497 1 proxyvoting.txt STICKER MASSACHUSETTS INVESTORS GROWTH STOCK FUND MASSACHUSETTS INVESTORS TRUST MFS(R) AGGRESSIVE GROWTH ALLOCATION FUND MFS(R) BOND FUND MFS(R) CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND MFS(R) CASH RESERVE FUND MFS(R) CONSERVATIVE ALLOCATION FUND MFS(R) CORE EQUITY FUND MFS(R) CORE GROWTH FUND MFS(R) EMERGING GROWTH FUND MFS(R) EMERGING MARKETS DEBT FUND MFS(R) EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUND MFS(R) FLOATING RATE HIGH INCOME FUND MFS(R) GLOBAL EQUITY FUND MFS(R) GLOBAL GROWTH FUND MFS(R) GLOBAL TOTAL RETURN FUND MFS(R) GOVERNMENT LIMITED MATURITY FUND MFS(R) GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET FUND MFS(R) GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND MFS(R) GROWTH ALLOCATION FUND MFS(R) GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES FUND MFS(R) HIGH INCOME FUND MFS(R) HIGH YIELD OPPORTUNITIES FUND MFS(R) INFLATION-ADJUSTED BOND FUND MFS(R) INTERMEDIATE INVESTMENT GRADE BOND FUND MFS(R) INTERNATIONAL DIVERSIFICATION FUND MFS(R) INTERNATIONAL GROWTH FUND MFS(R) INTERNATIONAL NEW DISCOVERY FUND MFS(R) INTERNATIONAL VALUE FUND MFS(R) LARGE CAP GROWTH FUND MFS(R) LIMITED MATURITY FUND MFS(R) MANAGED SECTORS FUND MFS(R) MID CAP GROWTH FUND MFS(R) MID CAP VALUE FUND MFS(R) MODERATE ALLOCATION FUND MFS(R) MONEY MARKET FUND MFS(R) MUNICIPAL BOND FUND MFS(R) MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME FUND MFS(R) MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND MFS(R) MUNICIPAL LIMITED MATURITY FUND MFS(R) NEW DISCOVERY FUND MFS(R) NEW ENDEAVOR FUND MFS(R) RESEARCH BOND FUND MFS(R) RESEARCH BOND FUND J MFS(R) RESEARCH FUND MFS(R) RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL FUND MFS(R) STRATEGIC GROWTH FUND MFS(R) STRATEGIC INCOME FUND MFS(R) STRATEGIC VALUE FUND MFS(R) TECHNOLOGY FUND MFS(R) TOTAL RETURN FUND MFS(R) UNION STANDARD EQUITY FUND MFS(R) UTILITIES FUND MFS(R) VALUE FUND MFS(R) MUNICIPAL STATE FUNDS: AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, MD, MA, MS, NY, NC, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV Supplement to the Current Statement of Additional Information - Part II Effective March 15, 2005, Appendix G entitled "Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures" is hereby restated as follows: MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES September 17, 2003, as revised on September 20, 2004 and March 15, 2005 Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc. and MFS' other investment adviser subsidiaries (collectively, "MFS") have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, as set forth below, with respect to securities owned by the clients for which MFS serves as investment adviser and has the power to vote proxies, including the registered investment companies sponsored by MFS, other than the MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (the "MFS Funds"). References to "clients" in these policies and procedures include the MFS Funds and other clients of MFS, such as funds organized offshore, sub-advised funds and separate account clients, to the extent these clients have delegated to MFS the responsibility to vote proxies on their behalf under MFS' proxy and voting policies. These policies and procedures include: A. Voting Guidelines; B. Administrative Procedures; C. Monitoring System; D. Records Retention; and E. Reports. A. VOTING GUIDELINES 1. General Policy; Potential Conflicts of Interest MFS' policy is that proxy voting decisions are made in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS' clients, and not in the interests of any other party or in MFS' corporate interests, including interests such as the distribution of MFS Fund shares, administration of 401(k) plans, and institutional relationships. MFS has carefully reviewed matters that in recent years have been presented for shareholder vote by either management or shareholders of public companies. Based on the overall principle that all votes cast by MFS on behalf of its clients must be in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of such clients, MFS has adopted proxy voting guidelines, set forth below, that govern how MFS generally plans to vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote. In all cases, MFS will exercise its discretion in voting on these matters in accordance with this overall principle. In other words, the underlying guidelines are simply that - guidelines. Proxy items of significance are often considered on a case-by-case basis, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances, and in certain cases MFS may vote proxies in a manner different from these guidelines. As a general matter, MFS maintains a consistent voting position on similar proxy proposals with respect to various issuers. In addition, MFS generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client accounts. However, MFS recognizes that there are gradations in certain types of proposals that might result in different voting positions being taken with respect to different proxy statements. There also may be situations involving matters presented for shareholder vote that are not clearly governed by the guidelines, such as proposed mergers and acquisitions. Some items that otherwise would be acceptable will be voted against the proponent when it is seeking extremely broad flexibility without offering a valid explanation. MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular shareholder vote when such an override is, in MFS' best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS' clients. From time to time, MFS receives comments on these guidelines as well as regarding particular voting issues from its clients and corporate issuers. These comments are carefully considered by MFS, when it reviews these guidelines each year and revises them as appropriate. These policies and procedures are intended to address any potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its affiliates that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS' clients. If such potential conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential conflicts (see Sections B.2 and E below), and shall ultimately vote these proxies in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients. The MFS Proxy Review Group is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential conflicts of interest. 2. MFS' Policy on Specific Issues Election of Directors MFS believes that good governance should be based on a board with a majority of directors who are "independent" of management, and whose key committees (e.g. compensation, nominating, and audit committees) are comprised entirely of "independent" directors. While MFS generally supports the board's nominees in uncontested elections, we will withhold our vote for a nominee for a board of a U.S. issuer if, as a result of such nominee being elected to the board, the board would be comprised of a majority of members who are not "independent" or, alternatively, the compensation, nominating or audit committees would include members who are not "independent." MFS will also withhold its vote for a nominee to the board if he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board meetings in the previous year without a valid reason. In addition, MFS will withhold its vote for all nominees standing for election to a board of a U.S. issuer: (1) if, since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has repriced underwater options; or (2) if, within the last year, shareholders approved by majority vote a resolution recommending that the board rescind a "poison pill" and the board has failed to take responsive action to that resolution. Responsive action would include the rescission of the "poison pill"(without a broad reservation to reinstate the "poison pill" in the event of a hostile tender offer), or public assurances that the terms of the "poison pill" would be put to a binding shareholder vote within the next five to seven years. MFS evaluates a contested election of directors on a case-by-case basis considering the long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry, management's track record, the qualifications of the nominees for both slates and an evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders. Classified Boards MFS opposes proposals to classify a board (e.g., a board in which only one-third of board members are elected each year). MFS supports proposals to declassify a board. Non-Salary Compensation Programs Restricted stock plans are supposed to reward results rather than tenure, so the issuance of restricted stock at bargain prices is not favored. In some cases, restricted stock is granted to the recipient at deep discounts to fair market value, sometimes at par value. The holder cannot sell for a period of years, but in the meantime the holder is able to vote and receive dividends. Eventually the restrictions lapse and the stock can be sold by the holder. MFS votes against stock option programs for officers, employees or non-employee directors that do not require an investment by the optionee, that give "free rides" on the stock price, or that permit grants of stock options with an exercise price below fair market value on the date the options are granted. MFS opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee, without shareholder approval, to reprice underwater options or to automatically replenish shares (i.e., evergreen plans). MFS will consider on a case-by-case basis proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options (taking into account such factors as whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange). MFS opposes stock option and restricted stock plans that provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders. As a general guideline, MFS votes against stock option and restricted stock plans if all such plans for a particular company involve potential dilution, in the aggregate, of more than 15%. However, MFS may accept a higher percentage (up to 20%) in the case of startup or small companies which cannot afford to pay large salaries to executives, or in the case where MFS, based upon the issuer's public disclosures, believes that the issuer has been responsible with respect to its recent compensation practices, including the mix of the issuance of restricted stock and options. MFS votes in favor of stock option or restricted stock plans for non-employee directors as long as they satisfy the requirements set forth above with respect to stock option and restricted stock plans for company executives. Expensing of Stock Options While we acknowledge that there is no agreement on a uniform methodology for expensing stock options, MFS supports shareholder proposals to expense stock options because we believe that the expensing of options presents a more accurate picture of the company's financial results to investors. We also believe that companies are likely to be more disciplined when granting options if the value of stock options were treated as an expense item on the company's income statements. Executive Compensation MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. Therefore, MFS opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set limits on executive compensation. Shareholder proposals seeking to set limits on executive compensation tend to specify arbitrary compensation criteria. MFS also opposes shareholder requests for disclosure on executive compensation beyond regulatory requirements because we believe that current regulatory requirements for disclosure of executive compensation are appropriate and that additional disclosure is often unwarranted and costly. Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company's stock performance, MFS opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based options to a specific industry or peer group index. MFS believes that compensation committees should retain the flexibility to propose the appropriate index or other criteria by which performance-based options should be measured. MFS evaluates other executive compensation restrictions (e.g., terminating the company's stock option or restricted stock programs, freezing executive pay during periods of large layoffs, and establishing a maximum ratio between the highest paid executive and lowest paid employee) based on whether such proposals are in the best long-term economic interests of our clients. Employee Stock Purchase Plans MFS supports the use of a broad-based employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value and do not result in excessive dilution. "Golden Parachutes" From time to time, shareholders of companies have submitted proxy proposals that would require shareholder approval of severance packages for executive officers that exceed certain predetermined thresholds. MFS votes in favor of such shareholder proposals when they would require shareholder approval of any severance package for an executive officer that exceeds a certain multiple of such officer's annual compensation that is not determined in MFS' judgment to be excessive. Anti-Takeover Measures In general, MFS votes against any measure that inhibits capital appreciation in a stock, including proposals that protect management from action by shareholders. These types of proposals take many forms, ranging from "poison pills" and "shark repellents" to super-majority requirements. MFS will vote for proposals to rescind existing "poison pills" and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective "poison pills." Nevertheless, MFS will consider supporting the adoption of a prospective "poison pill" or the continuation of an existing "poison pill" if the following two conditions are met: (1) the "poison pill" allows MFS clients to hold an aggregate position of up to 15% of a company's total voting securities (and of any class of voting securities); and (2) either (a) the "poison pill" has a term of not longer than five years, provided that MFS will consider voting in favor of the "poison pill" if the term does not exceed seven years and the "poison pill" is linked to a business strategy or purpose that MFS believes is likely to result in greater value for shareholders; or (b) the terms of the "poison pill" allow MFS clients the opportunity to accept a fairly structured and attractively priced tender offer (e.g., a "chewable poison pill" that automatically dissolves in the event of an all cash, all shares tender offer at a premium price). MFS will consider on a case-by-case basis proposals designed to prevent tenders which are disadvantageous to shareholders such as tenders at below market prices and tenders for substantially less than all shares of an issuer. Reincorporation and Reorganization Proposals When presented with a proposal to reincorporate a company under the laws of a different state, or to effect some other type of corporate reorganization, MFS considers the underlying purpose and ultimate effect of such a proposal in determining whether or not to support such a measure. While MFS generally votes in favor of management proposals that it believes are in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, MFS may oppose such a measure if, for example, the intent or effect would be to create additional inappropriate impediments to possible acquisitions or takeovers. Issuance of Stock There are many legitimate reasons for issuance of stock. Nevertheless, as noted above under "Non-Salary Compensation Programs", when a stock option plan (either individually or when aggregated with other plans of the same company) would substantially dilute the existing equity (e.g., by approximately 15% or more), MFS generally votes against the plan. In addition, MFS votes against proposals where management is asking for authorization to issue common or preferred stock with no reason stated (a "blank check") because the unexplained authorization could work as a potential anti-takeover device. Repurchase Programs MFS supports proposals to institute share repurchase plans in which all shareholders have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis. Such plans may include a company acquiring its own shares on the open market, or a company making a tender offer to its own shareholders. Confidential Voting MFS votes in favor of proposals to ensure that shareholder voting results are kept confidential. For example, MFS supports proposals that would prevent management from having access to shareholder voting information that is compiled by an independent proxy tabulation firm. Cumulative Voting MFS opposes proposals that seek to introduce cumulative voting and for proposals that seek to eliminate cumulative voting. In either case, MFS will consider whether cumulative voting is likely to enhance the interests of MFS' clients as minority shareholders. In our view, shareholders should provide names of qualified candidates to a company's nominating committee, which now for the first time (for U.S. listed companies) must be comprised solely of "independent" directors. Written Consent and Special Meetings Because the shareholder right to act by written consent (without calling a formal meeting of shareholders) can be a powerful tool for shareholders, MFS generally opposes proposals that would prevent shareholders from taking action without a formal meeting or would take away a shareholder's right to call a special meeting of company shareholders. Independent Auditors MFS believes that the appointment of auditors is best left to the board of directors of the company and therefore supports the ratification of the board's selection of an auditor for the company. Recently, some shareholder groups have submitted proposals to limit the non-audit activities of a company's audit firm. Some proposals would prohibit the provision of any non-audit services by a company's auditors to that company. MFS opposes proposals recommending the prohibition or limitation of the performance of non-audit services by an auditor, and proposals recommending the removal of a company's auditor due to the performance of non-audit work for the company by its auditor. MFS believes that the board, or its audit committee, should have the discretion to hire the company's auditor for specific pieces of non-audit work in the limited situations permitted under current law. Best Practices Standards Best practices standards are rapidly developing in the corporate governance areas as a result of recent corporate scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and revised listing standards on major stock exchanges. MFS generally support these developments. However, many issuers are not publicly registered, are not subject to these enhanced listing standards, or are not operating in an environment that is comparable to that in the United States. In reviewing proxy proposals under these circumstances, MFS votes for proposals that enhance standards of corporate governance so long as we believe that - given the circumstances or the environment within which the issuers operate - the proposal is consistent with the best long-term economic interests of our clients. Foreign Issuers - Share Blocking In accordance with local law or business practices, many foreign companies prevent the sales of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting ("share blocking"). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior to the meeting (e.g., one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a shareholder to have the "block" restriction lifted early (e.g., in some countries shares generally can be "unblocked" up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer's transfer agent). Due to these restrictions, MFS must balance the benefits to its clients of voting proxies against the potentially serious portfolio management consequences of a reduced flexibility to sell the underlying shares at the most advantageous time. For companies in countries with potentially long block periods, the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, MFS generally will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote. Conversely, for companies domiciled in countries with very short block periods, MFS generally will continue to cast votes in accordance with these policies and procedures. Social Issues There are many groups advocating social change, and many have chosen the publicly-held corporation as a vehicle for advancing their agenda. Common among these are resolutions requiring the corporation to refrain from investing or conducting business in certain countries, to adhere to some list of goals or principles (e.g., environmental standards) or to promulgate special reports on various activities. MFS votes against such proposals unless their shareholder-oriented benefits will outweigh any costs or disruptions to the business, including those that use corporate resources to further a particular social objective outside the business of the company or when no discernible shareholder economic advantage is evident. The laws of various states may regulate how the interests of certain clients subject to those laws (e.g., state pension plans) are voted with respect to social issues. Thus, it may be necessary to cast ballots differently for certain clients than MFS might normally do for other clients. B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 1. MFS Proxy Review Group The administration of these policies and procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Review Group, which includes senior MFS Legal Department officers and MFS' Proxy Consultant. The MFS Proxy Review Group: a. Reviews these policies and procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable; b. Determines whether any material conflicts of interest exist with respect to instances in which (i) MFS seeks to override these guidelines and (ii) votes not clearly governed by these guidelines; and c. Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time. The current MFS Proxy Consultant is an independent proxy consultant who performs these services exclusively for MFS. 2. Potential Conflicts of Interest The MFS Proxy Review Group is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its affiliates that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS' clients. Any significant attempt to influence MFS' voting on a particular proxy matter should be reported to the MFS Proxy Review Group. The MFS Proxy Consultant will assist the MFS Proxy Review Group in carrying out these monitoring responsibilities. In cases where proxies are voted in accordance with these policies and guidelines, no conflict of interest will be deemed to exist. In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these policies and guidelines, or (ii) matters presented for vote are not clearly governed by these policies and guidelines, the MFS Proxy Review Group and the MFS Proxy Consultant will follow these procedures: a. Compare the name of the issuer of such proxy against a list of significant current and potential (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, (ii) retirement plans administered by MFS, and (iii) MFS institutional clients (the "MFS Significant Client List"); b. If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Client List, then no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist, and the proxy will be voted as otherwise determined by the MFS Proxy Review Group; c. If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Client List, then at least one member of the MFS Proxy Review Group will carefully evaluate the proposed votes in order to ensure that the proxy ultimately is voted in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS' clients, and not in MFS' corporate interests; and d. For all potential material conflicts of interest identified under clause (c) above, the MFS Proxy Review Group will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer's relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, and the basis for the determination that the votes ultimately were cast in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS' clients, and not in MFS' corporate interests. A copy of the foregoing documentation will be provided to the MFS' Conflicts Officer. The members of the MFS Proxy Review Group other than the Proxy Consultant are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Client List, in consultation with MFS' distribution, retirement plan administration and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically as appropriate. 3. Gathering Proxies Most proxies received by MFS and its clients originate at Automatic Data Processing Corp. ("ADP") although a few proxies are transmitted to investors by corporate issuers through their custodians or depositories. ADP and issuers send proxies and related material directly to the record holders of the shares beneficially owned by MFS' clients, usually to the client's custodian or, less commonly, to the client itself. This material will include proxy cards, reflecting the proper shareholdings of Funds and of clients on the record dates for such shareholder meetings, as well as proxy statements with the issuer's explanation of the items to be voted upon. MFS, on behalf of itself and the Funds, has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm, Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (the "Proxy Administrator"), pursuant to which the Proxy Administrator performs various proxy vote processing and recordkeeping functions for MFS' Fund and institutional client accounts. The Proxy Administrator does not make recommendations to MFS as to how to vote any particular item. The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy cards directly or indirectly from various custodians, logs these materials into its database and matches upcoming meetings with MFS Fund and client portfolio holdings, which are input into the Proxy Administrator's system by an MFS holdings datafeed. Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for the upcoming shareholders' meetings of over 10,000 corporations are available on-line to certain MFS employees, the MFS Proxy Consultant and the MFS Proxy Review Group. 4. Analyzing Proxies After input into the Proxy Administrator system, proxies which are deemed to be routine and which do not require the exercise of judgment under these guidelines (e.g., those involving only uncontested elections of directors and the appointment of auditors)1 are automatically voted in favor by the Proxy Administrator without being sent to either the MFS Proxy Consultant or the MFS Proxy Review Group for further review. All proxies that are reviewed by either the MFS Proxy Consultant or a portfolio manager or analyst (e.g., those that involve merger or acquisition proposals) are then forwarded with the corresponding recommendation to the MFS Proxy Review Group.2 Recommendations with respect to voting on non-routine issues are generally made by the MFS Proxy Consultant in accordance with the policies summarized under "Voting Guidelines," and other relevant materials. His or her recommendation as to how each proxy proposal should be voted, including his or her rationale on significant items, is indicated on copies of proxy cards. These cards are then forwarded to the MFS Proxy Review Group. 1 Proxies for foreign companies often contain significantly more voting items than those of U.S. companies. Many of these items on foreign proxies involve repetitive, non-controversial matters that are mandated by local law. Accordingly, the items that are generally deemed routine and which do not require the exercise of judgment under these guidelines (and therefore automatically voted in favor) for foreign issuers include the following: (i) receiving financial statements or other reports from the board; (ii) approval of declarations of dividends; (iii) appointment of shareholders to sign board meeting minutes; (iv) discharge of management and supervisory boards; (v) approval of share repurchase programs; (vi) election of directors in uncontested elections and (vii) appointment of auditors. 2 From time to time, due to travel schedules and other commitments, an appropriate portfolio manager or research analyst is not available to provide a recommendation on a merger or acquisition proposal. If such a recommendation cannot be obtained within a few business days prior to the shareholder meeting, the MFS Proxy Review Group may determine the vote in what it believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS' clients. As a general matter, portfolio managers and investment analysts have little or no involvement in specific votes taken by MFS. This is designed to promote consistency in the application of MFS' voting guidelines, to promote consistency in voting on the same or similar issues (for the same or for multiple issuers) across all client accounts, and to minimize the potential that proxy solicitors, issuers, or third parties might attempt to exert inappropriate influence on the vote. In limited types of votes (e.g., mergers and acquisitions), the MFS Proxy Consultant or the MFS Proxy Review Group may consult with or seek recommendations from portfolio managers or analysts. But, the MFS Proxy Review Group would ultimately determine the manner in which all proxies are voted. As noted above, MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines when such an override is, in MFS' best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS' clients. Any such override of the guidelines shall be analyzed, documented and reported in accordance with the procedures set forth in these policies. 5. Voting Proxies After the proxy card copies are reviewed, they are voted electronically through the Proxy Administrator's system. In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Consultant and the MFS Proxy Review Group, and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Review Group and the MFS Proxy Consultant may monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS' clients. C. MONITORING SYSTEM It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS' Proxy Consultant to monitor the proxy voting process. As noted above, when proxy materials for clients are received, they are forwarded to the Proxy Administrator and are input into the Proxy Administrator's system. Additionally, through an interface with the portfolio holdings database of MFS, the Proxy Administrator matches a list of all MFS Funds and clients who hold shares of a company's stock and the number of shares held on the record date with the Proxy Administrator's listing of any upcoming shareholder's meeting of that company. When the Proxy Administrator's system "tickler" shows that the date of a shareholders' meeting is approaching, a Proxy Administrator representative checks that the vote for MFS Funds and clients holding that security has been recorded in the computer system. If a proxy card has not been received from the client's custodian, the Proxy Administrator calls the custodian requesting that the materials be forward immediately. If it is not possible to receive the proxy card from the custodian in time to be voted at the meeting, MFS may instruct the custodian to cast the vote in the manner specified and to mail the proxy directly to the issuer. D. RECORDS RETENTION MFS will retain copies of these policies and procedures in effect from time to time and will retain all proxy voting reports submitted to the Board of Trustees and Board of Managers of the MFS Funds for the period required by applicable law. Proxy solicitation materials, including electronic versions of the proxy cards completed by the MFS Proxy Consultant and the MFS Proxy Review Group, together with their respective notes and comments, are maintained in an electronic format by the Proxy Administrator and are accessible on-line by the MFS Proxy Consultant and the MFS Proxy Review Group. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator's system as to proxies processed, the dates when proxies were received and returned, and the votes on each company's proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law. E. REPORTS MFS Funds Annually, MFS will report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees and Board of Managers of the MFS Funds. These reports will include: (i) a summary of how votes were cast; (ii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefor; (iii) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest; and (iv) a review of these policies and the guidelines and, as necessary or appropriate, any proposed modifications thereto to reflect new developments in corporate governance and other issues. Based on these reviews, the Trustees and Managers of the MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable. All MFS Advisory Clients At any time, a report can be printed by MFS for each client who has requested that MFS furnish a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues which have been voted for the client during the year and the position taken with respect to each issue. Generally, MFS will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives (unless required by applicable law) because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client. * * * * UNE PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES UNE invests principally in union and labor sensitive companies, and has retained JMR Financial, Inc. ("JMR") to vote proxies on its behalf. In fulfilling its duties, JMR votes proxies in accordance with proxy voting guidelines based on those established by the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Guidelines have been developed by the AFL-CIO to serve as a guide for Taft-Hartley and union benefit fund trustees in meeting their fiduciary duties as outlined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and subsequent Department of Labor policy statements. A summary of the JMR Proxy Voting Guidelines is set forth below, and the Guidelines can be reviewed in their entirety at www.jmr-financial.com/MFS. INTRODUCTION These Proxy Voting Guidelines address a broad range of issues, including the Election of Directors, Stock Options, Executive Compensation, and Changes in Control. JMR holds the position that all votes should be reviewed on a company-by-company basis and that no issue should be considered routine. It is our resolve that each issue will be evaluated in the context of the company under examination and will be subject to an analysis of the economic impact an issue may have on long-term shareholder value. We will assess the short-term and long-term impact of a vote, and will promote a position that is consistent with the long-term economic best interests of plan members. Our policies also take into consideration actions which promote good corporate governance through the proxy voting process. When company-specific factors are overlaid, every proxy voting decision becomes a case-by-case decision. For those issues not described in these Policies, JMR will use reasonable judgment, in accordance with U.S. Department of Labor Interpretative Bulletin 94-2, on a case-by-case basis. The date of this supplement is April 19, 2005.