mfsit.htm

Supplement to the Current Statement of Additional Information

MFS® Institutional Trust

MFS Institutional International Equity Fund

MFS Institutional Large Cap Value Fund

This SAI supplement supersedes and replaces the Trust’s SAI supplements dated December 8, 2009, February 1, 2010, April 30, 2010, and July 29, 2010.

Effective February 1, 2010, between the first and second paragraphs of the sub-section entitled “Investment Adviser” under the main heading “Management of the Fund,” the following paragraph is inserted:

As of February 1, 2010, MFS has signed the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), an investor initiative in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative and the United Nations Global Compact. As a signatory to the PRI, where consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities, MFS aspires to: incorporate environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues into its investment analysis and decision-making processes; be an active owner and incorporate ESG issues into its ownership policies and practices; seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which it invests; promote acceptance and implementation of the PRI within the investment industry; work to enhance the effectiveness in implementing the PRI; and report on activities and progress toward implementing the PRI. While MFS aspires to follow the PRI where consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities, signing the PRI is not a legal commitment to do so and MFS may take actions that may be inconsistent with the PRI or may fail to take actions that would be consistent with the PRI.

Effective April 30, 2010, the sub-sections entitled “Trustees/Officers” and “Trustees and Officers – Identification and Background” under the main heading “Management of the Fund” are restated in their entirety as follows:

Trustees/Officers

Board Leadership Structure and Oversight — The following provides an overview of the leadership structure of the Board of Trustees of the MFS Funds (the “Board”) and the Board’s oversight of the Funds’ risk management process. The Board consists of twelve Trustees, ten of whom are not “interested persons” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund (the “Independent Trustees”). An Independent Trustee serves as Chair of the Trustees. In addition, each of the seven standing Committees of the Board, to which the Board has delegated certain authority and oversight responsibilities, is comprised exclusively of Independent Trustees. For a description of the oversight functions of each of the Committees, see “Committees” in Appendix B of this SAI. Three of the Committees have as members all of the Independent Trustees, and the remaining Committees have four to six Independent Trustees as members. In connection with each of the Board’s regular meetings, the Independent Trustees meet separately from MFS with their counsel and with the Funds’ Independent Chief Compliance Officer. The Board reviews its leadership structure periodically and believes that its structure is appropriate to enable the board to exercise its oversight of the Funds.

The MFS Funds have retained MFS as the Funds’ investment adviser and administrator. MFS provides the Funds with investment advisory services, and is responsible for day-to-day administration of the Funds and management of the risks that arise from the Funds' investments and operations. Employees of MFS serve as the Funds’ officers, including the Funds’ principal executive officer. The Board provides oversight of the services provided by MFS, including the risk management activities. In addition, each Committee of the Board provides oversight of MFS’ risk management activities with respect to the particular activities within the Committee’s purview. In the course of providing oversight, the Board and the Committees receive a wide range of reports on the Funds’ activities, including regarding each Fund’s investment portfolio, the compliance of the Funds with applicable laws, and the Funds’ financial accounting and reporting. The Board and the relevant Committees meet periodically with MFS’ Chief Regulatory Officer, MFS’ Chief Enterprise Risk Officer, and MFS’ Chief Investment Risk Officer to receive reports on MFS’ risk management activities. The Board also meets periodically with the Funds’ Independent Chief Compliance Officer to receive reports regarding the compliance of the Funds with the federal securities laws and the Funds’ internal compliance policies and procedures. In addition, the Board meets periodically with the portfolio managers of the Funds to receive reports regarding the management of the Funds, including their investment risks.

Trustees and Officers – Identification and Background

The identification and background of the Trustees and Officers of the Trust, as well as an overview of the considerations that led the Board to conclude that each individual serving as a Trustee of the Fund should so serve, are set forth in Appendix A of this SAI.

Effective July 29, 2010, the sixth paragraph under the main heading “Determination of Net Asset Value” 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.

Appendix A entitled “Trustees and Officers – Identification and Background” is restated in its entirety as follows:

APPENDIX A

TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS - IDENTIFICATION AND BACKGROUND

The Trustees and officers of the Trust, as of August 28, 2010, are listed below, together with their principal occupations during the past five years. (Their titles may have varied during that period.) The address of each Trustee and officer is 500 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since(1)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships(2)

INTERESTED TRUSTEES
Robert J. Manning(3) (born 10/20/63)	Trustee	February 2004 (Trustee)	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Director; President (until December 2009); Chief Investment Officer (until July 2010)

Robert C. Pozen(3) (born 8/08/46)	Trustee	February 2004 (Trustee)	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Chairman Emeritus; Chairman (until July 2010); Medtronic, Inc. (medical devices), Director (since 2004);Harvard Business School (education), Senior Lecturer (since 2008); Telesat (satellite communications), Director (until November 2007); Bell Canada Enterprises (telecommunications), Director (until February 2009)

INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES
David H. Gunning (born 5/30/42)	Trustee and Chair of Trustees	January 2004	Retired; Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (mining products and service provider), Vice Chairman/Director (until May 2007); Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (welding equipment manufacturer), Director; Development Alternatives, Inc. (consulting), Portman Limited (mining), Director (until 2008)

Robert E. Butler (born 11/29/41)	Trustee	January 2006	Consultant – investment company industry regulatory and compliance matters (since July 2002); PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (professional services firm), Partner (until 2002)

Lawrence H. Cohn, M.D. (born 3/11/37)	Trustee	June 1989	Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Senior Cardiac Surgeon (since 2005); Harvard Medical School, Professor of Cardiac Surgery; Partners HealthCare, Physician Director of Medical Device Technology (since 2006); Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Chief of Cardiac Surgery (until 2005)

Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since(1)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships(2)
Maureen R. Goldfarb(4) (born 4/6/55)	Trustee	January 2009	Private investor; John Hancock Financial Services, Inc., Executive Vice President (until 2004); John Hancock Mutual Funds, Trustee and Chief Executive Officer (until 2004)

William R. Gutow (born 9/27/41)	Trustee	December 1993	Private investor and real estate consultant; Capitol Entertainment Management Company (video franchise), Vice Chairman; Texas Donuts (donut franchise), Vice Chairman (since 2007); Atlantic Coast Tan (tanning salons), Vice Chairman (until 2007)

Michael Hegarty (born 12/21/44)	Trustee	December 2004	Private Investor; AXA Financial (financial services and insurance), Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer (until 2001); The Equitable Life Assurance Society (insurance), President and Chief Operating Officer (until 2001)

John P. Kavanaugh (born 11/4/54)	Trustee	January 2009	Private investor; The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., Vice President and Chief Investment Officer (until 2006); Allmerica Investment Trust, Allmerica Securities Trust and Opus Investment Trust (investment companies), Chairman, President and Trustee (until 2006)

J. Dale Sherratt (born 9/23/38)	Trustee	June 1989	Insight Resources, Inc. (acquisition planning specialists), President; Wellfleet Investments (investor in health care companies), Managing General Partner

Laurie J. Thomsen (born 8/05/57)	Trustee	March 2005	New Profit, Inc. (venture philanthropy), Executive Partner (since 2006); The Travelers Companies (commercial property liability insurance), Director

Robert W. Uek (born 5/18/41)	Trustee	January 2006	Consultant to investment company industry; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (professional services firm), Partner (until 1999); TT International Funds (mutual fund complex), Trustee (until 2005); Hillview Investment Trust II Funds (mutual fund complex), Trustee (until 2005)

Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since(1)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships(2)
OFFICERS
Maria F. Dwyer(3) (born 12/01/58)	President	March 2004	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer (since March 2004) Chief Compliance Officer (since December 2006)

Christopher R. Bohane(3) (born 1/18/74)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel

John M. Corcoran(3) (born 04/13/65)	Treasurer	October 2008	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President (since October 2008); State Street Bank and Trust (financial services provider), Senior Vice President, (until September 2008)

Ethan D. Corey(3) (born 11/21/63)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel

David L. DiLorenzo(3) (born 8/10/68)	Assistant Treasurer	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President (since June 2005); JP Morgan Investor Services, Vice President (until June 2005)

Timothy M. Fagan(3) (born 7/10/68)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	September 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel (since September 2005); John Hancock Advisers, LLC, Vice President, Senior Attorney and Chief Compliance Officer (until August 2005)

Mark D. Fischer(3) (born 10/27/70)	Assistant Treasurer	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President (since May 2005); JP Morgan Investment Management Company, Vice President (until May 2005)

Robyn L. Griffin (born 7/04/75)	Assistant Independent Chief Compliance Officer	August 2008	Griffin Compliance LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal (since August 2008); State Street Corporation (financial services provider), Mutual Fund Administration Assistant Vice President (October 2006-July 2008); Liberty Mutual Group (insurance), Personal Market Assistant Controller (April 2006-October 2006); Deloitte & Touche LLP (professional services firm), Senior Manager (prior to April 2006)

Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since(1)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships(2)
Brian E. Langenfeld(3) (born 3/07/73)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	June 2006	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel (since May 2006); John Hancock Advisers, LLC, Assistant Vice President and Counsel (until April 2006)

Ellen Moynihan(3) (born 11/13/57)	Assistant Treasurer	April 1997	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President

Susan S. Newton(3) (born 3/07/50)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	May 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel (since April 2005); John Hancock Advisers, LLC, Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer (until April 2005)

Susan A. Pereira(3) (born 11/05/70)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel Associate (until June 2004)

Mark N. Polebaum(3) (born 5/01/52)	Secretary and Clerk	January 2006	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary (since January 2006); Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (law firm), Partner (until January 2006)

Frank L. Tarantino (born 3/07/44)	Independent Chief Compliance Officer	June 2004	Tarantino LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal

Richard S. Weitzel(3) (born 7/16/70)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	October 2007	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel

James O. Yost(3) (born 06/12/60)	Assistant Treasurer	September 1990	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President

Date first appointed to serve as Trustee/officer of an MFS fund. Each Trustee has served continuously since appointment unless indicated otherwise. For the period from December 15, 2004 until February 22, 2005, Messrs. Pozen and Manning served as Advisory Trustees. For the period March 2008 until October 2008, Ms. Dwyer served as Treasurer of the Funds.

2	Directorships or trusteeships of companies required to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (i.e., “public companies”).

“Interested person” of the Trust within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (referred to as the 1940 Act), which is the principal federal law governing investment companies like the fund, as a result of position with MFS. The address of MFS is 500 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

As of December 31, 2009, Ms. Goldfarb beneficially owned floating rate preferred shares of UBS Preferred Funding Trust IV which were valued at $554,000 and represented 0.0033% of the outstanding preferred shares. UBS Preferred Funding Trust IV and UBS Global Asset Management, the sub-adviser to a portion of the portfolio of MFS Diversified Target Return Fund (a series of MFS Series Trust XV), are under common control of UBS AG.

Each Trustee has been elected by shareholders and each Trustee and officer holds office until his or her successor is chosen and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal. The Trust does not hold annual meetings for the purpose of electing Trustees, and Trustees are not elected for fixed terms. Messrs. Butler, Kavanaugh, Sherratt, Uek and Ms. Thomsen are members of the Trust’s Audit Committee.

Each of the Trust’s Trustees and officers holds comparable positions with certain other funds of which MFS or a subsidiary is the investment adviser or distributor, and, in the case of the officers, with certain affiliates of MFS. As of January 1, 2010, the Trustees served as board members of 99 funds within the MFS Family of Funds.

The following provides an overview of the considerations that led the Board to conclude that each individual serving as a Trustee of the Trust should so serve. The current members of the Board have joined the Board at different points in time since 1989. Generally, no one factor was decisive in the original selection of an individual to join the Board. Among the factors the Board considered when concluding that an individual should serve on the Board were the following: (i) the individual’s business and professional experience and accomplishments; (ii) the individuals ability to work effectively with the other members of the Board; (iii) the individual’s prior experience, if any, serving on the boards of public companies (including, where relevant, other investment companies) and other complex enterprises and organizations; and (iv) how the individual’s skills, experience and attributes would contribute to an appropriate mix of relevant skills and experience on the Board.

In respect of each current Trustee, the individual’s substantial professional accomplishments and prior experience, including, in some cases, in fields related to the operations of the Fund, were a significant factor in the determination that the individual should serve as a Trustee of the Trusts. Following is a summary of each Trustee’s professional experience and additional considerations that contributed to the Board’s conclusion that an individual should serve on the Board:

Robert E. Butler, CPA

Mr. Butler has substantial accounting and compliance consulting experience for clients in the investment management industry. Mr. Butler was a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PWC”) (including its predecessor firms) for 24 years, and led the firm’s National Regulatory Compliance Consulting Group, specializing in compliance consulting for investment management clients, including mutual funds and investment advisers. During his tenure at PWC, he served for ten years as a consultant to the independent directors/trustees for two major fund groups during their contract deliberation processes. He also conducted branch reviews of insurance broker/dealers selling variable products. Since retiring from PWC, Mr. Butler has worked as a consultant to mutual fund boards and investment advisers on regulatory and compliance matters. He has served as, or assisted, the Independent Compliance Consultant in conjunction with the implementation of SEC market timing orders at three major fund groups.

Lawrence H. Cohn, M.D.

Dr. Cohn is a Senior Cardiac Surgeon, and the former Chief of Cardiac Surgery, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. He is also a Professor of Cardiac Surgery at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Cohn has substantial investment company board experience, having served on boards of trustees responsible for oversight of funds in the MFS family of funds for over 20 years.

Maureen R. Goldfarb

Ms. Goldfarb has substantial executive and board experience at firms within the investment management industry. She was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the John Hancock Funds and an Executive Vice President of John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. Prior to joining John Hancock, Ms. Goldfarb was a Senior Vice President with Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company. She also held various marketing, distribution and portfolio management positions with other investment management firms. Ms. Goldfarb is a former member of the Board of Governors of the Investment Company Institute.

David H. Gunning

Mr. Gunning has substantial executive and board experience at publicly-traded and privately-held companies, including past service as the Vice Chairman and a director of Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (now Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.), a director of Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., and a director of Southwest Gas Corp. He is the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Capitol American Financial Corp. Mr. Gunning is also a former partner and head of the corporate department of Jones Day, a large international law firm.

William R. Gutow

Mr. Gutow is the Vice Chairman of Capitol Entertainment Management Company. He has substantial senior executive experience at a publicly-traded company and various privately held companies as well as board experience at privately held companies and non-profits. Mr. Gutow served as the Senior Vice President of Real Estate and Property Development for Zale Corporation. Mr. Gutow has substantial investment company board experience, having served on boards of trustees responsible for oversight of funds in the MFS family of funds for over 16 years.

Michael Hegarty

Mr. Hegarty has substantial senior executive and board experience at firms within the financial services industry, as well as board experience at publicly-traded and privately held companies. He served as the Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of AXA Financial and as the President and Chief Operating Officer of The Equitable Life Assurance Society. Mr. Hegarty also served as Vice Chairman of Chase Manhattan Corporation and Chemical Bank. He is a former director of Alliance Capital Management Corporation, which serves as the general partner of a publicly-traded investment adviser, and a former trustee of investment companies in the EQ Advisers Trust family of funds.

John P. Kavanaugh

Mr. Kavanaugh has substantial executive, investment management, and board experience at firms within the investment management industry, as well as board experience for other investment company families. Mr. Kavanaugh was the Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and the President of Opus Investment Management, Inc., an investment adviser. He also served as a trustee for various investment company complexes. Mr. Kavanaugh held research analyst and portfolio management positions with Allmerica Financial and PruCapital, Inc.

Robert J. Manning

Mr. Manning is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MFS (the MFS Funds’ investment adviser) and in this capacity heads its Board of Directors. He has substantial executive and investment management experience, having worked for MFS for 25 years. He also is a member of the Board of Directors of MFS and chairman of the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees.

Robert C. Pozen

Mr. Pozen is Chairman Emeritus of MFS (the MFS Funds’ investment adviser). He has substantial senior executive and board experience within the investment management industry, as well as board experience for publicly-traded companies. He is a director of Medtronic, Inc. He is also a Senior Lecturer at Harvard Business School.

J. Dale Sherratt

Mr. Sherratt is the President of Insight Resources and the Managing General Partner of Wellfleet Investments. He was a senior executive at Colgate-Palmolive and the Chief Executive Officer of the Kendall Company in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Sherratt has held senior executive positions at various healthcare technology companies, and served on the boards of directors of publicly-traded companies and numerous early stage technology companies. Mr. Sherratt has substantial investment company board experience, having served on boards of trustees responsible for oversight of funds in the MFS family of funds for over 20 years.

Laurie J. Thomsen

Ms. Thomsen is an Executive Partner of New Profit, Inc., a venture philanthropy firm. She has substantial venture capital financing experience, as well as board experience at publicly-traded and privately-held companies. Ms. Thomsen was a co-founding General Partner of Prism Venture Partners, a venture capital firm investing in healthcare and technology companies. Prior to that, she was a General Partner at the venture capital firm, Harbourvest Partners. Ms. Thomsen is a director of The Travelers Companies, Inc. and a trustee of Williams College. She is a former director of Travelers Property Casualty Corp. and New Profit.

Robert W. Uek, CPA

Mr. Uek has substantial accounting and consulting experience for clients in the investment management industry. Mr. Uek was a partner in the investment management industry group of PWC, and was the chair of the investment management industry group for Coopers & Lybrand. He also has served as a consultant to mutual fund boards. Mr. Uek previously served on the boards of trustees of investment companies in the TT International family of funds and Hillview Capital family of funds. Mr. Uek is a former Chairman of the Independent Directors Council, a unit of the Investment Company Institute that serves the mutual fund independent director community.

Effective February 1, 2010, 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, 2010

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 (except Four Pillars Capital, Inc.) (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. Monitoring System;

D. Records Retention; and

E. Reports.

A. VOTING GUIDELINES

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 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 E 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.

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 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 nominating committee) or audit committees would include members who are not “independent.”

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 will not support all nominees standing for re-election to a board if we can determine: (1) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced or exchanged underwater stock options; or (2) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval (including those related to net-operating loss carryforwards), or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the poison pill be rescinded. 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 assurance in the proxy materials that the terms of the “poison pill” would be put to a binding shareholder vote within the next five to seven years.

MFS will also not support a nominee (other than a nominee who serves as the issuer’s Chief Executive Officer) standing for re-election if such nominee participated (as a director or committee member) in the approval of senior executive compensation that MFS deems to be “excessive” due to pay for performance issues and/or poor pay practices. In the event that MFS determines that an issuer has adopted “excessive” executive compensation, MFS may also not support the re-election of the issuer’s Chief Executive Officer as director regardless of whether the Chief Executive Officer directly participated in the approval of the package. MFS will determine whether senior executive compensation is excessive on a case-by-case basis. Examples of excessive executive compensation practices may include, but are not limited to, a pay-for-performance disconnect, egregious employment contract terms such as guaranteed bonus provisions, excessive pension payouts, backdated stock options, overly generous hiring bonuses for chief executive officers, excessive perquisites, or the potential reimbursement of excise taxes to an executive in regards to a severance package.

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

Non-Salary Compensation Programs

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 also opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee, without shareholder approval, to re-price underwater options or to automatically replenish shares (i.e. evergreen plans). 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 opposes stock option programs 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 restricted stock plans, 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.

Expensing of 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. 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 compensation committee members and votes on stock plans (as outlined above) are currently the most effective mechanisms to express our view on a company’s compensation practices.

MFS also 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. Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company’s performance, MFS opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based options to a specific industry or peer group stock index. MFS also opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set rigid restrictions on executive compensation as MFS believes that compensation committees should retain some flexibility to propose the appropriate index or other criteria by which performance-based options should be measured.

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

MFS supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals to include an advisory shareholder vote on an issuer’s executive compensation practices in the issuer’s proxy statement.

For a U.S. issuer that already includes an advisory vote on its executive compensation practices in its proxy statement, MFS will generally support the issuer’s advisory vote, unless MFS has determined that issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices.

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 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.

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, in our view, should 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 pursuant to relevant state law.

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 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.

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 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. 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 adopted mandatory requirements for all companies to hold advisory 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, 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. 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 the individuals that participate in such decision 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 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 an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors, 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.

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 the Funds, has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm, RiskMetrics Group, Inc., (the “Proxy Administrator”), pursuant to which the Proxy Administrator performs various proxy vote related administrative services, such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions for MFS’ Funds and institutional client accounts. 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.

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 the MFS Proxy Voting Committee. With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, MFS 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. In addition, MFS expects to rely on the Proxy Administrator to identify circumstances in which a board may have approved excessive executive compensation or whether certain environmental or social proposals warrant consideration. 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 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. corporate actions, such as mergers and acquisitions, 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.1 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.

1 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 recommendation on a merger or acquisition proposal. If such a recommendation cannot be obtained prior to the cut-off date of the shareholder meeting, certain members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may determine to abstain from voting.

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 MFS Proxy Voting Committee to engage in a dialogue 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 dissident shareholder may also seek to engage with representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee in advance of the company’s formal proxy solicitation to solicit support for certain contemplated proposals.

C. MONITORING SYSTEM

It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS’ Proxy Voting Committee to monitor the proxy voting process. When proxy materials for clients are received by the Proxy Administrator, they are input into the Proxy Administrator’s system. 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 voting cut-off 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 ballot has not been received from the client’s custodian, the Proxy Administrator contacts the custodian requesting that the materials be forwarded immediately. If it is not possible to receive the proxy ballot from the custodian in time to be voted at the meeting, then 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 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.

E. 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; (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

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 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 (unless required by applicable law) 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.

Effective July 29, 2010, non-fundamental policy (1) in Appendix H entitled “Investment Restrictions” is replaced in its entirety by the following:

In addition, each Fund has adopted the following non-fundamental policies, which may be changed without shareholder approval.

Each Fund will not:

(1)

invest in illiquid investments if more than 15% of the Fund’s net assets (taken at market value) would be invested in such securities.

The sub-section entitled “Securities Issued by Regular Broker/Dealers” in Appendix J entitled “Portfolio Transactions and Brokerage Commissions” is restated in its entirety as follows:

Securities Issued By Regular Broker/Dealers

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, each Fund purchased securities issued by the following regular broker/dealers of each Fund, and the following table sets forth the value of each Fund’s aggregate holdings of the securities of each such issuer as of June 30, 2009:

Fund	Broker/Dealer	Value of Securities
MFS Institutional International Equity Fund	HSBC	$	9,787,864
MFS Institutional Large Cap Value Fund	Goldman Sachs	$	1,269,458
	JP Morgan Chase	$	1,154,965
	Merrill Lynch	$	0

The date of this supplement is August 28, 2010.