19, 2009, through June 30, 2011. Of this 0.5% increase, 0.35% goes to the General Fund, with the remaining 0.15% going to local law enforcement. An initiative has been qualified for the November 2010 ballot that would increase the annual vehicle license fee by $18 and dedicate the revenue to support of State parks and wildlife conservation. This measure, if approved by the voters, would generate an estimated $500 million per year for parks and wildlife conservation programs, which would save an equivalent amount of General Fund expenditures.

Estate Tax; Other Taxes. The State estate tax is based on the State death tax credit allowed against the federal estate tax. The California estate tax is designed to pick up the maximum credit allowed against the federal estate tax return. The federal Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the “Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act”) phases out the federal estate tax by 2010. As a consequence, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act resulted in the reduction of the State estate tax revenues by 25% in calendar year 2002, 50% in calendar year 2003, and 75% in calendar year 2004, and the elimination of the State estate tax beginning in calendar year 2005. The provisions of this federal act sunset after 2010. At that time, the federal estate tax is scheduled to be reinstated along with the State’s estate tax. Federal estate tax law may be changed to modify or eliminate the State pick-up tax.

D-24

Other General Fund major taxes and licenses include: Inheritance and Gift Taxes; Cigarette Taxes; Alcoholic Beverage Taxes; Horse Racing License Fees, and Trailer Coach License Fees.

Special Fund Revenues. The California Constitution and statutes specify the uses of certain revenues. Such receipts are accounted for in various special funds. In general, special fund revenues comprise three categories of income:

• Receipts from tax levies which are allocated to specified functions, such as motor vehicle taxes and fees and certain taxes on tobacco products.

• Charges for special services to specific functions, including such items as business and professional license fees.

• Rental royalties and other receipts designated for particular purposes (e.g., oil and gas royalties).

Motor vehicle related taxes and fees are projected to account for 39% of all special fund revenues in fiscal year 2010-11. Principal sources of this income are motor vehicle fuel taxes, registration and weight fees, and vehicle license fees. In fiscal year 2010-11, $10.9 billion is projected to come from the ownership or operation of motor vehicles. Approximately $2.9 billion of this revenue is projected to be returned to local governments. The remainder will be available for various State programs related to transportation and services to vehicle owners.

Taxes on Tobacco Products. As a result of Proposition 99, approved by the voters in 1988, and Proposition 10, approved by the voters in 1998, the State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes of 87 cents per pack and the equivalent rates on other tobacco products. Tobacco product excise tax revenues are earmarked as follows:

1. Fifty cents of the per-pack tax on cigarettes and the equivalent rate levied on non-cigarette tobacco products are deposited in the California Children and Families First Trust Fund and are allocated primarily for early childhood development programs.

2. Twenty-five cents of the per-pack tax on cigarettes and the equivalent rates levied on non-cigarette tobacco products are allocated to the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund. These funds are appropriated for anti-tobacco education and research, indigent health services, and environmental and recreation programs.

3. Ten cents of the per-pack tax is allocated to the State’s General Fund.

4. The remaining two cents of the per-pack tax is deposited into the Breast Cancer Fund.

The following table shows the trend of major General Fund and total taxes per capita and per $100 of personal income for the past five fiscal years and fiscal year 2010-11.

Recent Tax Receipts

	State Taxes per Capita(a)		Taxes per $100 of Personal Income
Fiscal Year	General Fund	Total	General Fund	Total
2005-06	2,451.75	2,867.55	6.52	7.63
2006-07	2,501.35	2,934.28	6.23	7.31
2007-08	2,530.79	2,967.26	6.06	7.11
2008-09	2,084.46	2,494.59	4.95	5.92
2009-10	2,189.84	2,571.00	5.40	6.34
2010-11 (budget)	2,265.68	2,701.14	5.46	6.51

* Data reflects population figures based on the 2000 Census – estimated.

Source: State of California, Department of Finance.

D-25

State Appropriations Limit.

The State is subject to an annual appropriations limit imposed by Article XIIIB of the State Constitution (the “Appropriations Limit”). The Appropriations Limit does not restrict appropriations to pay debt service on voter-authorized bonds.

Article XIII B prohibits the State from spending “appropriations subject to limitation” in excess of the Appropriations Limit. “Appropriations subject to limitation,” with respect to the State, are authorizations to spend “proceeds of taxes,” which consist of tax revenues, and certain other funds, including proceeds from regulatory licenses, user charges or other fees to the extent such proceeds exceed “the cost reasonably borne by that entity in providing the regulation, product or service,” but “proceeds of taxes” exclude most State subventions to local governments, tax refunds, and some benefit payments such as unemployment insurance. No limit is imposed on appropriations of funds which are not “proceeds of taxes,” such as reasonable user charges or fees and certain other non-tax funds.

There are various types of appropriations excluded from the Appropriations Limit. For example, debt service costs of bonds existing or authorized by January 1, 1979, or subsequently authorized by the voters, appropriations required to comply with mandates of courts or the federal government, appropriations for qualified capital outlay projects, appropriations for tax refunds, appropriations of revenues derived from any increase in gasoline taxes and motor vehicle weight fees above January 1, 1990 levels, and appropriation of certain special taxes imposed by initiative (e.g., cigarette and tobacco taxes) are all excluded. The Appropriations Limit may also be exceeded in cases of emergency.

The Appropriations Limit in each year is based on the Appropriations Limit for the prior year, adjusted annually for changes in State per capita personal income and changes in population, and adjusted, when applicable, for any transfer of financial responsibility of providing services to or from another unit of government or any transfer of the financial source for the provisions of services from tax proceeds to non-tax proceeds. The measurement of change in population is a blended average of statewide overall population growth, and change in attendance at local school and community college (K-14) districts. The Appropriations Limit is tested over consecutive two-year periods. Any excess of the aggregate “proceeds of taxes” received over such two-year period above the combined Appropriations Limits for those two years, is divided equally between transfers to K-14 districts and refunds to taxpayers.

The California Legislature has enacted legislation to implement Article XIIIB which defines certain terms used in Article XIIIB and sets forth the methods for determining the Appropriations Limit. California Government Code Section 7912 requires an estimate of the Appropriations Limit to be included in the Governor’s Budget, and thereafter to be subject to the budget process and established in the Budget Act.

The following table shows the Appropriations Limit for fiscal years 2006-07 through 2010-11.

State Appropriations Limit

(Dollars in Millions)

	2006-07			2007-08			2008-09			2009-10			2010-11
State Appropriations Limit	$	72,307		$	76,093		$	79,858		$	80,984		$	79,118
Appropriations Subject to Limit		(58,663	)		(59,201	)		(48,233	)		(57,849	)*		(58,424	)*
Amount (Over)/Under Limit	$	13,641		$	16,892		$	31,625		$	23,135	*	$	20,694	*

* Estimated/projected.

Source: State of California, Department of Finance.

D-26

Litigation.

The State is continually a party to numerous legal proceedings, many of which could have an adverse impact on the State’s financial condition. Pending litigation currently includes, but is not limited to, cases involving issues related to the budget, taxes, environmental matters, health care, tribal gaming, transportation, education, and the State’s prison system, all of which, if decided adversely to California, could result in significant General Fund expenditures or otherwise impact the ability of the State to raise revenues.

Local Governments.

The primary units of local government in California are the 58 counties, which range in population from approximately 1,100 in Alpine County to approximately 10.4 million in Los Angeles County. Counties are responsible for the provision of many basic services, including indigent health care, welfare, jails, and public safety in unincorporated areas. There are also 480 incorporated cities in California and thousands of special districts formed for education, utilities, and other services.

The fiscal condition of local governments was changed when Proposition 13, which added Article XIIIA to the State Constitution, was approved by California voters in 1978. Proposition 13 reduced and limited the future growth of property taxes and limited the ability of local governments to impose “special taxes” (those devoted to a specific purpose) without two-thirds voter approval. Although Proposition 13 limited property tax growth rates, it also has had a smoothing effect on property tax revenues, ensuring greater stability in annual revenues than existed before Proposition 13 passed.

Proposition 218, another constitutional amendment enacted by initiative in 1996, further limited the ability of local governments to raise taxes, fees, and other exactions. (The limitations include requiring a majority vote approval for general local tax increases, prohibiting fees for services in excess of the cost of providing such service, and providing that no fee may be charged for fire, police, or any other service widely available to the public.)

In the aftermath of Proposition 13, the State provided aid to local governments from the General Fund to make up some of the loss of property tax moneys, including assuming principal responsibility for funding K-12 schools and community colleges. During the recession of the early 1990s, the California Legislature reduced the post-Proposition 13 aid to local government entities other than K-12 schools and community colleges by requiring cities and counties to transfer some of their property tax revenues to school districts. However, the California Legislature also provided additional funding sources, such as sales taxes, and reduced certain mandates for local services funded by cities and counties.

The 2004 Budget Act, related legislation, and the enactment of Proposition 1A in 2004 dramatically changed the State-local fiscal relationship. These constitutional and statutory changes implemented an agreement negotiated between the Governor and local government officials (the “state-local agreement”) in connection with the 2004 Budget Act. One change relates to the reduction of the vehicle license fee (“VLF”) rate from 2% to 0.65% of the market value of the vehicle. In order to protect local governments, which had previously received all VLF revenues, the 1.35% reduction in VLF revenue to cities and counties from this rate change was backfilled (or offset) by an increase in the amount of property tax revenues they receive. This worked to the benefit of local governments because the backfill amount annually increases in proportion to the growth in property tax revenues, which has historically grown at a higher rate than VLF revenues, although property tax revenues have declined over the past two years. This arrangement continues without change in the 2010-11 Governor’s Budget.

Pursuant to statutory changes made in conjunction with the Initial 2009 Budget Act, the VLF rate increased from 0.65% to 1.15% effective May 19, 2009. Of this 0.50% increase, 0.35% flows to the General Fund, and 0.15% supports various law enforcement programs previously funded by the General Fund. This increased VLF rate will be effective through the 2010-11 fiscal year.

D-27

As part of the state-local agreement, voters at the November 2004 election approved Proposition 1A. Proposition 1A amended the State Constitution to, among other things, reduce the California Legislature’s authority over local government revenue sources by placing restrictions on the State’s access to local governments’ property, sales, and VLF revenues as of November 3, 2004.

The Amended 2009 Budget Act authorized the State to exercise its authority under Proposition 1A to borrow an amount equal to approximately 8% of local property tax revenues, or $1.9 billion, which must be repaid within three years. State law was also enacted to create a securitization mechanism for local governments to sell their right to receive the State’s payment obligations to a local government-operated joint powers authority. This joint powers authority sold bonds in a principal amount of $1.895 billion in November 2009 to pay the participating local governments their full property tax allocations when they normally would receive such allocations. Pursuant to Proposition 1A, the State is required to repay the local government borrowing (which in turn will be used to repay the bonds of the joint powers authority) no later than June 30, 2013. The 2010-11 Governor’s Budget includes $90.8 million for the interest payments that will be incurred in that fiscal year to be paid from the General Fund.

The Amended 2009 Budget Act also contained a shift of $1.7 billion in redevelopment agency funds from current revenue and reserves in fiscal year 2009-10 and $350 million in fiscal year 2010-11. These revenues are shifted to schools that serve the redevelopment areas. This frees an equal amount of base property tax that is shifted to the Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Funds in each county that are established by Proposition 1A and used for the same purposes. The enabling legislation allows redevelopment agencies to borrow from parent agencies, and from any available reserves in their low and moderate income housing funds.

The California Redevelopment Association (“CRA”), whose membership includes a large number of redevelopment agencies, has filed a lawsuit challenging the $1.7 billion shift described above. The 2008 Budget Act included a shift of $350 million of redevelopment agency moneys. The CRA had also challenged that shift, and a trial court held that the legislation providing for the shift was invalid, which prevented the State from shifting the funds for the 2008-09 fiscal year. The State withdrew its appeal of the decision and subsequently enacted legislation that addresses the concerns noted by the trial court. However, the subsequently enacted legislation is being challenged in the current CRA lawsuit. A group of counties has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the shift. The Sacramento County Superior Court issued a ruling on May 4, 2010, upholding the State’s ability to shift $1.7 billion and $350 million from redevelopment agencies in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively. The CRA has appealed the ruling.

Economic, Political, Social and Environmental Conditions.

Changes in economic, political, social or environmental conditions on a local, State, federal and/or international level may adversely affect California’s financial condition, as well as investment risk generally. Such conditional changes may include (but are not limited to) fluctuations in business production, consumer prices or financial markets, unemployment rates, technological advancements, shortages or surpluses in natural resources or energy supplies, changes in law, social unrest, fluctuations in the crime rate, political conflict, acts of war or terrorism, environmental damage and natural disasters.

Georgia

Located in the southeastern region of the United States, the State of Georgia (“Georgia” and the “State”) has experienced substantial growth over the last several decades. Since 1960, the population of Georgia has more than doubled, currently making Georgia the country’s ninth most populated state. Between 2000 and 2009, Georgia grew by an estimated 1,642,758 people, a growth rate of 20.1 percent, fourth fastest in the nation, and fastest east of the Mississippi River (2009 Census estimate: 9,829,211). From 2000 to 2009, 17 of Georgia’s counties ranked among the nation’s 100 fastest-growing, second most in the nation, including two counties (both located in metro Atlanta) which ranked among the top ten.

D-28

This population increase is expected to continue for the foreseeable future at approximately the same accelerated rate. In its March 2010 report, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget estimated that Georgia’s population will increase by an additional 4.6 million people over the next 20 years, with over 60% of this growth attributable to people moving into the state. While the fastest-paced growth is expected in the northern and coastal areas of the state, it is expected that the Atlanta MSA will remain the most densely populated area, with approximately 43% of all Georgians living in this area.

Georgia’s economy is fairly diversified, with private sector employment almost equally spread between manufacturing, services, wholesale sales and retail sales, with concentrations in manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, information technology, and professional and business services. During the second half of the 20^th century, this diversity allowed Georgia to experience almost continuous economic growth, while other states more dependent upon a single business sector experienced some periods of economic contraction. However, during the last several years, this diversity has been unable to fully insulate Georgia’s economy from the nationwide economic downturn that occurred in 2002-2004 and the current one which began in December 2007.

One area where this economic diversity, in combination with Georgia’s population growth, and its effects on the local economy can be seen is Georgia’s labor market. Historically, Georgia has enjoyed an unemployment rate significantly at or below the national average. Unfortunately, as of June 2010, the state’s unemployment rate stood at 10.0%, which is slightly above the national average of 9.5%.

While the raw numbers are not positive, the trend is favorable. The Georgia unemployment rate is down from a high of 10.5% in March 2010 (but still above a year earlier rate of 9.7%). Similarly, the Georgia total non-farm employment figures are up (3.83 million for June 2010 as opposed to a low of 3.78 million in February 2010), but they are still below year earlier figures (3.88 million). This trend is reflected in the May 2010 US Regional Recession Status by Moody’s Economy.com which classifies Georgia to be “moderating recession,” defined as the state’s economy not contracting as severely as six months earlier.

Historically, most of the job growth in Georgia has been in the Atlanta MSA. However, over the last several years, there has been great emphasis placed upon developing other parts of the State, so that these areas can begin to reap the economic benefits traditionally limited to the Atlanta MSA. One example of this is the OneGeorgia Authority, which is discussed below. Those efforts have begun to bear fruit, as for the last several years, the statewide growth rate has exceeded the Atlanta MSA growth rate. However, this trend has been muted over the past year, as the rate of job loss in the Atlanta MSA (1.0%) has been slightly lower than the rate for the balance of the state (1.3%).

One reason that Georgia has such a positive economic outlook is because of its location, which affords its residents and businesses easy access to commercial centers throughout the nation and the world. As business and consumer confidence grows, it is believed that centers of transportation and logistics will gain as inventories get restocked and goods are shipped. Evidence of this upswing has been observed at both Hartsfield-Jackson Airport and the Port of Savannah; while cargo traffic still remains below prior year levels, as discussed below both locations have Georgia experienced an uptick in cargo traffic over the last few months.

For ground transportation, the capital city of Atlanta is one of the few major US cities with 3 interstate highways. As a result, Georgia manufacturers and distributors are within 2 truckload days of 82% of the US industrial market. During an average week, about 5.9 million tons of freight move across Georgia’s highways. Furthermore, Georgia has the most extensive rail system and largest intermodal hub in the Southeast. Georgia also ranks as the 5^th largest overall logistics employer in the nation with nearly 11,000 providers of logistics services.

Since 1998, Hartsfield-Jackson (the “Airport”) has been the busiest passenger airport in the world, serving over 88,032,086 passengers in 2009 through 32 carriers, with destinations to over 231 destinations in 52

D-29

countries. Also, for the fifth consecutive year, the Airport retains its title as the nation’s busiest airport in terms of operations (takeoffs and landings) with 970,258 operations. Atlanta is within a two hour flight of 80% of the United States population. The current economic downturn has negatively impacted the Airport. In 2009 the number of domestic travelers fell 1.69% in one year, while international passengers fell by 3.79%. This downward trend is expected to be short-lived, as annual Airport passenger traffic is anticipated to increase to 121,000,000 by 2015.

The Airport is also considered to be the best among air cargo facilities. In 2009, the Airport was named Air Cargo Week’s Airport of the Year, becoming the first U.S. airport to earn the top prize among the annual World Air Cargo Awards. The Airport also has over 2,000,000 square feet of cargo warehouse space and is the 11^th largest air cargo hub in the country and 30^th worldwide. In addition to the main cargo complexes, the Airport houses a USDA approved Perishables Complex, the only one in the Southeastern U.S. The Perishables Complex features on-site distribution and transport capabilities, USDA inspection services and a USDA approved fumigation chamber. The Airport is also the only airport in the Southeast to be approved by the USDA to apply cold treatment, which is an environmentally safe alternative to methyl bromide.

This infrastructure enabled the Airport to handle more than 563,139 metric tons of cargo in 2009 (a decrease of 14.06% from 2008); international cargo also decreased from 365,351 to 312,033 metric tons in 2009. However, since November 2009, the Airport has posted upswings in year-over-year cargo traffic for six consecutive months. Cargo traffic in April 2010 was 23.44% higher than the previous year. This figure is expected to grow as Asiana Airline announced it will join the Airport’s growing list of all-cargo carriers starting September 13, 2010. Asiana Airline will operate a freighter with four weekly flights to Seoul, South Korea. The new service is expected to create up to 25 jobs and produce an annual regional economic impact of $24 million.

To facilitate the projected increase in usage, the Airport is in the tenth year of a multi-year improvement project, which is the largest public works project in the history of the State of Georgia. The program was originally budgeted to cost $5.4 billion and to take 10 years to complete, but due to cost and time overruns, the project is now expected to be complete in 2015 at an estimated cost in excess of $6 billion. The centerpiece of this expansion is the building of a fifth runway, which opened on May 16, 2006 and has helped to reduce air traffic congestion by increasing the Airport’s landings and take-offs capacity by 40%. Another major piece of the expansion is the construction of a new international terminal which broke ground in the summer of 2008 and is set for completion in April 2012. The 1.2 million-square-foot international terminal will have 12 new international gates (plus 16 domestic gates) and a 1,100-space parking facility.

The success of the Airport has also had a tremendous impact on the local economy. A recent study commissioned by the City of Atlanta’s Department of Aviation calculated total direct business revenue, including sales to airlines and service providers dependent on the Airport, to be $32.6 billion in 2009, up from $23.5 billion in 2005. In addition, Airport-related jobs in the metro region increased by 11 percent, from 393,100 in 2005 to 434,400 in 2009. The Airport jobs paid more than $4.3 billion in wages in 2009 and generated more than $3 billion in tax revenues for the government.

Finally, with respect to water transport, Georgia has two significant deepwater ports, Savannah and Brunswick, as well as two inland barge operations, Columbus and Bainbridge. Like the Airport, these ports experienced a dip in traffic for 2009, but have recently begun to see a significant uptick in activity. Out of 361 ports in the U.S., Savannah is now the fourth largest container port in the country. It is also the fastest growing container port in the U.S., while the Port of Brunswick is the 6th-largest automobile processing port in the nation. In 2008, the Port of Savannah’s total exports exceeded one million TEUs for the first time in Georgia Ports Authority’s history. However, due to the economic slowdown, Savannah’s total trade declined almost 10% in 2009 over 2008. However, similar to the airport cargo traffic, Savannah has posted upswings in year-over-year TEU throughput for six consecutive months as the May TEU total was 24.7 percent higher than the previous year.

D-30

Also like the Airport, Georgia’s water ports are currently involved in significant capital improvement projects. The Brunswick Deepening Project was completed in 2007 (deepening the mean water depth to 36 feet), as was the preliminary work for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. The latter project is expected to be complete by 2012 (2 years prior to the Panama Canal expansion) and will deepen Savannah Harbor from 42 feet to 48 feet. The expansion of the Panama Canal and the Savannah Harbor will allow much larger container ships, twice the capacity of current vessels, to access the Savannah port.

These factors have all contributed to Georgia’s significant link to the global economy, which is recognized by the over 60 countries that have consular, trade, or chamber of commerce offices in Atlanta. More than 4000 internationally-owned facilities representing over 60 countries are located in Georgia. In 2009, $23.8 billion in exports and $53 billion in imports passed through the ports, making Georgia the 12th-largest export state and 9th-largest import state in the U.S.

Over the last several years, Georgia has been successful in attracting international business. In February 2010, Kia Motor Co. (“Kia”), a South Korean automaker, celebrated the grand opening of Kia’s first North American manufacturing facility, located in West Point, Troup County, Georgia, which is located off Interstate 85 near the Georgia-Alabama border. The $1.2 billion facility will produce 300,000 cars a year. Also, seven supplier companies have located near the facility and are expected to employ approximately 3,600 workers. The Kia plant’s economic impact to Georgia is expected to be approximately $4 billion per year. One study predicts the economic benefits brought about by the Kia plant will create 20,000 new jobs by 2012.

In May 2010, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications announced that it will locate the company’s new Americas headquarters in Atlanta, creating about 180 jobs. A few days before Sony Ericsson’s announcement, MAGE SOLAR GMBH, a Ravensburg, Germany-based manufacturer of solar energy products, also announced that it will locate its North American headquarters in Dublin, Georgia. MAGE SOLAR markets high-grade photovoltaic modules, high-performance branded inverters, and mounting systems used in the solar energy industry. This project is estimated to bring $30 million in investment and is estimated to create 350 jobs over five years.

To help foster this international business growth, the Georgia Department of Economic Development has instituted the “Global Georgia” program to promote Georgia within the international community and prioritize international business development. The Georgia Department of Economic Development currently has 10 offices located in Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Europe (Munich, Germany), Japan, Korea, Mexico, Israel and UK & Ireland.

This pro business climate continues to be widely recognized. Recently, Georgia has been ranked among the top 10 states in which to do business by CNBC (#10), Forbes magazine (#6), and Pollina Corporate Real Estate (#8). In 2010, Chief Executive magazine selected Georgia as 7^th best state for job growth and business. This is one of many reasons why Georgia is the home to 14 Fortune 500 companies (with the City of Atlanta having the fourth largest concentration of Fortune 500 companies in the United States), including AFLAC, The Coca-Cola Company, The Home Depot, UPS, Delta Air Lines, Newell Rubbermaid, and NCR. Overall, over 75% of the Fortune 1000 companies have a presence in the Atlanta metropolitan area.

As mentioned above, historically much of this economic largesse has centered around the capital city of Atlanta. However, recently the State government has taken several steps to ensure that the other areas of Georgia share in this growth. Of particular note is the OneGeorgia Authority (the “Authority”). Established in 2000 and funded with a portion of the State’s recovery in the nationwide tobacco litigation settlement, the Authority was created to provide financial assistance to development projects targeted to assist Georgia’s economically distressed areas. It is anticipated that the Authority will invest over $1.6 billion over the term of the tobacco settlement. Unfortunately, due to the economic downturn, the fund for OneGeorgia Authority’s rural economic development program was cut from the fiscal year (“FY”) 2010 budget. However, under the FY 2011 budget, Georgia expects to provide $47,123,333 to fund the rural economic development program.

D-31

The State government of Georgia and its elected officials have historically adopted a very conservative fiscal approach. This approach has resulted in the State having one of the lowest debt levels, per capita, in the United States. In 2007, Georgia had the 3^rd lowest state per-capita debt and 4^th lowest instate debt as a percent of personal income. As a result, Georgia is one of seven states to maintain a triple “A” bond rating by all three major rating agencies (see below).

General obligation bonds are typically issued by the State pursuant to Article VII, Section IV of the Constitution of the State of Georgia (the “Georgia Constitution”), which provides that such bonds are the direct and general obligations of the State. The operative language is set forth in Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph VI of the Georgia Constitution which provides:

“The full faith, credit and taxing power of the State are hereby pledged to the payment of all public debt incurred under this article and all such debt and the interest on the debt shall be exempt from taxation (emphasis added). . .”.

The Georgia Constitution further obligates the Georgia General Assembly to “raise by taxation and appropriate each fiscal year . such amounts as are necessary to pay debt service requirements in such fiscal year on all general obligation debt.” The Georgia Constitution also establishes a special trust fund (the “State of Georgia General Obligation Debt Sinking Fund”), which is used for the payment of debt service requirements on all general obligation debt.

The Georgia Constitution also establishes certain limitations upon the amount of debt that the State can incur. In particular, Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph II(b) of the Georgia Constitution provides that, except in certain emergency situations (i.e., in times of war or to cover a temporary budget shortfall) the State may not incur additional debt if, in that fiscal year or any subsequent year, the cumulative annual debt service for both general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt (including the proposed debt) will exceed 10% of the total revenue receipts, less refunds, for the prior fiscal year. The Georgia Constitution prevents State departments and agencies from circumventing these debt limitation provisions by prohibiting them from executing contracts that may be deemed to constitute a security for bonds or other public obligations. (See Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph IV of the Georgia Constitution.)

As mentioned above, the State may incur “public debt to supply a temporary deficit in the State treasury in any fiscal year created by a delay in collecting the taxes of that year. Such debt shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 5% of the total revenue receipts, less refunds, of the State treasury in the fiscal year immediately preceding the year in which such debt is incurred.” (See Georgia Constitution, Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph I(b).) However, since this provision was enacted, the State has never had to exercise this power.

Virtually all debt obligations represented by bonds issued by the State of Georgia, counties or municipalities or other public subdivisions, and public authorities require validation by a judicial proceeding prior to the issuance of such obligation. The judicial validation makes these obligations incontestable and conclusive, as provided under the Georgia Constitution. (See Article VII, Section VI, Paragraph VI of the Georgia Constitution).

As of June 30, 2009, the State had total outstanding bonded debt of $10,771,468,000. While this represented a substantial increase over the prior year ($9,545,352,000), the State remained well below the 10% threshold at 5.4%. As a result, as of June 30, 2010, the State maintained credits ratings of Aaa, AAA, and AAA from Moody’s Investor Services, Fitch, Inc., and Standard and Poor’s, respectively, making it only one of seven states to maintain such status.

The State of Georgia operates on a fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30. Each year the State Economist, the Governor and the State Revenue Commissioner jointly prepare a revenue forecast upon which is based the State budget which is considered, amended, and approved by the Georgia General Assembly.

D-32

To protect the State in the event of a decline in State revenues, and reflective of its conservative fiscal approach, in 1976 the Georgia General Assembly established the Revenue Shortfall Reserve. This reserve is funded by surplus revenue collections, and its existence was instrumental in helping the State weather the nationwide economic downturn during FY 2002-FY 2004. During those 3 years, the State was able to cover revenue shortfalls by drawing monies from this reserve (approximately $680 million over the 3 year period) rather than raising taxes or cutting vital services. With the end of the economic downturn in FY 2005, the State then began to replenish the reserve, so that at the end of FY 2007, the reserve reached its peak with a balance of $1.7 billion (exceeding the pre-FY 2002 balance). Unfortunately, due to the economic downturn, this upward trend was reversed in FY 2008 and by the end of FY 2009 the Revenue Shortfall Reserve balance was reduced to $271 million.

This reserve increase was previously funded by the State experiencing substantial increases in revenue collections. For FY 2007, Georgia experienced a 7.5% increase over prior year collections ($17,600,126,000 versus $16,366,132,000). However, starting in the latter half of FY 2008, net revenue collections have declined. In FY 2009, total revenue collections were down by $1,830,818,000 (down 10.5%) from FY 2008 levels. The effect in the various subareas showed an overall decrease, as Individual Income Taxes (down 12.2%), Motor Fuel Taxes (down 14.8%), Corporate Income Taxes (down 26.3%) and Sales and Use Taxes (down 7.6%) were down from FY 2008 levels. The only areas in which the State experienced an increase in revenue collection were Property Taxes (up 1.9%) and Alcohol Beverages Tax (up 1.2%).

Unfortunately, this downward trend continued in FY 2010. Net revenue collections were down from FY 2009 in all areas, including Individual Income Taxes (down 10%), Motor Fuel Taxes (down 3.8%), Corporate Income Taxes (down 1.4%) and Sales and Use Taxes (down 10.6%). Overall, for FY 2010, net revenue collections totaled around $14 billion, down 9.1% from FY 2009.

On June 8, 2010, Governor Sonny Perdue signed the state’s $17.9 billion FY 2011 budget, $700 million less than the original FY 2010 budget. This budget was also $300 million less than the budget originally recommended to the legislature and $3.5 billion less than the original FY 2008 budget recommendation.

One continued positive source of revenue for the State has been the Georgia Lottery Corporation. Established in 1992, the State uses profits from the lottery to fund numerous education-based initiatives, including a voluntary, state-wide pre-Kindergarten education program and the HOPE Scholarship Program (for post-secondary education). In FY 2010, Georgia Lottery transferred $883,878,000 to the State Treasury’s Lottery for Education Account, over $11.7 million more than in FY 2009. The Georgia Lottery Corp. ended FY 2010 as the only traditional U.S. lottery to experience 12 consecutive years of growth in profits.

One significant byproduct of the HOPE Scholarship Program has been the substantial increase in the percentage of college educated adults. In 1999, only 21% of Georgia’s population had a college degree, far below the national average. In 2008, 27% of the population had a college degree, on par with the national average. Furthermore, in 2010, CNBC ranked the Georgia’s workforce number 3 in the nation.

Another positive source of income to the State has been the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). During FY 2009, the State recognized $725 million in ARRA funds which were used for miscellaneous purposes.

Personal income is a second key indicator of economic conditions in Georgia. Total personal income, relative to that of the U.S., has been growing despite the economic downturn. For FY 2008, Georgia’s personal income grew by 4.9%, compared to 5.3% for the nation as a whole. However, in 2009 state personal income declined by an average of 1.7%, matching the national average.

Georgia has also undergone significant political change during the 21^st century. In November 2002, the State elected its first Republican Governor since Reconstruction. In addition, in light of significant election gains, as

D-33

well as the well-publicized switch of political parties by several State Senators, the Republican Party gained control of the State Senate. This trend continued in 2004, as the Republican Party gained control of the State House and a second Republican Senator was elected (making it the first time since Reconstruction that Georgia had 2 Republican Senators). There is uncertainty surrounding the upcoming 2010 elections as, in addition to voting on the Legislature, Georgians will elect a new Governor (the current Governor is prohibited from running due to a 2-term limit).

Significant Contingent Liabilities

In response to a written request from the State Auditor, the Law Department for the State identified the following material litigation, claims and assessments as of June 30, 2009:

Plymel, et al. v. Teachers Retirement System, et al., Fulton Superior Court Civil Action No. 2004-CV-84312; Georgia Supreme Court decision reported at 282 Ga. 409 (2006). The Plaintiffs in this case filed a class action in April, 2004, seeking additional retirement benefits retroactive to the time of their individual retirement dates for a class of those retirees who elected survivorship options and who retired between 1983 and February 1, 2003, in the retirement plan administered by the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia (“TRS”). Plaintiff/Retirees alleged that TRS’ failure to use updated mortality tables resulted in miscalculations of monthly benefits and therefore additional monies are due to Plaintiffs for underpayment of benefits. The Plaintiff class numbers approximately 15,000. TRS was unsuccessful defending the case on the merits. The court in Plymel utilized a statute of limitations of six years, a pre-judgment rate of interest of 7% and a post-judgment interest rate equal to prime plus 3%. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys were awarded a fee equal to 25% of the total liability due to the class under the judgment. The total liability for TRS in this case for the adjusted benefit payments and attorneys’ fees was finalized at $414,259,402 and, following a final payment in September, 2009, is paid in full. All payments made by TRS pursuant to this class action were paid from the assets of TRS.

William A. Willis, et at. v. Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia, et al., Fulton Superior Court Civil Action No. 2007-CV-128923, filed January 31, 2007, set forth against Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia (“ERS”) exactly the same issues as were presented in Plymel v. TRS. The parties having agreed that the Plymel rulings will apply in Willis as well, ERS conceded liability on the breach of contract claim in Willis. ERS has agreed, and the Court has accepted, that the parties will use the statute of limitations and interest rate figures used in the Plymel case. The total liability for ERS in this case for the adjusted benefit payments and attorneys’ fees was finalized at $145,972,960. To date, ERS has made payments of approximately $31,309,000 in FY 2009, and approximately $43,500,000 on September 1, 2009, with approximately $71,164,000 liability outstanding and payable over time. All payments made by ERS pursuant to this class action are paid from the assets of ERS. The only remaining issue outstanding in Willis concerns application of an administrative rule that limits retirement benefits to 90% of the highest salary earned by the member while actively employed. This issue was scheduled to be heard before the court in September, 2009, but the hearing was postponed pending settlement discussions. A status conference was scheduled for January 21, 2010. The outcome of this issue is not anticipated to have an appreciable effect on the total liability amount.

Smitha Anderson v. PSERS, et al., Fulton Superior Court Civil Action No. 2008-CV-154757. This is another class action presenting the same issues as Willis and Plymel, set forth against the Public School Employees Retirement System (“PSERS”). The parties agreed to apply the same statute of imitations and interest rates determined in Willis and Plymel. The total liability for PSERS in this case for adjusted benefit payments and attorneys’ fees was finalized at $2,168,024. To date, PSERS has made payments of approximately $1,086,000, with approximately $1,082,000 liability outstanding and payable over time. All payments made by PSERS pursuant to this class action are paid from the assets of PSERS.

Georgia Power Company v. Graham, Fulton County Superior Court Civil Action File No. 2007-CV 137383 filed on or about July 24, 2007. This case arose from Georgia Power’s claim for the Port Tax Credit (the “Credit”) provided by O.C.G.A. § 48-7-40.15. Georgia Power asserts that its increase in imports through Georgia

D-34

ports during the tax years 2002 through 2004 inclusive qualifies Georgia Power to receive a Credit based income tax refund. The total Credit claimed is in excess of $50 million, although the amount of refund for each taxable year is capped, with the excess Credit carrying forward to subsequent tax years. The Commissioner has answered the Complaint asserting that Georgia Power Company does not satisfy the statutory requirements to qualify for the Credit. Discovery in this case is complete and the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. It is anticipated that oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment will be heard in January 2010.

Western Surety Company and Continental Casualty Company v. the State of Georgia, Department of Transportation, Heard County Superior Court Civil Action No. 08-v-l06. The plaintiff, Western Surety Company and Continental Casualty Company (“Western Surety”) was the surety company for Bruce Albea Company (“BAC”) on a Georgia Department of Transportation (“GDOT”) project. On June 29, 2007 BAC delivered a notice to GDOT advising that it was voluntarily abandoning the project. GDOT directed Western Surety to take over the work in accordance with the construction contract and Western Surety subsequently hired a completion contractor. Western Surety filed this action against GDOT on March 18, 2008, alleging three breach of contract causes of action, two related to price escalations of asphalt both prior to and subsequent to the original completion date, and the third alleging the failure to pay an outstanding contract balance in excess of $500,000 for work performed by the completion contractor. Western Surety also alleges a claim under the Prompt Payment Act. The case is currently in discovery. Plaintiffs have not stated a final claim amount but preliminary indications of potential damages sought are approximately $9,000,000.

Salary-Related Litigation: A state employee and certain teachers have brought separate law suits challenging steps the State has taken to manage expenditures relative to reduced revenues. In Stalling, et at. v. State of Georgia, et al., several school teachers contend that: (i) a statutory amendment making the payment of monetary incentives to teachers for achieving national certification “subject to appropriations” of funding for such incentive payments and (ii) any subsequent reductions in the appropriations are unconstitutional. In Estill, et al. v. State of Georgia, et al., a state employee seeks class certification and contends that state employees were entitled under state law to a general salary increase of 2 1/2% for the latter half of FY 2009 on the basis of initial appropriations (later reduced). Both cases are pending in the Superior Court of Fulton County and are in the initial stages of litigation. The State’s position is that the statute challenged in the Stalling case is constitutional; that the actions of the defendants in both cases were within their lawful authority, and that the plaintiffs in both cases are not entitled to any relief.

Citibank USA, N.A., et al. v. Bart L. Graham, Fulton County Superior Court, Case No.2007-CV-140161. This action was filed on September 20, 2007 and seeks a sales tax refund of $10,147,730 from the Department of Revenue. It involves a legal issue decided in the Department’s favor in Citibank USA, N.A., et al. v. Graham, Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 2005-CV-109444, which was filed December 2, 2005 to obtain a $2,281,990 refund. Citibank’s application for discretionary appeal in the first lawsuit was denied by the Georgia Court of Appeals. The issues in second case are fully briefed, and we are awaiting a decision on the Department’s motion to dismiss.

Kenny A., et at. v. Sonny Perdue, Department of Human Resources, et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Nos. 06-15514, 06-15874. This was a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 2,200 children in state custody asserting systemic deficiencies in foster care in Fulton and DeKalb counties. A Consent Decree was entered wherein the Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) agreed to make a number of specific system-wide management and infrastructure reforms. The District Court appointed two independent accountability agents to monitor DHR’s progress and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs in the amount of $10.5 million. DHR appealed the award of attorneys’ fees to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In July, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the entire award. However, the majority opinion noted that the panel grudgingly affirmed the $4.5 million multiplier applied by the district court because they were bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent which may conflict with that of the United States Supreme Court. In light of the tone of the majority and concurring opinions, DHR filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Eleventh Circuit which was denied on November 5, 2008. On April 6, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for

D-35

certiorari on the award of attorney’s fees in this case, and oral argument was conducted before the Supreme Court on October 14, 2009. A decision in this case is not expected until mid-2010.

Buford Dam/Lake Lanier Water Litigation: The State is involved in multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida which includes several cases involving the operation of Buford Dam and Lake Lanier. In 1946, the U.S. Congress authorized and funded the construction of the Buford Dam, and granted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) authority to operate Buford Dam and the resulting reservoir, Lake Lanier. Water supply was declared to be an incidental purpose of the project. Construction on the dam commenced in 1950 and lasted approximately six years. In 1958, the U.S. Congress enacted the Water Supply Act of 1958, which allowed the Corps to use its reservoir projects for municipal water supply subject to certain restrictions. During the 1970’s the Corps began to enter into water supply contracts with certain Georgia municipalities allocating water from Lake Lanier storage for local water supply. The Corps took the position that this was an appropriate use. However, when Atlanta and other surrounding communities sought additional water in the late 1980’s, the Corps prepared a draft post authorization change report as part of the process of granting the request. Subsequently, Alabama initiated litigation against the Corps in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, in which Florida and Georgia intervened.

Following almost twenty years of litigation and negotiations involving the use of water among various private entities and governmental entities in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, multiple cases involving the use of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin were referred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “District Court”), sitting as a multi-district litigation court, for resolution. The main components of such litigation are: (1) a case involving the rights of Georgia municipalities to use water from Lake Lanier (the “Georgia I” case); (2) a case involving the right of the Southeastern Federal Power Customers Association to be compensated for loss of hydroelectric power production due to the increasing use of water from Lake Lanier by Georgia municipalities; and (3) a case dealing with the quantity of water that the Corps should release from Lake Lanier to support the habitat of certain endangered species in the Apalachicola River in Florida in purported violation of the Endangered Species Act (the “ESA Litigation”). The ESA Litigation is in the early stages.

On July 17, 2009, the District Court issued an order making the following findings in the Georgia I case (the “Georgia I Order”): (1) water supply is not an authorized purpose of Lake Lanier, i.e., the lake was not built to provide for water supplies to municipalities in Georgia; (2) the quantity of water usage that would be authorized under a 1989 draft post authorization change in use report prepared by the Corps would require approval by the U.S. Congress; (3) the present level of water usage from Lake Lanier by Georgia municipalities violates the Federal Water Supply Act of 1958 and therefore is not authorized; and (4) the request by Georgia to the Corps, made in 2000, for additional water from Lake Lanier, would also violate the Federal Water Supply Act of 1958, and would be unauthorized. The Georgia I Order allows Georgia municipalities to continue using water from Lake Lanier for three years at current water usage levels in order to achieve a Congressional or other settlement, after which water usage from Lake Lanier (in the form of withdrawals from the lake and releases for downstream withdrawal) must revert to the “baseline” operation of the mid-1970’s, with an exception for withdrawal of 10 million gallons of water per day for the cities of Buford and Gainesville, Georgia. The State has filed a notice of appeal and has also requested that the District Court enter final judgment in Georgia I on the theory that all issues in such case are resolved. The District Court has declined the State’s request for the entry of final judgment. Alabama and Florida, as opposing parties, contend that the Georgia I Order is not appealable and have asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss Georgia’s appeal.

Maryland

Risks of Concentration. The following information as to certain state specific considerations is given to investors in view of the Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund’s policy of concentrating its investments in Maryland issuers. This information supplements the information in the prospectus. This information constitutes only a brief summary, does not purport to be a complete description and is based on information from official

D-36

statements relating to securities offerings of the State of Maryland (“Maryland” or the “State”) and other sources that are generally available to investors as of July 15, 2010. While generally believed to be accurate, we have not independently verified the information in this summary and will not be updating it during the year. Estimates and projections are based upon assumptions which could be affected by many factors and there can be no assurance that such estimates and projections will prove, or continue, to be accurate.

Unless stated otherwise, the ratings indicated are for obligations of the State and are current as of July 15, 2010; there can be no assurance that these ratings will not change. Bonds issued by Maryland’s political subdivisions and other issuers of tax-exempt bonds may have different ratings which are unrelated to the ratings assigned to State bonds. Similarly, conduit bonds issued for private borrowers have ratings which are unrelated to the ratings assigned to State bonds.

Maryland and its economy. According to the 2000 Census, Maryland’s population on April 1 of that year was 5,296,486, an increase of 10.8% from the 1990 Census. Maryland’s population is concentrated in urban areas. Approximately 87.0% of Maryland’s population lives in the densely populated Baltimore-Washington region. Per capita income in 2009 was $48,285 in Maryland, compared to the national average of $39,138 in that year. Per capita income in Maryland increased at an annual rate of 0.3% in 2009, higher than the national decline of 2.6%.

Maryland’s economy is more reliant on the service and government sectors than the nation as a whole, while the manufacturing sector is much less significant in Maryland than it is nationwide. As one of the wealthier states, in Maryland a greater share of personal income is derived from dividends, interest and rent, and a lesser share comes from transfer payments. Maryland’s economy is also particularly sensitive to changes in federal employment and spending. The percentage of personal income earned from federal and military employment in 2009 was 10.5% for Maryland residents, compared to 4.1% nationwide. Maryland’s unemployment rate has been lower than the rest of the country for the past ten years, while the labor force in Maryland has grown more slowly than the rest of the country in seven of the last ten years. In 2009, the unemployment rate in Maryland was 7.0%, as compared to a national unemployment rate of 9.3%. In May 2010 these rates had increased to 7.2% in Maryland and 9.7% in the United States as a result of the ongoing economic downturn.

State fiscal information. The Maryland Constitution requires the State to enact a balanced budget for each of its fiscal years, which run from July 1 to June 30. Maryland’s fiscal year 2009 ended with a $87.2 million general fund balance on a budgetary basis, reflecting a $349.9 million decrease compared to the balance projected at the time the fiscal year 2010 budget was enacted. In addition, there was a balance of $691.8 million in the Revenue Stabilization Account of the State Reserve Fund. The Revenue Stabilization Account of the State Reserve Fund provides financial support for future needs of the State and is intended to reduce the need for future tax and other revenue increases. However, the State can move funds in the Revenue Stabilization Account to cover other areas of its budget, and has done so recently. As described below, over the last few years the State has used reserve funds to pay for operating shortfalls. General fund revenues on a budgetary basis realized in the State’s fiscal year 2009 were below estimates by $356.4 million, or 2.7%. On a GAAP basis, the fiscal year 2009 reserved general fund balance was $1,363.0 million, while the unreserved, designated and undesignated, fund balances were $146.9 million and $0.0 million, respectively; these balances compare to the reserved general fund balance of $1,388.2 million, and unreserved, designated and undesignated, fund balances of $538.0 million and $959.4 million, respectively, at the end of fiscal year 2008.

2010 budget. On April 13, 2009, the General Assembly approved the budget for fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2010 budget included, among other things: (1) funds to the State’s retirement and pension systems consistent with the “corridor” methodology of funding as prescribed by statute; (2) $5,736.3 million in aid to local governments from general funds reflecting full funding of the Thornton public school assistance program; and (3) deficiency appropriations of $273.0 million for fiscal year 2009, including a reduction of $364.9 million in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene primarily in Medicaid due to the availability of federal stimulus funds as further described below.

D-37

As part of the fiscal year 2010 budget plan, the General Assembly enacted the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2009 (the “2009 Act”), which provided for transfers to the General Fund in fiscal year 2010 of $216.3 million, including $31.0 million of transfer tax revenues and $161.9 million from the local share of highway user revenues. The 2009 Act and other legislative actions cumulatively decreased fiscal year 2010 revenues by $24.8 million.

Reductions to required fiscal year 2010 general fund appropriations included $34.0 million in aid to community colleges; $24.0 million due to modifications in the local jail reimbursement program; $16.1 million representing a decrease in the State share (from 80% to 70%) of the cost of placing students with special needs in non-public establishments; and $11.8 million reflecting the elimination of a State match of employee contributions to the deferred compensation plan. The fiscal year 2010 budget did not include funds for any employee cost of living adjustment or merit increases. State aid to primary and secondary schools included $10.8 million in Education Trust Fund revenues generated through anticipated licensing fees for Video Lottery Terminals and $297.3 million in State Fiscal Stabilization Funds authorized by the American Recovery and Reimbursement Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). The fiscal year 2010 budget also included $660.0 million in additional federal funds for the Medicaid program resulting from increased federal funding authorized by ARRA.

The fiscal year 2010 budget included $139.9 million for the Revenue Stabilization Account of the State Reserve Fund. The required certain payment of $63.0 million from the Dedicated Purpose Account to the Maryland Transportation Authority for certain transportation projects was reduced and funded with general obligation bonds instead. Transfers from the State Reserve Fund to the general fund totaled $210.0 million in fiscal year 2010.

Subsequent Events – fiscal year 2010. In order to close emerging gaps between anticipated revenues and budgeted expenditures, the Governor proposed, and the Board of Public Works approved, general fund budget reductions of $205.3 million on July 22, 2009, $223.3 million on August 26, 2009 and $102.8 million on November 18, 2009.

As part of the fiscal year 2011 budget plan discussed below, the General Assembly enacted the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2010 (the “2010 Act”), legislation that authorizes various funding changes resulting in increased general fund revenues and decreased general fund appropriations. The 2010 Act authorized transfers to the general fund in fiscal year 2010 of $317.4 million from various special fund balances, including $136.2 million from a highway user revenue account and $133.3 million from the University System of Maryland. An additional $330.1 million in unexpended capital program balances were authorized for transfer to the general fund, including $103.1 million from the local jurisdictions’ share of certain park improvement funds. The 2010 Act and other legislative actions cumulatively increase fiscal year 2010 general fund revenues by $58.8 million. As of July 15, 2010, the State estimated that the general fund balance on a budgetary basis at June 30, 2010 would be $153.8 million. In addition, the State estimated that the balance in the Revenue Stabilization Account of the State Reserve Fund would be $612.1 million at June 30, 2010, equal to 4.8% of estimated general fund revenues.

2011 Budget. On April 12, 2010, the General Assembly enacted the budget for fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2011 budget includes, among other things: (1) funds to the State’s retirement and pension systems consistent with the “corridor” methodology of funding as prescribed by statute; (2) $5,741.6 million in aid to local governments from general funds; (3) $15.0 million to the State Reserve Fund; and (4) deficiency appropriations of $195.8 million for fiscal year 2010, including $108.9 million for Medicaid and $39.3 million for public education. The fiscal year 2011 budget does not include funds for any employee cost of living adjustment, merit increases, nor a match for contributions to deferred compensation.

As part of the fiscal year 2011 budget plan, the General Assembly enacted the 2010 Act, which increases fiscal year 2011 general fund revenues by $35.5 million, including $22.1 million by diverting to the general fund a portion of sales taxes and motor fuel taxes from the Chesapeake Bay 2010 Fund, $11.0 million resulting from

D-38

changes in the allocation of interest earnings that otherwise would be retained in special funds accounts, and $2.4 million in admissions and amusement tax attributable to the cultural arts. The fiscal year 2011 budget also includes net general fund revenue increases of $9.2 million from various sources. The 2010 Act authorizes transfers to the general fund in fiscal year 2011 of $22.3 million, including $11.7 million from the University System of Maryland and $6.0 million in furlough-related savings from various special funds. The 2010 Act also authorizes transfers to the general fund totaling $111.7 million from capital-related special fund balances, including $45.0 million from the Bay Restoration Fund and $54.0 million in transfer tax revenues.

State aid to primary and secondary schools includes $114.0 million in Education Trust Fund revenues generated through $60.0 million in anticipated revenue from Video Lottery Terminals and $54.0 million in gaming licensing fees. The 2011 budget also includes $389.0 million in additional federal funds for the Medicaid program. The State has indicated that it anticipates federal legislation extending the enhanced federal Medicaid match provisions originally authorized by ARRA; at this time, this legislation has not been enacted.

The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $15.0 million for the State Reserve Fund in the Dedicated Purpose Account for distribution to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for the Prince George’s County Health Care System. The fiscal year 2011 budget also eliminates operating funds for certain road improvements, which will be funded in fiscal year 2011 by general obligation bonds instead. No transfers from the State Reserve Fund to the general fund are planned in fiscal year 2011.

As of July 15, 2010, the State projected the general fund balance on a budgetary basis at June 30, 2011 to be $203.9 million. In addition, the State projected the balance in the Revenue Stabilization Account of the State Reserve Fund to be $630.7 million at June 30, 2011, equal to 4.8% of estimated general fund revenues.

Federal stimulus funding. ARRA provides support for the states, including the State, by funding infrastructure, education programs, human services programs, and providing discretionary funds. ARRA provides over $4.5 billion in formula funding to Maryland governments. ARRA grants to Maryland provide $421.7 million for educational programs, $765.2 million for infrastructure programs, and $477.7 million for other programs. ARRA also includes $101.8 million in grants to local governments and aid organizations that are not appropriated in the State budget. These funds will be distributed directly to the local governments and aid organizations.

ARRA also provides federal grants for which State and local governments must compete, including grants to support law enforcement, habitat conservation, and the arts. It is uncertain how much of these funds the State or Maryland local governments will receive and, accordingly, they are not included in ARRA estimates for Maryland.

ARRA’s most significant impact for Maryland is the $2.9 billion that can support State general fund commitments. These funds support Medicaid, education, and discretionary State spending; the funds are used in the place of general funds to sustain State funding from fiscal years 2009 to 2011. When the funds are no longer available, the State and other Maryland local government will need to replace the funds or reduce spending. ARRA also permits 18.2% of the Fiscal Stabilization funds to support general government services; these funds, which total $160.1 million, have been applied $1.5 million in fiscal year 2009, $79.6 million to 2010 and the remaining $79.0 million is included in the fiscal year 2011 budget.

Other fiscal challenges facing Maryland. The State also has a substantial unfunded actuarial liability, estimated to be approximately $18.4 billion as of June 30, 2009, or 172.2% of payroll, on the pension plans guaranteed by the State. Other retirement programs administered by the State also are experiencing material shortfalls, as are the retirement programs of the City of Baltimore. In addition, after several years of analysis of the State’s other post-employment benefit (“OPEB”) liabilities, the State has determined that the State’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability for OPEB liabilities was $15.5 billion as of June 30, 2009; the amount held in trust to pay OPEB liabilities was $174.3 million as of that date. A commission formed in 2006 to develop a

D-39

plan with respect to the State’s OPEB liabilities reported in an Interim Report released in December 2008 that, in its view, Maryland cannot sustain the current level of retiree health benefits. The commission is continuing to explore options for redesigning retired health benefits and/or the way the State pays for them to arrive at a solution that is both fiscally sound and fair to current and retired State employees.

State-level municipal obligations. Neither the Constitution nor general laws of Maryland impose any limit on the amount of debt the State can incur. However, Maryland’s Constitution prohibits the creation of State debt unless it is authorized by a law that provides for the collection of an annual tax or taxes sufficient to pay the interest when due and to discharge the principal within 15 years of the date of issuance. Taxes levied for this purpose may not be repealed or applied to any other purpose until the debt is fully discharged. These restrictions do not necessarily apply to other issuers within the State. The General Assembly, by separate enabling act, typically authorizes a particular loan for a particular project or purpose. In its fiscal year 2009 capital program, 49% of the new general obligations bond authorizations represent financing of State-owned capital facilities and State programs, 50% represent financing of capital improvements owned by local governmental units, and 1% represent financing of capital improvements owned by non-profit or other private entities. The Board of Public Works authorizes State general obligation bond issues and supervises the expenditure of funds received therefrom, as well as all funds appropriated for capital improvements other than roads, bridges and highways. The State has projected to have approximately $9,695.1 billion of State tax-supported debt outstanding as of July 31, 2010.

The State’s public indebtedness can be generally divided into the following categories:

• The State and various counties, agencies and municipalities of the State issue general obligation bonds, payable from ad valorem taxes, for capital improvements and for various projects, including local-government initiatives and grants to private, nonprofit, cultural and educational institutions. The State’s real property tax is pledged exclusively to the repayment of its bonds. The Board of Public Works is required to fix the property tax rate by each May 1 in an amount sufficient to pay all debt service on the State’s general obligation bonds for the coming fiscal year. At least since the end of the Civil War, Maryland has paid the principal of and interest on its general obligation bonds when due. As of July 15, 2010, the State’s general obligation bonds were rated AAA by Fitch, Aaa by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., and AAA by Standard & Poor’s. We cannot assure you that such ratings will be maintained in the future.

• The Maryland Department of Transportation issues limited special-obligation bonds for transportation purposes, payable primarily from specific, fixed-rate excise taxes and other revenues generated from the financed facilities, including an expansion to BWI airport, rail transportation facilities, highways and other transportation facilities. Holders of these bonds are not entitled to look to any other sources of payment. The 2009 General Assembly established a maximum outstanding principal amount of $661.8 million as of June 30, 2010, for all nontraditional debt of the Maryland Department of Transportation. Nontraditional debt outstanding is defined as any debt instrument that is not a consolidated transportation bond or Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (“GARVEE”) Bond; such debt includes, but is not limited to, certificates of participation (documented by conditional purchase agreements), debt backed by customer facility charges, passenger facility charges, or other revenues, and debt issued by Maryland Economic Development Corporation (“MEDCO”) or any other third party on behalf of the Maryland Department of Transportation. As of March 31, 2010, the outstanding principal amount of such nontraditional debt was $671.4 million and is projected to be $661.8 million at June 30, 2010.

• The Maryland Stadium Authority issues limited special-obligation bonds and notes to finance stadiums, convention centers and recreational facilities payable primarily from lease rentals, sports lottery and other revenues. At March 31, 2010, the principal amount of outstanding Maryland Stadium Authority bonds and capital leases was $249.7 million.

D-40

• Certain other State units, such as Maryland’s university systems, the Maryland Transportation Authority and the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration, as well as several local governments, are authorized to borrow funds pursuant to legislation that expressly provides that the State will not be deemed to have given any pledge or assurance of repayment, and for which the State will have no liability for repayment. These obligations are payable solely from specific non-tax revenues of the borrowers, including loan obligations from nonprofit organizations, corporations and other private entities. The issuers of these obligations are subject to various economic risks and uncertainties, and the credit quality of the securities issued by them may vary considerably from the quality of obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the State of Maryland. For example, the Maryland Transportation Authority, like the Maryland Department of Transportation, has issued bonds which are payable solely from collections from airline travel; declines in air traffic at BWI airport could impede repayment of such bonds.

• During the 2004 General Session, the General Assembly created the Bay Restoration Fund to be managed by the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration. The Bay Restoration Fund receives a mandatory fee of $30 per year per equivalent dwelling unit from users of sewerage systems in Maryland, as well as $30 per year from septic system users. The Bay Restoration Fund sewer fee generated $53.3 million in revenue (cash basis) during fiscal year 2009. Future sewer fee revenues are projected at approximately $55.0 million per year. The sewer fee revenues are pledged, to the extent necessary, as security for revenue bonds issued by the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration, the proceeds of which will be applied primarily to provide grant funds to upgrade wastewater treatment plants with enhanced nutrient removal technology. The first $50 million of Bay Restoration Revenue Bonds were issued on June 25, 2008. Between 2010 and 2012, the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration expects to issue an additional $480.0 million in Bay Restoration Revenue Bonds. A fiscal year 2010 transfer of $155.0 million and a fiscal year 2011 transfer of $45.0 million from the Bay Restoration Fund to the general fund will not affect the security or issuance of these bonds.

• The State, its agencies and departments, and the various localities also enter into a variety of municipal leases, installment purchase, conditional purchase, sale-leaseback and similar transactions to finance the construction and acquisition of facilities and equipment. Such arrangements are not general obligations to which the issuing government’s taxing power is pledged but are ordinarily backed by the issuer’s covenant to budget for, appropriate and make the payments due on such obligations. Such arrangements generally contain “non-appropriation” clauses which provide that the issuing government has no obligation to make payments in future years unless money is appropriated for such purpose on a yearly basis. In the event that appropriations are not made, the issuing government cannot be held contractually liable for the payments. As of June 30, 2010 the total of such financings outstanding was $210.6 million.

Although the State has the authority to make short-term borrowings up to a maximum of $100 million in anticipation of taxes and other receipts, in the past 20 years the State has not issued short-term tax anticipation notes or made any other similar short-term borrowings for cash flow purposes.

Other issuers of municipal bonds. Maryland can be divided into 24 subdivisions, comprised of 23 counties plus the independent City of Baltimore. Some of the counties and the City of Baltimore operate pursuant to the provisions of charters or codes of their own adoption, while others operate pursuant to State statutes. As a result, not all localities in Maryland follow the debt-authorization procedures outlined above. Maryland counties and the City of Baltimore typically receive most of their revenues from taxes on real and personal property, income taxes, miscellaneous taxes, and aid from the State. Their expenditures include public education, public safety, public works, health, public welfare, court and correctional services, and general governmental costs. Although some of these localities have received ratings of AAA from rating agencies, these ratings are often achieved through bond insurance or other credit enhancement. Over the last several years, however, repeated downgrades

D-41

of the ratings of bond insurers have resulted in substantially lower ratings on these bonds. Additionally, most issuers within Maryland have received lower ratings than the State.

Many of Maryland’s counties have established subsidiary agencies with bond-issuing powers, such as sanitary districts, housing authorities, parking revenue authorities and industrial development authorities. For example, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, which provides water and sewerage services in the District of Columbia area, and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which administers a park system, both issue bonds. Many of the municipal corporations in Maryland have also issued bonds. In addition, all Maryland localities have the authority under State law to issue bonds payable from payments from private borrowers. All of these entities are subject to various economic risks and uncertainties, including the risks faced by the Maryland economy generally, and the credit quality of the securities issued by them varies with the financial strengths of the respective borrowers and the revenues pledged to the repayment of the bonds.

Local governments in Maryland receive substantial aid from the State for a variety of programs, including education costs and discretionary grants. However, cuts in State aid to local governments, lower tax and other receipts and the overall economic situation have required some Maryland counties and municipalities to find creative sources of revenue and to cut services and expenditures. The ongoing budget shortfalls at the State level, as well as other future events, might require further reductions in, or the discontinuation of, some or all State aid payments to local governments. Cutbacks in State aid and reductions in other local revenues are adversely affecting local economies.

Risks and uncertainties. Generally, the primary default risk associated with government obligations is the nonpayment of taxes or other revenues supporting the debt. In addition, certain debt obligations in the Fund may be obligations of issuers other than the State, such as those listed above. Although the State has received the highest ratings from ratings agencies, local governments and other issuers may have higher debt-to-assessment ratios, and/or greater credit risk, than the State itself, and as a result may be unable to repay their obligations. Other obligations are issued by entities which lack taxing power to repay their obligations, such as industrial development authorities and housing authorities. Certain debt may consist of obligations which are payable solely from the revenues of private institutions within one industry, such as health care. The default risk may be higher for such obligations, since any decline in that one industry could impede repayment. Finally, the economic environment has had and continues to have a substantial impact on the bond markets. The State, its political subdivisions and other conduit borrowers regularly issue bonds to fund capital projects. Since the credit crisis began, interest rates on some financings have increased and other financing sources have dried up. As a result, some local governments and other borrowers have experienced increased borrowing costs or cash flow difficulties.

As described above, State and local revenues have been reduced due, at least in part, to the current economic environment. Substantial losses in the job market, considerable declines in individual and business income taxes and transfer and other ad valorem property taxes, coupled with reduced consumer and business expenditures have already impacted State and local revenues and are likely to continue to do so for some time. The cumulative effect of the ongoing market uncertainty and the economy makes the economic outlook of the State, its political subdivisions and other borrowers challenging and at the same time, difficult to predict. While Maryland’s economy is unusually dependent on the federal government because a large percentage of Maryland residents are employed either by the federal government or in companies working with the federal government, other sectors of Maryland’s economy are experiencing the same difficulties as in the rest of the nation. Additionally, funds received by the State and any localities under ARRA are only temporarily available to support general fund commitments. Maryland and its local governments will need to decrease spending, cut employment, raise taxes and take other measures to balance their budgets for several years.

The impact of State budget cuts places an additional burden on local governments. The City of Baltimore and other political subdivisions and municipalities, many of which were already experiencing fiscal pressures due to general economic conditions and other factors, are themselves experiencing lower revenues due to lower

D-42

income tax and property transfer tax revenues. Many of these local governments depend on State aid, and cutbacks in such aid as a result of the State’s own financial issues is adversely affecting local budgets.

Finally, the ongoing economic environment and credit crisis could affect the cash flow and ability of many conduit borrowers on bonds to service the debt service payments on their bonds; many of these entities may be unable to raise revenues due to weak consumer demand or other factors or may be experiencing higher costs (e.g., increased charity care), so the combination of higher interest rates, lack of access to capital and lower revenues or higher expenses could result in defaults on these conduit obligations. Similarly, reductions in State aid (e.g. to private educational and social or health institutions) may affect the budget of private borrowers.

North Carolina

State Economy

According to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the State of North Carolina (“North Carolina” or the “State”) is the tenth most populous state, with a population greater than 9.2 million people. Its economy is a combination of manufacturing, agriculture, services and tourism. There is also a significant military presence in North Carolina, contributing almost 7% of the gross state product, according to a 2008 study by the North Carolina Department of Commerce.

The State is transitioning from an economy based mainly in agriculture and manufacturing (e.g. furniture and textiles) to a services and goods based economy. Greater than 50% of North Carolina’s labor force is employed in one of four industry sectors: health care and societal assistance, retail trade, manufacturing and educational services. However, the manufacturing slowdown continues to be felt in North Carolina. Manufacturing employment, which currently constitutes approximately 11.5% of total employment, has decreased significantly from 2003, when it constituted approximately 16% of total employment. While North Carolina remains the national leader in textile employment, job losses in the industry, which have been mounting for decades, are expected to continue. Nationwide, employment in the textile industry is expected to decline by 35% through the year 2016.

The national and global economic downturn has had a negative impact on North Carolina’s economy. North Carolina’s labor market has contracted significantly since January 2008, with the unemployment rate rising from 5.0% in January 2008 to 10.8% in April 2010. During the same period, total employment (as reported by the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina) decreased by over 251,000 jobs or 5.8%. The unemployment rate in April 2010 was the nation’s fourteenth highest and is slightly below the State’s highest recorded unemployment rate since the State began keeping seasonally adjusted data in 1976 (11.2% in February 2010). The unemployment rate is predicted to peak in 2010, followed by a decrease to approximately 9.0% in 2011. The education and health services sector, which is projected to expand 2.5% over the next several years, will likely lead the growth in employment, while construction and manufacturing will likely suffer longer than other industry sectors.

State Budget

The North Carolina Constitution requires that the total expenditures of the State for the fiscal period covered by the budget not exceed the total receipts during the period plus any surplus remaining in the State Treasury at the beginning of the period. The State’s budget is originally proposed by the Governor (the “Governor’s Recommended Budget”) in odd-numbered years. The Governor’s Recommended Budget is a biennial budget covering the two fiscal years starting July 1 of the year in which it is first proposed, and ending June 30 of the second year thereafter. The North Carolina General Assembly (the “General Assembly”), which has final authority to approve the State’s budget, considers the Governor’s Recommended Budget during its long session, held in odd-numbered years, making changes as it sees fit. The final budget must be ratified by both houses of the General Assembly and either signed into law by the Governor or, if the Governor vetoes the bill, overridden

D-43

by a 3/5 vote of the General Assembly. During its short session, held in even-numbered years, the General Assembly has the power to adjust the certified budget for the second year of the biennium, based on revenues collected and economic and other considerations. The biennial budget for fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 was ratified by the General Assembly on August 5, 2009 and signed into law by the Governor on August 7, 2009 (the “Certified Budget”).

The Certified Budget included revenue adjustments and significant revisions to the State’s tax structure, together expected to generate approximately $3 billion in additional revenue over the biennium. The majority of this additional revenue was expected to come from various changes to the State’s tax laws, including a temporary increase in the sales tax rate, temporary surtaxes on individual and corporate income, a slight broadening of the sales tax base, and an increased excise tax on tobacco and alcohol sales. The additional revenue available during the biennium, consisting in large part of these changes in tax laws, totaled $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2009-10 and $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2010-11.

On April 13, 2010, the Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly released its memorandum on the revised consensus revenue forecast for the remainder of the biennium. The consensus forecast represents a revenue forecast agreed upon by the Fiscal Research Division and the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management and provides one basis upon which the General Assembly makes adjustments to the Certified Budget during its short session. According to the consensus forecast, the revenues for 2009-2010 are expected to fall short of the Certified Budget’s forecast by $391 million. The shortfall for 2010-2011 is even more severe, with revenues forecast to be $788 million less than anticipated in the Certified Budget.

On June 30, 2010, the General Assembly ratified, and the Governor signed into law, a bill adjusting the second year of the Certified Budget, making changes to the fiscal year 2010-2011 appropriations and revenues. The fiscal year 2010-2011 adjustment combines reductions in spending across a number of State departments and agencies with adjustments to revenue, in order to close the projected revenue gap and balance the budget, as required by the North Carolina Constitution.

Financial Report

On June 15, 2010, the Office of the State Controller released its General Fund Monthly Financial Report for the period ended May 31, 2010. The General Fund had a negative balance in unreserved funds of $18.4 million, compared to a negative balance of $344.8 million as of May 31, 2009. For May 2010, North Carolina’s tax revenues, net of refunds, increased by $115.9 million, or 11.6%, compared to May 2009. For the year to date through May 31, 2010, net tax revenues reflected an increase of $644.7 million, or 4.2%. For the year to date through May 31, 2010, investment earnings declined from the same time period in 2009 by $75.6 million, or 67%, due to lower rates of return on investment and lower cash availability for investment.

Litigation

The State is currently involved in certain litigation where adverse decisions could have a material impact on State finances. Included in this litigation are the following matters, although not exhaustive of all pending matters:

In Hoke County, et al, v. State of North Carolina and State Board of Education, students and the boards of education in five North Carolina counties sought a declaration that the public school system of North Carolina, by failing to provide adequate or substantially equal educational opportunities, by denying due process of law, and by violating various public education statutes, violates the North Carolina Constitution. After its motion to dismiss was denied, the State appealed, and the North Carolina Supreme Court held that North Carolina’s funding system for public education does not unlawfully discriminate against low wealth counties. However, the court held that the North Carolina Constitution guarantees every child the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education and remanded the case for trial. On October 26, 2000, the trial court held that at-risk children in North

D-44

Carolina are constitutionally entitled to such pre-kindergarten educational programs as may be necessary to prepare them for higher levels of education and the “sound basic education” mandated by the North Carolina Supreme Court. On March 26, 2001, the trial court ordered all parties to determine why certain school systems were succeeding without additional funding. The court re-opened the trial, in the fall of 2001, to call additional

witnesses, resulting in the trial court directing the executive and legislative branches to take corrective action necessary to ensure that every child has the opportunity to obtain a sound, basic education. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, with the exception of the requirement for pre-kindergarten educational programs. The State is currently taking steps to respond to the court’s directives. The amount of resources which may ultimately be required is not yet known but, according to the Office of the State Controller’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, could exceed $100 million.

In N.C. School Boards Association, et al. v. Richard H. Moore, State Treasurer, et al., plaintiffs (including county school boards of Wake, Durham, Johnston, Buncombe, Edgecombe and Lenoir Counties) requested a declaration that certain payments to state administrative agencies are civil penalties which, under the North Carolina Constitution, must be paid to the schools. On December 14, 2001, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the funds are civil fines or penalties required by the North Carolina Constitution to be paid to the public schools in the county where the violation occurred. The case was appealed, and the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals was substantially favorable to the State. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that a majority of the funds in dispute are civil penalties required to be paid for the benefit of public schools. On August 8, 2008 the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for approximately $750 million. However, the court acknowledged that the judicial branch cannot force the State to satisfy the judgment and that any decision to do so must be made by the General Assembly.

North Carolina and seven other southeastern states are members of the Southeast Interstate Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Compact (the “Compact”) to plan and develop a site for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated in the member states. The responsibility for developing the first disposal site was assigned to North Carolina, which, according to certain members of the Compact and the commission which administers the Compact (the “Commission”), did not actively pursue the permitting and development of the proposed site. After North Carolina withdrew from the Compact in 1999, the other members of the Compact and the Commission demanded the repayment, with interest, of $80 million expended on the permitting, plus $10 million of future lost income, interest and attorneys’ fees. On August 5, 2002 the Commission and four member states filed a motion requesting the United States Supreme Court to hear the claim, which the Court accepted on June 16, 2003. North Carolina’s motion to dismiss was denied on November 17, 2003. The Court appointed a Special Master, which heard oral arguments on motions filed by both sides and issued his “Preliminary Report” and his “Second Report” on April 2, 2009. In his reports, the Special Master recommended, among other things, that the Court dismiss the claims seeking monetary sanctions and enter partial summary judgment finding that North Carolina did not breach the Compact by withdrawing. North Carolina and the plaintiffs filed a total of nine exceptions to the Special Master’s reports. The United States Supreme Court rejected all nine exceptions, adopting the recommendations of the Special Master, with the effect of terminating the plaintiffs’ statutory and contractual claims. However, in rejecting North Carolina’s exceptions to the Special Master’s report, the Court allowed further briefing and argument on the plaintiffs’ equitable claims (unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and money had and received).

In Goldston v. State of North Carolina, plaintiffs demanded the return to the Highway Trust Fund of funds transferred from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund to balance the state budget. The suit alleges that the transfer of funds constitutes a borrowing by the State and is unlawful and unconstitutional. The plaintiffs requested a declaration that taxes collected for the Highway Trust Fund cannot be used for other purposes. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State on all issues. On September 20, 2005, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s order. The North Carolina Supreme Court, in an opinion filed December 15, 2006, reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims. The trial court, on March 7, 2008, again granted summary judgment in favor of the State, and again

D-45

plaintiffs appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals, on September 15, 2009, held that, while the transfer by the General Assembly of $125 million from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund was permitted, the transfer of $80 million by the Governor exceeded his constitutional authority under the North Carolina Constitution. Both sides filed respective notices of appeal with the North Carolina Supreme Court. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was dismissed by the court on January 28, 2010. As of this writing, the court is yet to rule on the State’s notice of appeal.

On April 20, 2006, the State filed a motion for declaratory order against defendants Philip Morris, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and Lorillard Tobacco Company, in State of North Carolina v. Philip Morris, USA Inc., et al. The motion sought a declaration, among other things, that in 2003, North Carolina continuously had a “Qualifying Statute” in full force and effect and “diligently enforced” its provisions throughout that year in accordance with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”), the agreement by which the largest tobacco companies make payments to various states, including North Carolina, to compensate them for smoking-related illnesses amongst their citizens. If North Carolina were not to prevail in the diligent enforcement litigation, the State may be unable to recover a portion of that year’s MSA payment. On December 4, 2006, the trial court allowed the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of these issues. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. On March 19, 2009, the State’s appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court was denied. The State will therefore now be required to participate in a national arbitration process with the tobacco companies and 47 other MSA states and territories, the courts of which have considered similar litigation and concluded that the issues must be arbitrated.

The Adviser believes that the information summarized above describes the more significant matters relating to the North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund. The sources of the information are the official statements of the Department of the State Treasurer of North Carolina, financial reports from the Office of the State Controller of North Carolina, other publicly available documents and oral statements from various State agencies and individuals. The Adviser has not independently verified any of the information contained in the official statements, other publicly available documents, or oral statements from various State agencies.

South Carolina

The South Carolina (State) Constitution mandates a balanced budget. If a deficit appears likely, the State Budget and Control Board, composed of the Governor, the State Treasurer, the State Comptroller General, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, must take action to avoid a fiscal year-end deficit. If it is determined that a fiscal year has ended with an operating deficit, the State Constitution requires that monies appropriated from the Capital Reserve Fund must be reduced to the extent necessary and applied to the year end operating deficit before withdrawing monies from the General Reserve Fund for such purpose.

By statute, the State General Assembly has provided that if monies in the Capital Reserve Fund and General Reserve Fund are insufficient to balance the Budgetary General Fund, the State Budget and Control Board is authorized to borrow the amount needed to balance the Budgetary General Fund from any department of State government with a surplus to the credit of the State department on hand in the Office of the State Treasurer. Amounts borrowed must be repaid from the General Fund no later than June 30^th of the following fiscal year.

The State Constitution limits annual increases in the State appropriations to the average growth rate of the economy of the State and annual increases in the number of State employees to the average growth rate of the population of the State; provided, however, that these two limitations are subject to suspension for any one fiscal year by a special vote in each House of the General Assembly.

The State Constitution requires a General Reserve Fund that equals three percent of General Fund revenue for the latest completed fiscal year. Funds may be withdrawn from the General Reserve Fund only for the purpose of covering operating deficits of State government. The State Constitution also requires a Capital Reserve Fund equal to two percent of General Fund revenue for the latest completed fiscal year.

D-46

The State Constitution requires that the General Assembly provide that, if revenue forecasts before March 1 project that revenues for the current fiscal year will be less than expenditures authorized by appropriation for the current fiscal year, the current fiscal year’s appropriation to the Capital Reserve Fund shall first be reduced to the extent necessary before any reduction is made in operating appropriations.

After March 1, monies from the Capital Reserve Fund may be appropriated by a special vote of the General Assembly to finance previously authorized capital improvement bond projects, to retire principal or interest on bonds previously issued, and to pay for capital improvements or other nonrecurring purposes. Monies in the Capital Reserve Fund not appropriated or any appropriation for a particular project or item that has been reduced due to application of the monies to a year-end deficit must lapse and be credited to the General Fund.

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009

The original revenue estimate adopted by the Board of Economic Advisors for the State’s Budgetary General Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 was $7,246.4 million, and the appropriation act estimate as enacted by the General Assembly was $6,735.7 million. On July 21, 2008, the Board of Economic Advisors revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $7,106.4 million, a decrease of $140.0 million, and a 1.9% reduction to its original fiscal year 2008-09 estimate. In response, the State Budget and Control Board at its meeting on August 12, 2008 reduced the State’s Capital Reserve Fund of $133.2 million as required by the State Constitution and the State’s fiscal year 2008-09 Appropriation Act. Reduction of the Capital Reserve Fund reduces appropriations to the Capital Reserve Fund to the extent necessary to avoid mandatory reductions in operating appropriations. Additionally, the State Budget and Control Board mandated an across the board reduction of General Fund appropriations of 3% for all agencies except where prohibited by proviso and approved a 3% reduction of the Local Government Fund. Additionally, certain agency appropriations lapsed as a result of suspension of a provision that, in some years, has allowed agencies to carry forward to the next fiscal year up to 10% of their unexpended appropriations. This provision was automatically suspended for the fiscal year because of reduction of the Capital Reserve Fund. On October 8, 2008, the Board of Economic Advisors further revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $6,692.4 million, a decrease of $414 million, and a 7.6% reduction to its original fiscal year 2008-09 estimate.

On October 20, 2008, the South Carolina General Assembly reconvened to amend the general appropriations act for fiscal year 2008-09, enact targeted reductions in General Fund appropriations, suspend actions of the State Budget and Control Board described above that mandated the across board reduction of General Fund appropriations and the reduction to the Local Government Fund, and validate and confirm use of the Capital Reserve Fund to offset the revenue shortfall for fiscal year 2008-09. These amendments to the 2008-09 appropriations act totaled expenditure reductions of $621.1 million, consisting of $487.9 million in targeted reductions and the $133.2 million reduction of the Capital Reserve Fund described above. On November 7, 2008, the Board of Economic Advisors further revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $6,557.4 million, a decrease of $135.0 million, and a 9.5% reduction to its original fiscal year 2008-09 estimate. On December 10, 2008, the Board of Economic Advisors further revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $6,327.7 million, a decrease of $229.7 million, and a 12.7% reduction to its original fiscal year 2008-09 estimate. In response, the State Budget and Control Board at its meeting on December 11, 2008 mandated an across the board reduction of General Fund appropriations of 7% for all agencies except where prohibited by proviso and approved a 7% reduction of the Local Government Fund. On March 11, 2009, the Board of Economic Advisors further revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $6,263.3 million, a decrease of $64.4 million, and a 13.6% reduction to its original fiscal year 2008-09 estimate. In response, the State Budget and Control Board at its meeting on March 18, 2009 mandated an across the board reduction of General Fund appropriations of 2% for all agencies except where prohibited by proviso. On June 11, 2009, the Board of Economic Advisors further revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $6,171.3 million, a decrease of $92.0 million, and a 14.8% reduction to its original fiscal year 2008-2009 estimate.

D-47

On August 14, 2009, the state’s Comptroller General reported that the state completed the 2008-09 fiscal year with a net budgetary general fund deficit of $339.5 million. Accordingly, $133.2 million of the 2008-09 Capital Reserve Fund and $108.1 million of the General Reserve Fund were applied to offset the budgetary deficit. Despite these offsets, the state completed the 2008-09 fiscal year with a $98.2 million net budgetary general fund deficit following application of reserves. In response, the State Budget and Control Board at its meeting on September 3, 2009, acting pursuant to the South Carolina Code of Laws, approved a borrowing in the amount of $98,216,617, the amount needed to balance the budgetary General Fund. The borrowing was effected from surplus funds that are held in the General Deposit Account within the custody of the State Treasurer, and must be repaid on or before June 30, 2011 from the fiscal year 2010-11 General Fund.

The General Reserve Fund balance at the beginning of fiscal year 2008-09 was $95.1 million and was increased during fiscal year 2008-09 by $13.0 million. Following a $108.1 million withdrawal at year-end 2009, net of an increase during fiscal year 2009-10 by $63.9 million, the reserve was funded at $63.9 million during fiscal year 2009-10. In accordance with the State Constitution, the General Reserve Fund must be restored within three years to its full-funding amount of 3% of the State’s Budgetary General Fund revenues for the latest completed fiscal year. The State’s audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 can be found at http://www.cg.state.sc.us.

Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2010

The original revenue estimate adopted by the Board of Economic Advisors for the State’s budgetary General Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 was $6,070.6 million, and the appropriation act estimate as enacted by the General Assembly was $5,714.0 million. On June 11, 2009, the Board of Economic Advisors revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $5,950.6 million, a decrease of $120.0 million, and a 2.0% reduction to its original fiscal year 2009-10 estimate. In response, the State Budget and Control Board at its meeting on June 29, 2009 reduced the State’s Capital Reserve Fund of $120.0 million (effective July 1, 2009 with subsequent ratification at its next meeting) as required by the State Constitution and the State’s fiscal year 2009-10 Appropriation Act. On July 16, 2009, the Board of Economic Advisors further revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $5,742.3 million, a decrease of $208.3 million, and a 5.4% reduction to its original fiscal year 2009-10 estimate. In response, the State Budget and Control Board at its meeting on September 3, 2009 reduced the remaining balance in the Capital Reserve Fund of $7.8 million and mandated an across the board reduction of general fund appropriations of 4.04% for all agencies except where prohibited by proviso or statue. On November 10, 2009, the Board of Economic Advisors further revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $5,620.0 million, a decrease of $122.3 million, and a 7.4% reduction to its original fiscal year 2009-10 estimate. In response, the State Budget and Control Board at its meeting on

December 15, 2009 mandated an across the board reduction of General Fund appropriations of 5.0% for all agencies except where prohibited by proviso or statute. The action taken by the State Budget and Control Board on December 15, 2009 included consideration for the $122.3 million revenue revision adopted by the Board of Economic Advisors on November 10, 2009, and an additional $98.2 million necessary to avoid a year-end deficit in fiscal year 2009-10 that arose as a consequence of the previously described deficiency in the budgetary General Fund when closing the books on June 30, 2009. On April 14, 2010, the Board of Economic Advisors revised its estimate of budgetary General Fund revenue to $5,559.9 million, a decrease of $60.1 million, and a 8.4% reduction to its original fiscal year 2009-10 estimate.

Through June 30, 2010, total General Fund revenue collections year to date exceeded the fiscal year 2009-10 revised revenue plan adopted on April 14, 2010 by $134.7 million or 2.5%, and were under prior year collections for the same period by $337.1 million or 5.8%.

State’s Economy

The State’s economy was predominantly dependent on agriculture until well into the 20th century; thereafter, manufacturing became the leading contributor to the gross state product. Since the 1950’s, the State’s economy has undergone a gradual transition to other activities.

D-48

Real Gross Domestic Product. At December 31, 2008, principal contributors to the State’s gross domestic product were the trade, transportation and utilities industries (20%), and manufacturing sectors (18%), followed by government (15%). During the years 2003-2008, the fastest growing contributors to the State’s gross domestic product were the information industry (8.3% average annual growth), followed by professional and business services (4.9%) and education and health services (3.9%). Manufacturing declined over the period by 2.6% in South Carolina, while growing slightly in both the southeast by 0.4% and the nation by 1.2%. The State’s total gross domestic product grew at an average annual growth rate of 1.0% (v. 2.0% for southeastern states, and 2.0% for the nation) from 2003-2008.

Employment. The State’s unemployment rate in June, 2010 was 10.7%, as compared to 9.2% for the southeastern states and 9.5% for the nation. Over the past several years, the State’s unemployment rates have trended higher than the unemployment rates of other southeastern states and the nation. Largest contributors to the state’s unemployment rate are declines in manufacturing jobs and growth in the labor force. While the State’s economy is generating jobs, not enough jobs have been created to address the expanding labor force. The State’s nonagricultural employment increased 4.9% from 2003-2008, to 1.89 million by December, 2008. Strongest job growth through the period 2003-2008 occurred in the government sector (38,700, 1.2%), followed by education and health services (30,400, 3.2%), professional and business services industry (22,900 jobs, 2.3% average annual growth), trade, transportation and utilities (18,000, 1.0%), leisure and hospitality (13,500, 1.4%), and financial activities (13,200, 2.7%). During the same period, the State’s manufacturing sector declined by 67,600 jobs (2.6%).

Per Capita Income. In 2008, the State’s per capita income increased to $31,854 or 2.4% year over year, compared to an increase of 2.3% for the southeast and 2.9% for the nation. The State’s per capita income was 80.2% of the national (compared to 80.5% in 2007) and 89.0% of the southeast (compared to 88.9% in 2007) per capita income.

Population. The State’s population estimate at December 31, 2008 was almost 4.5 million. The State’s rate of growth in population was 10th fastest in the United States in 2008.

Economic Development. For the calendar year 2008, the South Carolina Department of Commerce reported $4.170 billion in new capital investments that are expected to create about 18,993 new jobs. Over the past three years, 29 percent of those jobs were in the State’s rural areas. Additional details and other information regarding economic development efforts may be found at the South Carolina Department of Commerce website, located at http://www.sccommerce.com.

Litigation

There is presently no litigation challenging the validity of any general obligation debt issued or proposed to be issued by the State. The Attorney General of the State advises that, except as described immediately below, there is neither threatened nor, to his knowledge pending, any litigation which would have any material adverse effect upon the revenues of the State.

Anonymous Taxpayer vs. South Carolina Department of Revenue. A separate anonymous taxpayer protest seeks a refund of income taxes pursuant to the statute providing for tax credits related to Economic Impact Zones. The Department of Revenue denied the refund, and the matter came before an Administrative Law Court. The Administrative Law Court allowed a $2,112,640 refund for tax year 1995, but denied the $15,323,257 refund request for tax years 1997 and 1998. Both the taxpayer and DOR are seeking judicial review by the Circuit Court.

Abbeville County School District, et. al. v. State of South Carolina. This action was originally brought seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of certain school districts, taxpayers, and individuals alleging that the State’s method of funding primary and secondary public education violated several provisions of State and federal law. The lower court dismissed the complaint on all counts. The South Carolina Supreme Court

D-49

affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of all but one of the counts, but reversed the lower court’s dismissal of a claim arising under the education clause of the South Carolina Constitution. Specifically, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the South Carolina Constitution requires the State to provide the opportunity for each child within the State to receive a minimally adequate education. Finding that the complaint stated a claim under this provision, the South Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Following the remand, the plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint in this action to add a claim for damages for past actions or omissions of the State. The Court accepted the amended complaint. The suit also contains requests for declaratory and injunctive relief that could result in the State’s providing additional monies for public education and, possibly, for other purposes. On December 29, 2005, the Court issued an order concluding that the instructional facilities in the school districts are safe and adequate to provide the opportunity for a minimally adequate education; that the State’s curriculum standards at the minimum encompass the knowledge and skills necessary to satisfy the definition for a minimally adequate education; that the State’s system of teacher licensure is sufficient to ensure at least minimally competent teachers to provide instruction consistent with the curriculum standards; that inputs into the educational system, except for the funding of early childhood intervention programs, are sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement; that the constitutional requirement of adequate funding is not met by the State as a result of its failure to adequately fund early childhood intervention programs; and that the students in the school districts are denied the opportunity to receive minimally adequate education because of the lack of effective and adequately funded early childhood intervention programs designed to address the impact of poverty on their educational abilities and achievements. Motions for reconsideration were denied in June, 2007, and the parties have since appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the case on June 25, 2008, but has yet to render a decision. There is no official estimate of the fiscal impact of any remedial action that will be necessitated by the findings of the Court; however, the General Assembly made provision in the 2006-07 Appropriation Act for $23 million to be expended for the purpose of initially addressing the court’s findings, and further provided for establishment of a committee to study and determine steps necessary to address those findings in future years.

Dean v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety. This class action suit seeks back wages including overtime pay for all hours during which State troopers were on call and during which they were on special duty assignments. The suit seeks payment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the State Wage Payment Act. The court has ruled that this is an “opt in” class, so that it includes all troopers in the State except for the less than 200 who opted out. Questions to be resolved in the case include whether a two or three year statute of limitations applies and whether the period of recovery may be extended back to 1986, the year the FLSA became applicable to the states. The court has ruled that treble damages would not apply to the State, but it has not ruled on the statute of limitations issue. Extensive discovery is proceeding. Settlement discussions have been undertaken. Under the Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, in the event of a loss to the State, the amount could exceed $12 million. The State is vigorously defending this case, but cannot predict its outcome.

Ahrens et al. v. The South Carolina Retirement System and the State of South Carolina. This case is a class action case alleging that provisions in Act No. 153 of the Acts and Joint Resolutions of the General Assembly for the year 2005 (Act No. 153) requiring working retirees in the South Carolina Retirement System (SCRS) to make employee contributions are unconstitutional and illegal. A circuit court judge has certified the class in this case and issued an order on the merits granting the Plaintiffs relief based on the equitable theory of estoppel. The circuit court denied all other claims for relief made by the plaintiffs, including their contract causes of action. The Retirement Systems and the State of South Carolina have appealed the circuit court’s order and the matter is pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court. As of March 31, 2010, the Retirement Systems had collected approximately $44.5 million in the form of retirement contributions from members of the South Carolina Retirement System who retired prior to July 1, 2005, separated from employment and returned to work. If the Plaintiffs were to ultimately prevail, most, if not all of these contributions could be refunded to the

members and no future contributions could be collected from many, if not all, of the class members. The Retirement Systems and the State of South Carolina believe their appeal is meritorious and is vigorously contesting these claims and pursuing all appellate options.

D-50

Arnold et al. v. the South Carolina Police Officers Retirement System, the South Carolina Retirement System and the State of South Carolina. This case is a class action case filed on August 9, 2005, alleging that provisions in Act No. 153 requiring working retirees in the Police Officers Retirement System (PORS) to make employee contributions are unconstitutional and illegal. A circuit court judge has certified the class in this case and issued an order on the merits in the matter granting the plaintiffs relief based on the equitable theory of estoppel. The circuit court denied all other claims for relief made by the plaintiffs, including their contract causes of action. The PORS and the State of South Carolina have appealed the circuit court’s order and the matter is pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court. As of March 31, 2010, the Retirement Systems had collected approximately $14.3 million in the form of retirement contributions from members of the Police Officers Retirement System who retired prior to July 1, 2005 and returned to work. If the Plaintiffs were to ultimately prevail, most, if not all, of these contributions could be refunded to the members and no future contributions could be collected from many, if not all, of the class members. The Police Officers Retirement System and the State of South Carolina believe their appeal is meritorious and is vigorously contesting contesting these claims and pursuing all appellate options.

Other Litigation. Certain other legal actions to which the State is a party are discussed in the Notes to the State’s audited financial statements available at www.cg.state.sc.us. Those discussions accurately portray the status and potential impact of such actions, based upon information currently available to the State.

Miscellaneous

South Carolina Lottery. In November, 2000, the State’s electorate approved an amendment to the State Constitution to permit the implementation of a lottery. The amendment was adopted by the South Carolina General Assembly during its 2001 legislative session, and the lottery became operational in January, 2002. As adopted, revised Article XVII, Section 7 of the State Constitution permits lotteries and requires lottery revenues to be applied first to pay all operating expenses and prizes, with the remainder credited to a separate Education Lottery Account in the State Treasury. All account proceeds, including earnings from the investments thereof, which are required to be credited to the Education Lottery Account, must be allocated by the General Assembly only for educational purposes.

The latest information available indicates a total of $270 million net of operating expenses has been transferred to the Education Lottery Account. Monies in the Education Lottery Account must be used to supplement and not supplant existing funds for education including pre-school, elementary, high school, technical and higher teaming programs, scholarships, tuition assistance, libraries, endowed chairs at various institutions of higher learning, and acquisition of school buses.

The Adviser believes that the information summarized above describes some of the more significant matters relating to the South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund. The sources of the information are the official statements of issuers located in South Carolina, other publicly available documents, or oral statements from various State agencies. The Adviser has not independently verified any of the information contained in the official statements, other publicly available documents, or oral statements from various State agencies.

Virginia

Debt may be issued by or on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia” or the “Commonwealth”) in accordance with the provisions of Article X, Section 9 of the Virginia Constitution. Virginia counties, cities and towns may issue debt pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, Section 10 of the Virginia Constitution and the Public Finance Act of 1991 (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-2600 through 15.2-2663). Private activity bonds may be issued by various special purpose authorities, including industrial development authorities created pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-4900 through 15.2-4920).

D-51

Section 9 of Article X of the Virginia Constitution provides for the issuance of (a) debt to which the Commonwealth’s full faith and credit is pledged (“general obligation debt”) and (b) debt of the Commonwealth not secured by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth, but which may be supported by and paid from Commonwealth tax collections and other sources of revenue. The Commonwealth and its localities may also enter into leases and contracts that are not “debt” for constitutional purposes, even though they are classified as long-term indebtedness on the issuer’s financial statements. The repayment of such obligations is contingent upon the receipt of periodic appropriations of funds for debt service by the applicable governing body.

The Virginia Constitution authorizes general obligation debt for various purposes, and imposes certain restrictions on the amount of general obligation debt that may be issued by the Commonwealth and, in some cases, makes such debt subject to approval in a state-wide referendum election. The restrictions applicable to general obligation debt of the Commonwealth do not apply to obligations for which the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth is not pledged towards the payment of such indebtedness. Such bonds may be paid in whole or in part from revenues received as appropriations by the General Assembly from general tax and other state revenues or solely from revenues derived from revenue-producing undertakings.

The Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund invests in debt obligations issued by Virginia local governments in addition to indebtedness of the Commonwealth itself. Local government units in the Commonwealth are comprised of counties, incorporated cities, and incorporated towns. The Commonwealth is unique in that cities and counties are independent of each other and their land areas generally do not overlap for governmental jurisdiction purposes. Cities and counties each levy and collect their own taxes and provide their own services. Towns may also levy and collect taxes for town purposes but their residents remain subject to county taxes.

Local governments are authorized under the Virginia Constitution to issue general obligation debt and debt secured by revenues of a revenue-producing undertaking. Generally, debt issued by a county pledging the full faith and credit of the county is subject to voter approval in a referendum election. The aggregate amount of general obligation debt issued by a county is not otherwise limited as to amount. Debt pledging the full faith and credit of a town or city is generally subject to a state constitutional limit on the outstanding amount of such debt equal to 10 percent of the assessed valuation of the real estate subject to taxation in the city or town. Revenue bonds payable from revenues derived from a revenue-producing undertaking and certain lease or installment sale obligations that are subject to appropriation each year by the governing body of the locality are not generally subject to such limit or voter approval requirements.

The primary sources of money available to localities to pay debt service on general obligation bonds are real and personal property taxes, sales tax and business license taxes. Virginia Code Section 15.2-2659, known as the “state aid intercept provision” provides security for the repayment of general obligation indebtedness by a locality. That statute creates a mechanism by which the Commonwealth may withhold appropriated funds payable from the state to any locality for application toward any overdue debt service on general obligation bonds issued by such locality.

Numerous obligations are also issued by industrial development authorities, redevelopment and housing authorities, water and sewer authorities, community development authorities, utility service districts and other issuers created and empowered to issue bonds by Virginia statute. Such bonds are usually payable from the revenues derived from a particular undertaking and are not secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth or any county, city or town. These issuers do not typically have taxing power.

The General Fund is the chief operating fund of Virginia. The General Fund of the Commonwealth derives its revenues primarily from five major taxes imposed by the Commonwealth. Such taxes are imposed in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements upon: (1) individual and fiduciary income; (2) corporation and other business income; (3) state sales and use transactions; (4) deeds, contracts, wills and lawsuits; and (5) premiums of insurance companies. Financial accounting (under generally accepted accounting principles, or

D-52

GAAP) and budgetary accounting (on a cash basis) is maintained on a June 30 fiscal year basis by the Commonwealth and its cities, towns and counties. The most recent audited financial statements available for the Commonwealth are for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009.

The General Fund balance decreased by $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2009, a 62.9 percent reduction from fiscal year 2008. Fiscal year 2009 state revenue collections, including taxes, were $14,876,226. However, overall tax revenues decreased by 8.9 percent from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009. Individual and fiduciary income tax revenues decreased by 6.3 percent and there was a 5.6 percent decline in state sales and use taxes, a 19.8 percent decrease in corporate income taxes, a 5.2 percent decline in Public Service Corporation taxes and a 27.9 percent decrease in other taxes including deeds, contracts, wills and lawsuits, alcoholic beverage sales, tobacco products, estate and other taxes. Overall revenue and non-tax revenues decreased by 9.0 percent and by 11.5 percent, respectively. Overall expenditures declined by 3.8 percent in fiscal year 2009, compared to a 6.6 percent increase in fiscal year 2008. Individual and family service expenditures decreased by $243.0 million, or 5.7 percent, and education expenditures increased by $223.2 million, or 2.9 percent. General government expenditures decreased $120.5 million or 6.7 percent.

General Fund revenues were less than expenditures and other uses by $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2009. The General Fund unreserved balance on a budgetary basis decreased by $930.9 million, or 85.3 percent, from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009 while reserved General Fund balances decreased by $465.4 million or 41.3 percent during the same period. Total revenues and total expenditures decreased by 9.0 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively. Transfers to the General Fund increased by 4.7 percent while transfers out decreased by 19.9 percent.

Of the $823.5 million General Fund balance at June 30, 2009, $575.1 million was reserved for the Revenue Stabilization Fund. During fiscal year 2009, a $490 million withdrawal was made from the Revenue Stabilization Fund. The Revenue Stabilization Fund is segregated from the General Fund and can only be used for constitutionally authorized purposes. Virginia law directs that the Revenue Stabilization Fund be included as a component of the General Fund only for financial reporting purposes.

Under the provisions of Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution of Virginia, and based on fiscal year 2009 revenue collections, no deposits are required during fiscal year 2011. Section 2.2-1829(b) of the Code of Virginia, requires that if certain revenue criteria are met, then an additional deposit to the Revenue Stabilization Fund equal to at least one-half the mandatory deposit must be included in the Governor’s budget. The Code further requires that any such additional deposits to the Revenue Stabilization Fund shall be included in the Governor’s budget recommendations only if the estimate of General Fund revenues for the fiscal year in which the deposit is to be made is at least 5 percent greater than the actual General Fund revenues for the immediately preceding fiscal year. These conditions were not met for fiscal year 2009. The Constitutional maximum for the Revenue Stabilization Fund remains at $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2010.

On May 17, 2010, Virginia’s biennial budget was approved by the governor and enacted as the 2010-12 Appropriations Act (“Budget Bill”). The Budget Bill became effective on July 1, 2010 and includes projected General Fund revenue of $15,383,733,704 for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2011 with appropriations of $15,376,985,189 and projected General Fund revenues of $16,017,286,924 for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2012 with appropriations of $16,021,156,894. The biennial budget included, among other things, a $50,000,000 deposit to the Revenue Stabilization Fund scheduled for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2012.

Virginia’s 2011-2012 biennial budget (enacted in 2010) projected total General Fund revenue available for appropriation to equal $31,401,020,628 billion for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Lower revenue collections previously resulted in adjustments and recalibrations to the fiscal year 2009 budget. However, Virginia’s Secretary of Finance released a statement on behalf of the Governor on July 14, 2010 which indicates that the Governor anticipates a revenue surplus at the end of the 2010 fiscal year on June 30 estimated to be at least $220 million, attributable primarily to individual and corporate and business tax receipts. The final figure for the

D-53

surplus will be made official in August after final adjustments to the financial information are made. The Governor also noted that although this is a positive development, local government finances remain under stress.

Over $5 billion of federal stimulus funds has been allocated to Virginia under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). Legislation effective in April 2009 allowed appropriation and spending of ARRA funding by the Virginia General Assembly. The General Assembly has distributed allocations and appropriations across several fiscal years. Approximately 30 percent of the total available AARA funds were allocated to fiscal year 2009, with the remainder either being allocated specifically to fiscal year 2010 or remaining to be allocated to either fiscal year 2010 or 2011.

The Commonwealth’s 2009 estimated population of 7,882,590 was approximately 2.6 percent of the United States’ total. With 39,594 square miles of land area, its 2008 population density was estimated to be 196.22 persons per square mile, compared with 95.66 persons per square mile for the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2008, the Commonwealth had per capita personal income of $42,876, which was greater than the national average of $39,371, the eighth highest state average nationally and the highest of the Southeast region. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Virginia had a preliminary unemployment rate of 7.2 percent as of June 2009 compared to 9.5 percent nationally, making the Commonwealth the state with the ninth lowest unemployment rate in June 2009. Furthermore, Virginia had a preliminary seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.0 percent as of June 2010 compared to 9.5 nationally.

As of June 30, 2010, Virginia’s bond rating is the best available from the leading ratings agencies at (Aaa/AAA/AAA from Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings, respectively) for long-term general obligation bonds and has maintained its top rating for such bonds for a period of time believed to be longer than any other state.

The sources of the information described above include the statutes and constitutional provisions referenced, to which reference is made for more detailed information, and official statements of the Commonwealth and other publicly available documents. The Adviser has not independently verified any of the information contained in these official statements or documents.

D-54

APPENDIX E — LEGACY COLUMBIA FUNDS

Legacy Columbia funds are funds that were branded Columbia or Columbia Acorn prior to Sept. 27, 2010.

ColumbiaSM Acorn ® Fund	Columbia Large Cap Index Fund
ColumbiaSM Acorn International®	Columbia Large Cap Value Fund
ColumbiaSM Acorn International Select®	Columbia Liberty Fund
ColumbiaSM Acorn Select®	Columbia LifeGoal® Balanced Growth Portfolio
ColumbiaSM Acorn USA®	Columbia LifeGoal® Growth Portfolio
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund	Columbia LifeGoal® Income and Growth Portfolio
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund II	Columbia LifeGoal® Income Portfolio
Columbia Balanced Fund	Columbia Marsico 21st Century Fund
Columbia Blended Equity Fund	Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund
Columbia Bond Fund	Columbia Marsico Global Fund
Columbia California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia Marsico Growth Fund
Columbia California Tax-Exempt Fund	Columbia Marsico International Opportunities Fund
Columbia Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia Maryland Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Connecticut Tax-Exempt Fund	Columbia Massachusetts Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Conservative High Yield Fund	Columbia Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Fund
Columbia Contrarian Core Fund	Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio
Columbia Convertible Securities Fund	Columbia Mid Cap Core Fund
Columbia Core Bond Fund	Columbia Mid Cap Growth Fund
Columbia Corporate Income Fund (formerly known as Columbia Income Fund)	Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund
Columbia Disciplined Value Fund	Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund
Columbia Dividend Income Fund	Columbia Multi-Advisor International Equity Fund
Columbia Emerging Markets Fund	Columbia New Jersey Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Energy and Natural Resources Fund	Columbia New York Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Federal Securities Fund	Columbia New York Tax-Exempt Fund
Columbia Georgia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia North Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Global Value Fund	Columbia Oregon Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Greater China Fund	Columbia Overseas Value Fund
Columbia High Income Fund	Columbia Pacific/Asia Fund
Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund	Columbia Real Estate Equity Fund
Columbia High Yield Opportunity Fund	Columbia Rhode Island Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Intermediate Bond Fund	Columbia Select Large Cap Growth Fund
Columbia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia Select Opportunities Fund
Columbia International Bond Fund	Columbia Select Small Cap Fund
Columbia International Growth Fund	Columbia Short Term Bond Fund
Columbia International Stock Fund	Columbia Short Term Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia International Value Fund	Columbia Short-Intermediate Bond Fund
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund	Columbia Small Cap Core Fund
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core Fund	Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund I
Columbia Large Cap Growth Fund	Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund II

E-1

Columbia Small Cap Index Fund	Columbia Technology Fund
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund I	Columbia Thermostat Fund®
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II	Columbia Total Return Bond Fund
Columbia South Carolina Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund	Columbia U.S. Treasury Index Fund
Columbia Strategic Income Fund	Columbia Value and Restructuring Fund
Columbia Strategic Investor Fund	Columbia Virginia Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
Columbia Tax-Exempt Fund	Columbia World Equity Fund

E-2

APPENDIX F — LEGACY RIVERSOURCE FUNDS

Legacy RiverSource funds include RiverSource, Seligman and Threadneedle funds, funds renamed effective Sept. 27, 2010 to bear the Columbia brand, and certain other funds. Prior fund names are noted in parenthesis.

Columbia 120/20 Contrarian Equity Fund (formerly known as RiverSource 120/20 Contrarian Equity Fund)

Columbia Absolute Return Currency and Income Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Absolute Return Currency and Income Fund)

Columbia AMT-Free Tax-Exempt Bond Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Tax-Exempt Bond Fund)

Columbia Asia Pacific ex-Japan Fund (formerly known as Threadneedle Asia Pacific Fund)

Columbia Diversified Bond Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Diversified Bond Fund)

Columbia Diversified Equity Income Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Diversified Equity Income Fund)

Columbia Dividend Opportunity Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Dividend Opportunity Fund)

Columbia Emerging Markets Bond Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Emerging Markets Bond Fund)

Columbia Emerging Markets Opportunity Fund (formerly known as Threadneedle Emerging Markets Fund)

Columbia Equity Value Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Equity Value Fund)

Columbia European Equity Fund (formerly known as Threadneedle European Equity Fund)

Columbia Floating Rate Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Floating Rate Fund)

Columbia Frontier Fund, Inc. (formerly known as Seligman Frontier Fund, Inc.)

Columbia Global Bond Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Global Bond Fund)

Columbia Global Equity Fund (formerly known as Threadneedle Global Equity Fund)

Columbia Global Extended Alpha Fund (RiverSource Global Extended Alpha Fund)

Columbia Government Money Market Fund, Inc. (formerly known as RiverSource Government Money Market Fund, Inc.)

Columbia High Yield Bond Fund (formerly known as RiverSource High Yield Bond Fund)

Columbia Income Builder Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Income Builder Basic Income Fund)

Columbia Income Builder Fund II (formerly known as RiverSource Income Builder Moderate Income Fund)

Columbia Income Builder Fund III (formerly known as RiverSource Income Builder Enhanced Income Fund)

Columbia Income Opportunities Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Income Opportunities Fund)

Columbia Inflation Protected Securities Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Inflation Protected Securities Fund)

Columbia Large Core Quantitative Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Disciplined Equity Fund)

Columbia Large Growth Quantitative Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Disciplined Large Cap Growth Fund)

Columbia Large Value Quantitative Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Disciplined Large Cap Value Fund)

Columbia Limited Duration Credit Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Limited Duration Bond Fund)

Columbia Marsico Flexible Capital Fund

Columbia Mid Cap Growth Opportunity Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Mid Cap Growth Fund)

Columbia Mid Cap Value Opportunity Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Mid Cap Value Fund)

Columbia Minnesota Tax-Exempt Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Minnesota Tax-Exempt Fund)

Columbia Money Market Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Cash Management Fund)

Columbia Multi-Advisor International Value Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Partners International Select Value Fund)

Columbia Multi-Advisor Small Cap Value Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Partners Small Cap Value Fund)

Columbia Portfolio Builder Aggressive Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Portfolio Builder Aggressive Fund)

Columbia Portfolio Builder Conservative Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Portfolio Builder Conservative Fund)

Columbia Portfolio Builder Moderate Aggressive Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Portfolio Builder Moderate Aggressive Fund)

Columbia Portfolio Builder Moderate Conservative Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Portfolio Builder Moderate Conservative Fund)

Columbia Portfolio Builder Moderate Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Portfolio Builder Moderate Fund)

F-1

Columbia Portfolio Builder Total Equity Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Portfolio Builder Total Equity Fund)

Columbia Recovery and Infrastructure Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Recovery and Infrastructure Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2010 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2010 Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2015 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2015 Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2020 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2020 Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2025 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2025 Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2030 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2030 Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2035 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2035 Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2040 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2040 Fund)

Columbia Retirement Plus 2045 Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Retirement Plus 2045 Fund)

Columbia Select Large-Cap Value Fund (formerly known as Seligman Large-Cap Value Fund)

Columbia Select Smaller-Cap Value Fund (formerly known as Seligman Smaller-Cap Value Fund)

Columbia Seligman Communications and Information Fund, Inc. (formerly known as Seligman Communications and Information Fund, Inc.)

Columbia Seligman Global Technology Fund (formerly known as Seligman Global Technology Fund)

Columbia Short-Term Cash Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Short-Term Cash Fund)

Columbia Strategic Allocation Fund (formerly known as RiverSource Strategic Allocation Fund)

Columbia U.S. Government Mortgage Fund (formerly known as RiverSource U.S. Government Mortgage Fund)

RiverSource Balanced Fund

RiverSource California Tax-Exempt Fund

RiverSource Disciplined International Equity Fund

RiverSource Disciplined Small and Mid Cap Equity Fund

RiverSource Disciplined Small Cap Value Fund

RiverSource Intermediate Tax-Exempt Fund

RiverSource LaSalle Global Real Estate Fund

RiverSource LaSalle Monthly Dividend Real Estate Fund

RiverSource New York Tax-Exempt Fund

RiverSource Partners Fundamental Value Fund

RiverSource Partners International Select Growth Fund

RiverSource Partners International Small Cap Fund

RiverSource Precious Metals and Mining Fund

RiverSource Real Estate Fund

RiverSource S&P 500 Index Fund

RiverSource Short Duration U.S. Government Fund

RiverSource Small Company Index Fund

RiverSource Strategic Income Allocation Fund

RiverSource Tax-Exempt High Income Fund

Seligman California Municipal High Yield Series

Seligman California Municipal Quality Series

Seligman Capital Fund, Inc.

Seligman Growth Fund, Inc.

Seligman Minnesota Municipal Class

Seligman National Municipal Class

Seligman New York Municipal Class

Seligman TargETFund 2015

Seligman TargETFund 2025

Seligman TargETFund 2035

Seligman TargETFund 2045

Seligman TargETFund Core

Threadneedle Global Equity Income Fund

Threadneedle International Opportunity Fund

F-2