CAPITAL APPRECIATION VARIABLE ACCOUNT	HIGH YIELD VARIABLE ACCOUNT
GOVERNMENT SECURITIES VARIABLE ACCOUNT	MONEY MARKET VARIABLE ACCOUNT
GLOBAL GOVERNMENTS VARIABLE ACCOUNT	TOTAL RETURN VARIABLE ACCOUNT

This SAI supplement supersedes and replaces the Accounts’ SAI supplements dated May 28, 2010, July 29, 2010, September 28, 2010, and November 28, 2010.

Effective November 28, 2010, the section entitled “Portfolio Transactions and Brokerage Commissions” is restated in its entirety as follows:

 PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS AND BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS

Specific decisions to purchase or sell securities for the Variable Accounts are made by persons affiliated with the Adviser. Any such person may serve other clients of the Adviser or any subsidiary of the Adviser in a similar capacity.

The Adviser places all Variable Account orders for the purchase or sale of securities with the primary objective of seeking to obtain the best price and execution from responsible broker/dealers at competitive rates. The Adviser seeks to deal with broker/dealers that can meet a high standard of quality regarding execution services. The Adviser may also place value on a broker/dealer’s ability to provide useful research assistance. The Adviser takes into account all factors it deems relevant, including by way of illustration: price; the size of the transaction; the nature of the market of the security; the amount of the commission; the timing and impact of the transaction taking into account market prices and trends; the reputation, experience and financial stability of the broker/dealer involved; the willingness of the broker/dealer to commit capital; the need for anonymity in the market; and the quality of services rendered by the broker/dealer in other transactions, including the quality of the broker/dealer’s research.

In certain circumstances, such as a buy in for failure to deliver, the Adviser is not able to select the broker/dealer who will transact to cover the failure.  For example, if the Variable Account sells a security short and is unable to deliver the securities sold short the broker/dealer through whom the Variable Account sold short must deliver securities purchased for cash, i.e., effect a "buy in," unless it knows that the Variable Account either is in the process of forwarding the securities to the broker/dealer or will do so as soon as possible without undue inconvenience or expense.  Similarly, there can also be a failure to deliver in a long transaction and a resulting buy in by the broker/dealer through whom the securities were sold.  If the broker/dealer effects a buy-in, the Adviser will be unable to control the trading techniques, methods, venues or any other aspect of the trade used by the broker/dealer.

Commission rates vary depending upon trading techniques, methods, venues and broker/dealers selected as well as the market(s) in which the security is traded and its relative liquidity.  As noted above, the Adviser may utilize numerous broker/dealers and trading venues and strategies in order to seek the best execution for client transactions.  The Adviser periodically and systematically reviews the performance of the broker/dealers that execute Variable Account transactions, including the commission rates paid to broker/dealers by considering the value and quality of brokerage and research services provided.  The quality of a broker/dealer’s services is measured by analyzing various factors that could effect the execution of trades.  These factors include the ability to execute trades with a minimum of market impact, the speed and efficiency of executions, electronic trading capabilities, adequacy of capital, research provided to the adviser, and accommodation of the adviser’s special needs.  The Adviser may employ outside vendors to provide reports on the quality of broker/dealer executions.

In the case of securities traded in the over-the-counter market, portfolio transactions may be effected either on an agency basis, which involves the payment of negotiated brokerage commissions to the broker/dealer, including electronic communication networks, or on a principal basis at net prices without commissions, but which include compensation to the broker/dealer in the form of a mark-up or mark-down, depending on where the Adviser believes best execution is available. In the case of securities purchased from underwriters, the cost of such securities generally includes a fixed underwriting commission or concession. From time to time, soliciting dealer fees are available to the Adviser on tender or exchange offers. Such soliciting or dealer fees are, in effect, recaptured by the Variable Accounts.

In allocating brokerage, the Adviser may take into consideration the receipt of research and brokerage services, consistent with its obligation to seek best price and execution for Variable Account transactions. As permitted by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (‘‘Section 28(e)’’), the Adviser may cause the Variable Accounts to pay a broker/dealer which provides “brokerage and research services” (as defined by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) to the Adviser an amount of commission for effecting a securities transaction for the Variable Accounts in excess of the amount other broker/dealers would have charged for the transaction if the Adviser determines in good faith that the greater commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by the effecting broker/dealer viewed in terms of either a particular transaction or the Adviser’s overall responsibilities to the Variable Accounts and its other clients. ‘‘Commissions,’’ as interpreted by the SEC, include fees paid to brokers for trades conducted on an agency basis, and certain mark-ups, markdowns, commission equivalents and other fees received by dealers in riskless principal transactions placed in the NASDAQ market.

The term ‘‘brokerage and research services’’ includes advice as to the value of securities, the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities, and the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities; furnishing analyses and reports concerning issuers, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of accounts; and effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental thereto (such as clearance and settlement) or required in connection therewith by applicable rules. Such services (‘‘Research’’) includes statistical, research, and other factual information or services such as: investment research reports; access to analysts; execution systems and trading analytics; reports or databases containing corporate, fundamental, and technical analyses; portfolio modeling

1

strategies; and economic research services, such as publications, chart services, and advice from economists concerning macroeconomics information, and analytical investment information about particular corporations. Such brokerage and research services are provided to the Adviser for no consideration other than brokerage or underwriting commissions. In determining whether a service or product qualifies as “brokerage and research services,” the Adviser evaluates whether the service or product provides lawful and appropriate assistance to the Adviser in carrying out its investment decision-making responsibilities. It is often not possible to place a dollar value on the brokerage and research services the Adviser receives from brokers. The determination and evaluation of the reasonableness of the brokerage commissions paid in connection with portfolio transactions is based primarily on the professional opinions of the persons responsible for the placement and review of such transactions.

MFS has entered into Client Commission Agreements with broker/dealers that are involved from time to time in executing, clearing or settling securities transactions on behalf of Variable Accounts (“Executing Brokers”) which provide for the Executing Brokers to pay a portion of the Commissions paid by the Variable Accounts for securities transactions (“Pooled Commissions”) to providers of Research (“Research Providers”). Such Research Providers produce Research for the benefit of MFS.

Because a Research Provider may play no role in executing client securities transactions, any Research prepared by that Research Provider may constitute third party research. MFS may use brokerage commissions, including Pooled Commissions, from the Variable Accounts’ portfolio transactions to acquire Research, subject to the procedures and limitations described in this discussion.

From time to time, MFS prepares a list of Research Providers that have been deemed by MFS to provide valuable Research (‘‘Research Firms’’) as determined periodically by MFS’ investment staff (“Research Votes”). Executing Brokers are eligible to be included in the list of Research Firms. All trades with Research Firms will be effected in accordance with MFS’ obligation to seek best execution for its client accounts. MFS uses a Research Vote as a guide for allocating Pooled Commissions. Compensation for Research may also be made pursuant to commissions paid on trades (“Trade Commissions”) executed by a Research Provider who is registered as a broker/dealer (“Broker Provider”).  Under normal circumstances, Executing Brokers are compensated for Research solely through Trade Commissions.  To the extent that payments for Research to a Broker Provider other than an Executing Broker are made pursuant to Trade Commissions, MFS will reduce the amount of Pooled Commissions to be paid to that Broker Provider for its Research. However, MFS will reduce the amount of Pooled Commissions to be paid to that Broker Provider by less than the full amount of Trade Commissions paid to that Broker Provider. The research vote is also used as a guide for allocating cash payments, if any, made by MFS from its own resources and Pooled Commissions to Research Firms that are not Broker Providers.  Neither MFS nor the Variable Accounts have an obligation to any Research Firm if the amount of Trade Commissions and Pooled Commissions paid to the Research Firm is less than the applicable non-binding target.  MFS reserves the right to pay cash to the Research Firm from its own resources in an amount MFS determines in its discretion.

If the Adviser determines that any service or product has a mixed use (i.e., it also serves functions that do not assist the investment decision-making or trading process), the Adviser may allocate the costs of such service or product accordingly in its reasonable discretion. MFS will allocate Trade Commissions and Pooled Commissions to Research Firms only for the portion of the service or product that MFS determines assists it in the investment decision-making or trading process and will pay for the remaining value of the product or service in cash.

In effecting portfolio transactions on behalf of the Variable Accounts and the Adviser’s other clients, the Adviser from time to time may instruct the broker/dealer that executes a transaction to allocate, or ‘‘step out,’’ a portion of such transaction to another broker/dealer. The broker/dealer to which the Adviser has ‘‘stepped out’’ would then settle and complete the designated portion of the transaction, and the executing broker/dealer would settle and complete the remaining portion of the transaction that has not been ‘‘stepped out.’’ Each broker/dealer may receive a commission or brokerage fee with respect to that portion of the transaction that it settles and completes.

The advisory fee paid by each of the Variable Accounts to the Adviser is not reduced as a consequence of the Adviser’s receipt of Research. To the extent the Variable Accounts’ portfolio transactions are used to obtain Research, the brokerage commissions paid by the Variable Accounts might exceed those that might otherwise be paid for execution only. The Research received may be useful and of value to the Adviser or its affiliates in serving both the Variable Accounts and other clients of the Adviser or its affiliates; accordingly, not all of the Research provided by broker/dealers through which the Variable Accounts effect securities transactions may be used by the Adviser in connection with the Variable Accounts. The Adviser, through the use of the Research, avoids the additional expenses that it would incur if it attempted to develop comparable information through its own staff or if it purchased such Research with its own resources.

In certain instances there are securities that are suitable for the Variable Accounts’ portfolios as well as for one or more of the other clients of the Adviser or of any subsidiary of the Adviser (or that the Adviser believes should no longer be held by the Variable Accounts’ portfolios or by other clients of the Adviser or any subsidiary of the Adviser). It is possible that a particular security is bought or sold for only one client even though it might 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 several clients receive investment advice from the same investment adviser, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objectives of more than one client. Transactions for each client are generally effected independently unless the Adviser determines to purchase or sell the same securities for several clients at approximately the same time. The Adviser may, but is not required to, aggregate together purchases and sales for several clients and will allocate the trades in a fair and equitable manner, across participating clients. The Adviser has adopted policies that are reasonably designed to ensure that when two or more clients are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed by the Adviser to be fair and equitable to each. For example, with respect to MFS, among other things, these policies prohibit allocations of equity initial public offerings, equity limited offerings or fixed income new issues to, among others: (1) Private Portfolio Management accounts; (2) accounts principally owned by:  (a) officers, directors, and employees of the Adviser or its subsidiaries; (b) trustees of any MFS fund (either directly or through retirement plan vehicles) which accounts are not being offered to the public; (c) the Adviser or its subsidiaries; or (d) any combination thereof; (3) any account which is neither publicly registered nor offered to the public which the Adviser has determined pursuant to its internal guidelines to be an "alternative" account with respect to which twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the account’s assets are attributable to the Adviser and or its subsidiaries, its directors, officers, or employees; and (4) any accounts owned beneficially solely by MFS or any direct or indirect subsidiary of MFS except accounts in which MFS or any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries is the sole beneficial owner, which generally will be allocated investment opportunities (other than with respect to equity initial public offerings, equity limited offerings or fixed income new issues) on the same basis as Variable Accounts or other clients of MFS when the account has been established and seeded by MFS or the subsidiary with a limited amount of assets either for the purpose of establishing a performance record to enable MFS or the subsidiary to offer the account’s investment style to unaffiliated third parties or if the account is being offered to the general

2

public. However, these policies do not prohibit allocations to funds or other accounts owned beneficially by Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Financial Services Holdings, Inc., or Sun Life Financial Inc., or their affiliates other than MFS and its direct and indirect subsidiaries.

It is recognized that in some cases this system could have a detrimental effect on the price or availability of a security as far as the Variable Accounts are concerned.

Brokerage commissions paid by each Variable Account for certain specified periods, information concerning purchases by each Variable Account of securities issued by its regular broker/dealers for its most recent fiscal year, and information concerning the amount of transactions and related commissions to broker/dealer firms that MFS has determined provide valuable research for each Variable Account’s most recent fiscal year, are set forth in Appendix G.

Effective September 28, 2010, the sub-section entitled “Public Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings” beneath the main heading “Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings" is restated in its entirety as follows:

Public Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings

In addition to the public disclosure of Variable Account portfolio holdings through required SEC quarterly filings, a Variable Account may make its portfolio holdings publicly available on the MFS Web site in such scope and form and with such frequency as MFS may reasonably determine.

For each Variable Account, the following information is generally available to you on the MFS Web site (mfs.com) by clicking on “Products and Performance,” then “Compass,” then a Variable Account name:

Information	Approximate Date of Posting to Web Site
Variable Account’s full holdings as of each month’s end	24 days after month end

Holdings also include short positions. Portfolio holdings are determined based on the equivalent exposure of holdings. The equivalent exposure of a holding is a calculated amount that approximates the market value of an underlying asset that is expected to have the same impact on performance as the holding. The equivalent exposure of a derivative may be different than the market value of the derivative. For most other holdings, the equivalent exposure is the same as the market value of the holding.

In addition, for the Money Market Variable Account, the following information is generally available to you on the MFS Web site (mfs.com) by clicking on “Products and Performance,” then “Compass,” then a Variable Account name:

Information	Approximate Date of Posting to Web Site
Variable Account’s full holdings as of each month’s end	5 business days after month end

If approved by an Authorized Person, a Variable Account may from time to time make available on the MFS Web site and/or in a press release, information about the holdings of a Variable Account or Variable Accounts in a particular investment or investments as of a current date, including the equivalent exposure of such holding or holdings.

Note that the Variable Account or MFS may suspend the posting of this information or modify the elements of this Web posting policy without notice to shareholders. Once posted, the above information will remain available on the Web site until at least the date on which the Variable Account files a Form N-CSR or Form N-Q for the period that includes the date as of which the Web site information is current.

Certain registered investment companies that are advised by MFS and registered investment companies that are subadvised by MFS or its affiliates are subject to different portfolio holdings disclosure policies that may permit public disclosure of portfolio holdings information in different forms and at different times. In addition, separate account and unregistered product clients of MFS or its affiliates have same day access to their portfolio holdings, and prospective clients and their advisers have access to representative portfolio holdings. Some of these registered investment companies, sub-advised funds, separate accounts, and unregistered products, all advised or sub-advised by MFS or its affiliates, have substantially similar, or in some cases nearly identical, portfolio holdings to certain Variable Accounts (Similarly Managed Investment Products). A Similarly Managed Investment Product is not subject to the portfolio holdings disclosure policies of the Variable Account to which it is similar and may disclose its similar or nearly identical portfolio holdings information in different forms and at different times than such Variable Account.

A Variable Account’s portfolio holdings are considered to be publicly disclosed: (a) upon the disclosure of the portfolio holdings in a publicly available, routine filing with the SEC that is required to include the information; (b) the day after the Variable Account makes such information available on its Web site (assuming that it discloses in its prospectus that 20 such information is available on its Web site); or (c) at such additional times and on such additional basis as determined by the SEC or its staff.

Effective May 28, 2010, the first paragraph under non-fundamental policy (1) in the sub-section entitled “Investment Restrictions” under the main heading “The Variable Accounts’ Investment Strategies, Risks, and Restrictions” is replaced in its entirety by the following:

Each Variable Account has the following additional non-fundamental policy which may be changed without shareholder approval.

The Money Market Variable Account will not:

(1) invest in illiquid investments if more than 5% of the Account’s net assets (taken at market value) would be invested in such securities.

Each Variable Account (except the Money Market Variable Account) will not:

(1) invest in illiquid investments, including securities subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale or for which there is no readily available market (e.g., trading in the security is suspended, or, in the case of unlisted securities, where no market exists) if more than 15% of the Account’s net assets (taken at market value) would be invested in such securities. Repurchase agreements maturing in more than seven days will be deemed to be illiquid for purposes of this limitation. Securities that are not registered under the 1933 Act and sold in

3

reliance on Rule 144A thereunder, but are determined to be liquid by the Account’s Board of Managers (or its delegee), will not be subject to this 15% limitation.

Effective May 28, 2010, the sub-section entitled “Money Market Variable Account” under the main heading “Determination of the Value of a Variable Account’s Assets” is restated in its entirety as follows:

Money Market Variable Account

Money market instruments are generally valued at amortized cost, which approximates market value. Amortized cost involves valuing an instrument at its cost as adjusted for amortization of premium or accretion of discount rather than its current market value. The amortized cost value of an instrument can be different from the market value of an instrument.

The Money Market Variable Account has received an exemptive order dated April 20, 1983, permitting it to use the amortized cost method of valuation to calculate the net asset value of the variable accumulation units of the Money Market Variable Account (the “Amortized Cost Exemptive Order”).

The Board of Managers has established procedures designed to stabilize its net asset value per unit at $1.00. For purposes of the procedures, the Money Market Variable Account’s net asset value per unit calculated using market valuations and amortized cost price per unit is based on treating the assets of the Money Market Variable Account as a separate portfolio paying daily dividends which are reinvested in additional units of such separate portfolio prior to the imposition of insurance charges as permitted by the Amortized Cost Exemptive Order.  The Board of Managers has delegated to the Adviser the responsibility for the implementation and administration of such procedures. Under the procedures, the Adviser is responsible for monitoring and notifying the Board of Managers of circumstances where the net asset value calculated by using market valuations may deviate from $1.00 per unit and might result in a material dilution or other unfair result to investors or existing Contract Owners. Under such circumstances, the Board of Managers may take such corrective action, if any, as it deems appropriate to eliminate or reduce, to the extent reasonably practicable, any such dilution or unfair results. Such corrective action could include selling portfolio instruments prior to maturity to realize capital gains or losses; shortening average portfolio maturity; withholding dividends; suspending redemptions in connection with liquidating the Money Market Variable Account; postponing payment of redemption proceeds; or processing transactions at a net asset value per unit using available market quotations; and such other measures as the Board of Managers may deem appropriate.

Effective July 29, 2010, the fifth paragraph in the sub-section entitled “Non-Money Market Variable Accounts” under the main heading “Determination of the Value of a Variable Account’s Assets” is replaced in its entirety by the following:

Exchange-traded options are generally valued at the last sale or official closing price as provided by a third-party pricing service on the exchange on which such options are primarily traded. Exchange-traded options for which there were no sales reported that day are generally valued at the last daily bid quotation as provided by a third-party pricing service on the exchange on which such options are primarily traded. Options not traded on an exchange are generally valued at a broker/dealer bid quotation. Foreign currency options are generally valued at valuations provided by a third-party pricing service.

Effective November 28, 2010, the sub-section entitled “Country Location” in Appendix D entitled “Investment Strategies and Risks” is restated in its entirety as follows:

Country Location. The issuer of a security or other investment is generally deemed to be economically tied to a particular country if: (a) the security or other investment is issued or guaranteed by the government of that country or any of its agencies, authorities or instrumentalities; (b) the issuer is organized under the laws of, and maintains a principal office in, that country; (c) the issuer has its principal securities trading market in that country; (d) the issuer derives 50% or more of its total revenues from goods sold or services performed in that country; (e) the issuer has 50% or more of its assets in that country; (f) the issuer is included in an index which is representative of that country; or (g) the issuer is exposed to the economic fortunes and risks of that country.  For purposes of determining if a security or other investment is considered a foreign security, revenues from goods sold or services performed in all countries other than the United States and assets in all countries other than the United States may be aggregated.

Effective November 28, 2010, the sub-section entitled “Short Sales” in Appendix D entitled “Investment Strategies and Risks” is restated in its entirety as follows:

Short Sales. A seller may make short sales that are made “against the box” and also those that are not made “against the box.”  A short sale that is not made “against the box” is a transaction in which a party sells a security it does not own, in anticipation of a decline in the market value of that security. To complete such a transaction, the seller must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The seller then is obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing it at the market price at the time of replacement. It may not be possible to liquidate or close out the short sale at any particular time or at an acceptable price. In addition, a fund may need to sell other investments to meet its short sale obligations at a time when it would not otherwise do so.  The price at such time may be more or less than the price at which the security was sold by the seller. To the extent that the seller invests the proceeds from the short sale in other securities, the seller is subject to the risks of the securities purchased with the proceeds in addition to the risks of the securities sold short. Until the security is replaced, the seller is required to repay the lender any dividends or interest which accrue during the period of the loan. To borrow the security, the seller also may be required to pay a premium, which would increase the cost of the security sold. The seller also will incur transaction costs in effecting short sales.

The seller will incur a loss as a result of the short sale if the price of the security or index increases between the date of the short sale and the date on which the seller replaces the borrowed security. Such loss may be unlimited.  The seller will realize a gain if the price of the security declines between those dates. The amount of any gain will be decreased, and the amount of any loss increased, by the amount of the premium, dividends or interest the seller may be required to pay in connection with a short sale. The overall benefit to the seller will depend on how the short sale performs relative to the market price of the securities purchased with the proceeds from the short sale.

4

A seller may also make short sales “against the box,” i.e., when a security identical to one owned by the seller is borrowed and sold short. If the seller enters into a short sale against the box, it is required to hold securities equivalent in-kind and amount to the securities sold short (or securities convertible or exchangeable into such securities) while the short sale is outstanding. The seller will incur transaction costs, including interest, in connection with opening, maintaining, and closing short sales against the box and will forgo an opportunity for capital appreciation in the security.

Effective February 1, 2011, Appendix E entitled “Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures” is restated in its entirety as follows:

 APPENDIX E – PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

February 1, 2011

Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS International (UK) Limited, MFS Heritage Trust Company, and MFS’ other subsidiaries that perform discretionary investment management activities (collectively, “MFS”) have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, as set forth below (“MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”), 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 (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 the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures include:

A.Voting Guidelines;

B.Administrative Procedures;

C.Records Retention; and

D.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, and institutional client relationships.

In developing these proxy voting guidelines, MFS reviews corporate governance issues and proxy voting matters that are 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 will vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote.

As a general matter, MFS votes consistently on similar proxy proposals across all shareholder meetings.  However, some proxy proposals, such as certain excessive executive compensation, environmental, social and governance matters, are analyzed on a case-by-case basis in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the proposal.  Therefore, MFS may vote similar proposals differently at different shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of the issuer or the terms of the proposal.  In addition, MFS also reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular proxy proposal 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.

MFS also generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client accounts, unless MFS has received explicit voting instructions to vote differently from a client for its own account.  From time to time, MFS may also receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients.  These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these guidelines 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 subsidiaries that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients.  If such potential material conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential material conflicts of interest (see Sections B.2 and D below), and shall ultimately vote the relevant proxies in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients.  The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential material conflicts of interest.

MFS is also a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. In developing these guidelines, MFS considered environmental, social and corporate governance issues in light of MFS’ fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best long-term economic interest of its clients.

2. MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues

Election of Directors

MFS believes that good governance should be based on a board with at least a simple 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 or non-contentious elections, we will not support a nominee to 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 (including instances in which the full board serves as the compensation or nominating committee) or audit committees would include members who are not “independent.”

5

MFS will also not support a nominee to a board if we can determine that he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason stated in the proxy materials or other company communications.  In addition, MFS may not support all nominees standing for re-election to a board if we can determine: (1) the board or its compensation committee has re-priced or exchanged underwater stock options since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval; (2) the board or relevant committee has not taken adequately responsive action to a majority-approved shareholder proposal that MFS has supported; or (3) the board has implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval since the last annual meeting, (including those related to net-operating loss carryforwards).

MFS may not support certain board nominees of U.S. issuers under certain circumstances where MFS deems compensation to be egregious due to pay-for-performance issues and/or poor pay practices. Please see the section below titled “MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues - Advisory Votes on Compensation” for further details.

MFS evaluates a contested or contentious 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 all nominees, and an evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders.

Majority Voting and Director Elections

MFS votes for reasonably crafted 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., contested elections) (“Majority Vote Proposals”). MFS considers voting against Majority Vote Proposals if the company has adopted, or has proposed to adopt in the proxy statement, formal corporate governance principles that present a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard and provide an adequate response to both new nominees as well as incumbent nominees who fail to receive a majority of votes cast. MFS believes that a company’s election policy should address the specific circumstances at that company.  In determining whether the issuer has a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard, MFS considers whether a company’s election policy articulates the following elements to address each director nominee who fails to receive an affirmative majority of votes cast in an election:

·   Establish guidelines for the process by which the company determines the status of nominees who fail to receive an affirmative majority of votes cast and disclose the guidelines in the annual proxy statement;

·   Guidelines should include a reasonable timetable for resolution of the nominee’s status and a requirement that the resolution be disclosed together with the reasons for the resolution;

·   Vest management of the process in the company’s independent directors, other than the nominee in question; and

·   Outline the range of remedies that the independent directors may consider concerning the nominee.

Classified Boards

MFS generally supports proposals to declassify a board (e.g. a board in which only one-third of board members is elected each year) for all issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies. MFS generally opposes proposals to classify a board for issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies.

Stock Plans

MFS opposes stock option programs and restricted stock plans that provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or that could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders.  As a general guideline, MFS votes against restricted stock, stock option, non-employee director, omnibus stock plans and any other stock plan if all such plans for a particular company involve potential dilution, in the aggregate, of more than 15%.  However, MFS will also vote against stock plans that involve potential dilution, in aggregate, of more than 10% at U.S. issuers that are listed in the Standard and Poor’s 100 index as of December 31 of the previous year.

MFS also opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee to re-price underwater options or to automatically replenish shares without shareholder approval.  MFS also 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 will consider proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options, restricted stock or cash on a case-by-case basis, taking into account certain factors, including, but not limited to, whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange and whether senior executives are excluded from participating in the exchange.

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.

Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation

MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives.  However, MFS also recognizes that certain executive compensation practices can be “excessive” and not in the best, long-term economic interest of a company’s shareholders. We believe that the election of an issuer’s board of directors (as outlined above), votes on stock plans (as outlined above) and advisory votes on pay (as outlined below) are typically the most effective mechanisms to express our view on a company’s compensation practices.

MFS generally opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set rigid restrictions on executive compensation as MFS believes that compensation committees should retain some flexibility to determine the appropriate pay package for executives.  Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company’s performance, MFS also opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based options to a specific industry or peer group stock index. MFS generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals that (i) require the issuer to adopt a policy to recover the portion of performance-based bonuses and awards paid to senior executives that were not earned based upon a significant negative restatement of earnings unless the company already has adopted a satisfactory policy on the matter, or (ii) expressly prohibit the backdating of stock options.

6

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

MFS will analyze advisory votes on executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. MFS will vote against an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS determines that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices and will vote in favor of an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS has not determined that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices. Examples of excessive executive compensation practices may include, but are not limited to, a pay-for-performance disconnect, employment contract terms such as guaranteed bonus provisions, unwarranted pension payouts, backdated stock options, overly generous hiring bonuses for chief executive officers, unnecessary perquisites, or the potential reimbursement of excise taxes to an executive in regards to a severance package. In cases where MFS (i) votes against consecutive advisory pay votes or (ii) determines that a particularly egregious excessive executive compensation practice has occurred, then MFS may also vote against certain board nominees.  MFS may also vote against certain board nominees if an advisory pay vote for a U.S. issuer is not on the agenda and the company has not implemented the advisory vote frequency supported by a plurality of shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals to include an advisory shareholder vote on an issuer’s executive compensation practices on an annual basis.

 “Golden Parachutes”

From time to time, MFS may evaluate a separate, advisory vote on severance packages or “golden parachutes” to certain executives at the same time as a vote on a proposed merger or acquisition. MFS will support an advisory vote on a severance package on a on a case-by-case basis, and MFS may vote against the severance package regardless of whether MFS supports the proposed merger or acquisition.

Shareholders of companies may also submit 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 generally votes for proposals to rescind existing “poison pills” and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective “poison pills,” unless the company already has adopted a clearly satisfactory policy on the matter.  MFS may consider the adoption of a prospective “poison pill” or the continuation of an existing “poison pill” if we can determine that 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 also 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.

MFS will consider any poison pills designed to protect a company’s net-operating loss carryforwards on a case-by-case basis, weighing the accounting and tax benefits of such a pill against the risk of deterring future acquisition candidates.

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.  MFS generally votes with management in regards to these types of proposals, however, if MFS believes the proposal is in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, then MFS may vote against management (e.g. 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 the 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 10-15% as described above), MFS generally votes against the plan.  In addition, MFS typically 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. MFS may also vote against the authorization or issuance of common or preferred stock if MFS determines that the requested authorization is excessive and not warranted.

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.

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, in our view, should be comprised solely of “independent” directors.

Written Consent and Special Meetings

The right to call a special meeting or act by written consent can be a powerful tool for shareholders.. As such, MFS supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders who hold at least 10% of the issuer’s outstanding stock to call a special meeting. MFS also supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders to act by written consent.

7

Independent Auditors

MFS believes that the appointment of auditors for U.S. issuers 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.  Some shareholder groups have submitted proposals to limit the non-audit activities of a company’s audit firm or prohibit 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.

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Issues

MFS believes that a company’s ESG practices may have an impact on the company’s long-term economic financial performance and will generally support proposals relating to ESG issues that MFS believes are in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.  For those ESG proposals for which a specific policy has not been adopted, MFS considers such ESG proposals on a case-by-case basis.  As a result, it may vote similar proposals differently at various shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of such proposal.

MFS generally supports proposals that seek to remove governance structures that insulate management from shareholders (i.e., anti-takeover measures) or that seek to enhance shareholder rights. Many of these governance-related issues, including compensation issues, are outlined within the context of the above guidelines. In addition, MFS typically supports proposals that require an issuer to reimburse successful dissident shareholders (who are not seeking control of the company) for reasonable expenses that such dissident incurred in soliciting an alternative slate of director candidates. MFS also generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure around the company’s use of collateral in derivatives trading.  MFS typically does not support proposals to separate the chairman and CEO positions as we believe that the most beneficial leadership structure of a company should be determined by the company’s board of directors.  For any governance-related proposal for which an explicit guideline is not provided above, MFS will consider such proposals on a case by case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes that it is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals that request disclosure on the impact of environmental issues on the company’s operations, sales, and capital investments.  However, MFS may not support such proposals based on the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific proposal, including, but not limited to, whether (i) the proposal is unduly costly, restrictive, or burdensome, (ii) the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments, or (iii) the proposal seeks a level of disclosure that exceeds that provided by the company’s industry peers. MFS will analyze all other environmental proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS will analyze social proposals on a case-by-case basis. MFS will support such proposals if MFS believes that such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.  Generally, MFS will support shareholder proposals that (i) seek to amend a company’s equal employment opportunity policy to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and (ii) request additional disclosure regarding a company’s political contributions (unless the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that such contributions pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments).

The laws of various states or countries 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.

Foreign Issuers

MFS generally supports the election of a director nominee standing for re-election in uncontested or non-contentious elections unless it can be determined that (1) he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason given in the proxy materials; (2) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced underwater stock options; or (3) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the “poison pill” be rescinded. Also, certain markets outside of the U.S. have adopted best practice guidelines relating to corporate governance matters (e.g. the United Kingdom’s Corporate Governance Code). Many of these guidelines operate on a “comply or explain” basis. As such, MFS will evaluate any explanations by companies relating to their compliance with a particular corporate governance guideline on a case-by-case basis and may vote against the board nominees or other relevant ballot item if such explanation is not satisfactory.

 MFS generally supports the election of auditors, but may determine to vote against the election of a statutory auditor in certain markets if MFS reasonably believes that the statutory auditor is not truly independent.

Some international markets have also adopted mandatory requirements for all companies to hold shareholder votes on executive compensation.  MFS will not support such proposals if MFS determines that a company’s executive compensation practices are excessive, considering such factors as the specific market’s best practices that seek to maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment and to create long-term shareholder value.

Many other 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 voted with management) for foreign issuers include, but are not limited to, 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; and (v) approval of share repurchase programs (absent any anti-takeover concerns). MFS will evaluate all other items on proxies for foreign companies in the context of the guidelines described above, but will generally vote against an item if there is not sufficient information disclosed in order to make an informed voting decision.

In accordance with local law or business practices, many foreign companies or custodians 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 or subsequent to the meeting (e.g. one,

8

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 share blocking periods or in markets where some custodians may block shares, 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 will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote that outweighs the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock.

In limited circumstances, other market specific impediments to voting shares may limit our ability to cast votes, including, but not limited to, late delivery of proxy materials, power of attorney and share re-registration requirements, or any other unusual voting requirements. In these limited instances, MFS votes securities on a best efforts basis in the context of the guidelines described above.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

1.MFS Proxy Voting Committee

The administration of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, which includes senior personnel from the MFS Legal and Global Investment Support Departments.  The Proxy Voting Committee does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales.  The MFS Proxy Voting Committee:

a.Reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable;

b.Determines whether any potential material conflict of interest exists with respect to instances in which MFS (i) seeks to override these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (ii) votes on ballot items not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors; or (iv) requests a vote recommendation from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); and

c.Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time.

2.Potential Conflicts of Interest

The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. Due to the client focus of our investment management business, we believe that the potential for actual material conflict of interest issues is small. Nonetheless, we have developed precautions to assure that all proxy votes are cast in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders.1 Other MFS internal policies require all MFS employees to avoid actual and potential conflicts of interests between personal activities and MFS’ client activities. If an employee identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any voting decision, then that employee must recuse himself/herself from participating in the voting process. Additionally, with respect to decisions concerning all Non-Standard Votes, as defined below, MFS will review the securities holdings reported by investment professionals that participate in such decisions to determine whether such person has a direct economic interest in the decision, in which case such person shall not further participate in making the decision. Any significant attempt by an employee of MFS or its subsidiaries to unduly influence MFS’ voting on a particular proxy matter should also be reported to the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

In cases where proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist.  In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (ii) matters presented for vote are not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures,  (iii) MFS evaluates a potentially excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors or advisory pay or severance package vote, or (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions) (collectively, “Non-Standard Votes”); the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will follow these procedures:

a.Compare the name of the issuer of such proxy against a list of significant current (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, and (ii) 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 Voting Committee;

c.If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Client List, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will be apprised of that fact and each member of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will carefully evaluate the proposed vote 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 Voting Committee will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer’s relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, the votes as to be cast and the reasons why the MFS Proxy Voting Committee determined that the votes were cast in 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 MFS’ Conflicts Officer.

The members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units.  The MFS Significant Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.

From time to time, certain MFS Funds (the “top tier fund”) may own shares of other MFS Funds (the “underlying fund”). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a shareholder vote, the top tier fund will generally vote its shares in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the underlying fund.  If there are no other shareholders in the top tier fund, the top tier fund will vote in what MFS believes to be in the top tier fund’s best long-term economic interest.

 

1 For clarification purposes, note that MFS votes in what we believe to be the best, long-term economic interest of our clients entitled to vote at the shareholder meeting, regardless of whether other MFS clients hold “short” positions in the same issuer.

9

3.Gathering Proxies

Most proxies received by MFS and its clients originate at Broadridge Financial Solutions (“Broadridge”).  Broadridge and other service providers, on behalf of custodians, send proxy related material to the record holders of the shares beneficially owned by MFS’ clients, usually to the client’s proxy voting administrator or, less commonly, to the client itself.  This material will include proxy ballots reflecting the shareholdings of Funds and of clients on the record dates for such shareholder meetings, as well as proxy materials with the issuer’s explanation of the items to be voted upon.

MFS, on behalf of itself and certain of its clients (including the MFS Funds) has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm pursuant to which the proxy administration firm performs various proxy vote related administrative services such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions.  Except as noted below, the proxy administration firm for MFS and its clients, including the MFS Funds, is Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”).  The proxy administration firm for MFS Development Funds, LLC is Glass, Lewis & Co., Inc. (“Glass Lewis”; Glass Lewis and ISS are each hereinafter referred to as the “Proxy Administrator”).

 The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy ballots 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 data-feed.  Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for all upcoming shareholders’ meetings are available on-line to certain MFS employees and members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

 It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS to monitor the receipt of ballots.  When proxy ballots and materials for clients are received by the Proxy Administrator, they are input into the Proxy Administrator’s on-line system.  The Proxy Administrator then reconciles a list of all MFS accounts that hold shares of a company’s stock and the number of shares held on the record date by these accounts with the Proxy Administrator’s list of any upcoming shareholder’s meeting of that company.  If a proxy ballot has not been received, the Proxy Administrator contacts the custodian requesting the reason as to why a ballot has not been received.

4.      Analyzing Proxies

Proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.  The Proxy Administrator, at the prior direction of MFS, automatically votes all proxy matters that do not require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment with respect to these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as determined by MFS.  With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee considers and votes on those proxy matters.  MFS also receives research and recommendations from the Proxy Administrator which it may take into account in deciding how to vote.  MFS uses the research of ISS to identify (i) circumstances in which a board may have approved excessive executive compensation, (ii) environmental and social proposals that warrant consideration or (iii) circumstances in which a non-U.S. company is not in compliance with local governance best practices.  In those situations where the only MFS fund that is eligible to vote at a shareholder meeting has Glass Lewis as its Proxy Administrator, then we will rely on research from Glass Lewis to identify such issues.  Representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee review, as appropriate, votes cast to ensure conformity with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

As a general matter, portfolio managers and investment analysts have little or no involvement in most 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, capitalization matters, potentially excessive executive compensation issues, or shareholder proposals relating to environmental and social issues), a representative of MFS Proxy Voting Committee may consult with or seek recommendations from MFS portfolio managers or investment analysts.2 However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee 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

In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Voting Committee and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may review and monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS’ clients.

6.Securities Lending

From time to time, the MFS Funds or other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS may participate in a securities lending program.  In the event MFS or its agent receives timely notice of a shareholder meeting for a U.S. security, MFS and its agent will attempt to recall any securities on loan before the meeting’s record date so that MFS will be entitled to vote these shares.  However, there may be instances in which MFS is unable to timely recall securities on loan for a U.S. security, in which cases MFS will not be able to vote these shares. MFS will report to the appropriate board of the MFS Funds those instances in which MFS is not able to timely recall the loaned securities. MFS generally does not recall non-U.S. securities on loan because there may be insufficient advance notice of proxy materials, record dates, or vote cut-off dates to allow MFS to timely recall the shares in certain markets. As a result, non-U.S. securities that are on loan will not generally be voted.  If MFS receives timely notice of what MFS determines to be an unusual, significant vote for a non-U.S. security whereas MFS shares are on loan, and determines that voting is in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders, then MFS will attempt to timely recall the loaned shares.

7.      Engagement

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are available on www.mfs.com and may be accessed by both MFS’ clients and the companies in which MFS’ clients invest.  From time to time, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial for representatives from the

 

2 From time to time, due to travel schedules and other commitments, an appropriate portfolio manager or research analyst may not be available to provide a vote recommendation.  If such a recommendation cannot be obtained within a reasonable time prior to the cut-off date of the shareholder meeting, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may determine to abstain from voting.

10

MFS Proxy Voting Committee to engage in a dialogue or written communication with a company or other shareholder regarding certain matters on the company’s proxy statement that are of concern to shareholders, including environmental, social and governance matters.  A company or shareholder may also seek to engage with representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee in advance of the company’s formal proxy solicitation to review issues more generally or gauge support for certain contemplated proposals.

C.      RECORDS RETENTION

MFS will retain copies of these MFS Proxy Voting 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 ballots completed by representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, 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 Voting Committee.  All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator’s system as to proxies processed, including the dates when proxy ballots were received and submitted, and the votes on each company’s proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law.

D.      REPORTS

MFS Funds

MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the MFS Funds on an annual basis, as required by law. MFS will also 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 (including advisory votes on pay and “golden parachutes”) ; (ii) a summary of votes against management’s recommendation; (iii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefore; (iv) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest and any matters identified as a material conflict of interest; (v) a review of these policies and the guidelines; (vi) a report and impact assessment of instances in which the recall of loaned securities of a U.S. issuer was unsuccessful; and (vii) 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

MFS may publicly disclose the proxy voting records of certain clients or the votes it casts with respect to certain matters as required by law. At any time, a report can also 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 and, upon request, may identify situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Except as described above, MFS generally will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client. However, as noted above, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial to engage in a dialogue with a company regarding certain matters. During such dialogue with the company, MFS may disclose the vote it intends to cast in order to potentially effect positive change at a company in regards to environmental, social or governance issues.

11