UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
 
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.  )

 

Filed by the Registrant x

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o

Check the appropriate box:

o Preliminary Proxy Statement

o Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

x Definitive Proxy Statement

o Definitive Additional Materials

o Soliciting Material under Rule 14a-12

UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION

(Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(Name of person(s) filing proxy statement, if other than the registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

x No fee required.

o Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.

(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

(5) Total fee paid:

o Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

o Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

(1) Amount Previously Paid:

(2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

(3) Filing Party:

(4) Date Filed:

Union Bankshares Corporation
Richmond, Virginia
March 11, 2015

Dear Fellow Shareholders:

You are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Union Bankshares Corporation. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at Wyndham Virginia Crossings Hotel & Conference Center, which is located at 1000 Virginia Center Parkway, Glen Allen, Virginia. Directions to the meeting site may be found on the final page of the attached proxy statement. We will also have signs posted at the location to help guide you.

We are again furnishing proxy materials to our shareholders over the Internet. You may read, print and download the 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K and the proxy statement at http://www.edocumentview.com/UBSH. On March 11, 2015, we mailed our shareholders a notice containing instructions on how to access these materials and how to vote their shares online. The notice provides instructions on how you can request a paper copy of these materials by mail, by telephone, or by email. If you request your materials via email, the email contains voting instructions and links to the materials on the Internet.

You may vote your shares by Internet, by telephone, by regular mail, or in person at the Annual Meeting. Instructions regarding the various methods of voting are contained on the notice separately mailed to you and on the proxy card.

The primary business of the meeting will be: to elect six Class I directors; to approve the Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan; to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2015; and to give advisory (non-binding) approval of the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in the proxy statement pursuant to applicable law. We also will report to you about the condition and performance of Union Bankshares Corporation, its subsidiaries, and affiliates. You will have an opportunity to question management or directors about matters that affect the interests of all shareholders. Our independent auditors will also attend the meeting. We hope you will join us at the reception following the meeting.

Your vote is very important. Please take the time to vote now so that your shares are represented at the meeting. We value your continued support and loyalty.

Very truly yours,

G. William Beale
President and Chief Executive Officer

Union Bankshares Corporation

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

To be held on April 21, 2015

The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Union Bankshares Corporation (the “Company”) will be held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at Wyndham Virginia Crossings Hotel & Conference Center, which is located at 1000 Virginia Center Parkway, Glen Allen, Virginia, for the following purposes:

1. to elect six Class I directors to serve until the 2018 annual meeting of shareholders or the director’s mandatory retirement age as provided in the Company’s Bylaws, whichever date is earlier;

2. to approve the Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan, which amends and restates the Union First Market Bankshares Corporation 2011 Stock Incentive Plan;

3. to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2015;

4. to hold an advisory (non-binding) vote on executive compensation; and

5. to transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournments or postponements thereof.

All shareholders of record of the Company’s common stock at the close of business on February 25, 2015 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting and any adjournments thereof.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOUR SHARES BE REPRESENTED AND VOTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING. SHAREHOLDERS HAVE A CHOICE OF VOTING BY PROXY CARD, TELEPHONE, OR THE INTERNET, AS DESCRIBED ON YOUR PROXY CARD. CHECK YOUR PROXY CARD OR THE INFORMATION FORWARDED BY YOUR BROKER, BANK, OR OTHER HOLDER OF RECORD TO SEE WHICH OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU. ANY SHAREHOLDER PRESENT AT THE ANNUAL MEETING MAY WITHDRAW HIS OR HER PROXY AND VOTE PERSONALLY ON ANY MATTER PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE ANNUAL MEETING.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on April 21, 2015: A complete set of proxy materials relating to the Company’s Annual Meeting is available on the Internet. These materials, consisting of the Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the proxy statement, including the proxy card, and the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, may be viewed at: http://www.edocumentview.com/UBSH.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Rachael R. Lape
Senior Vice President/General Counsel/Corporate Secretary
March 11, 2015

UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION
PROXY STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM	PAGE
GENERAL		1
ELECTION OF SIX CLASS I DIRECTORS – PROPOSAL 1		2
APPROVAL OF THE UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION STOCK AND INCENTIVE PLAN – PROPOSAL 2		5
RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM –  PROPOSAL 3		15
ADVISORY (NON-BINDING) VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION – PROPOSAL 4		16
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, BOARD LEADERSHIP, AND BOARD DIVERSITY		16
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE		20
CHANGE IN INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM		22
NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS		23
OWNERSHIP OF COMPANY COMMON STOCK		24
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS		26
Introduction		26
Executive Summary		26
Elements of Compensation		27
Compensation Philosophy and Objectives		28
Executive Compensation Administration		28
Elements of Compensation		31
Base Salary		31
Short Term Incentive Compensation		31
Long Term Incentive Compensation		33
Executive Perquisites		35
Executive Agreements		36
Employment Agreements		36
Management Continuity Agreements		38
REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE		39
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION		40
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION		47
DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS		49
INTEREST OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS IN CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS		49
SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE		49
OTHER MATTERS		49
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS		49
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION		50
APPENDIX A – UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION STOCK AND INCENTIVE PLAN		A-1
DIRECTIONS TO ANNUAL MEETING

i

Union Bankshares Corporation

PROXY STATEMENT

ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

APRIL 21, 2015

GENERAL

The enclosed proxy is solicited by the Board of Directors of Union Bankshares Corporation (the “Company”) for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Company to be held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 (the “Annual Meeting”), at the time and place and for the purposes set forth in the accompanying notice of annual meeting of shareholders or any adjournment thereof. An Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials on the Internet was first mailed to shareholders on March 11, 2015; the approximate Internet posting date of the accompanying notice of annual meeting, this proxy statement and accompanying proxy is March 11, 2015.

Voting and Revocation of Proxies

The shares represented by a properly executed proxy received by the Corporate Secretary will be voted as set forth in the proxy. Execution of a proxy will not affect a shareholder’s right to attend the Annual Meeting and to vote in person. Any shareholder who has completed and returned a proxy may revoke it by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person, by submitting a new proxy bearing a later date, or by written notice to the Corporate Secretary. Proxies will extend to, and will be voted at, any adjourned session of the Annual Meeting.

Voting Rights of Shareholders

Only shareholders of record of the Company’s common stock at the close of business on February 25, 2015 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournment thereof. At the close of business on February 25, 2015, there were 45,055,368 shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. A majority of the votes entitled to be cast by the holders of the common stock, represented in person or by proxy, will constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

Each holder of record of the Company’s common stock on the record date will be entitled to one vote for each share registered in his or her name with respect to each matter to be voted upon at the Annual Meeting. Shares for which the holder has elected to abstain or to withhold the proxies’ authority to vote on a matter, and “broker non-votes,” will count toward a quorum, but will not be included in determining the number of votes cast with respect to such matter.

If you own shares that are held in street name, meaning through a brokerage firm, bank, broker-dealer, or other similar organization, and you do not provide the organization that holds the shares with specific voting instructions then, under applicable rules, the organization that holds the shares may generally vote on “routine” matters but cannot vote on “non-routine” matters. If the organization that holds such shares does not receive instructions from you on how to vote your shares on a non-routine matter, that organization will inform the inspector of election that it does not have the authority to vote on this matter with respect to the shares. This is generally referred to as a “broker non-vote.”

The ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2015 (Proposal No. 3) is a matter considered routine under applicable rules. A broker or other nominee may generally vote on routine matters, and therefore no broker non-votes are expected to exist in connection with Proposal No. 3. The election of directors (Proposal No. 1), the approval of the Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan (Proposal No. 2), and the non-binding advisory resolution approving the Company’s executive compensation (Proposal No. 4) are matters considered non-routine under applicable rules. A broker or other nominee cannot vote without instructions on non-routine matters, and therefore broker non-votes may exist in connection with Proposals No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4.

1

Solicitation of Proxies

Solicitation is being made by the Board of Directors by mail and electronic notice and access to the Internet. If sufficient proxies are not returned in response to this solicitation, supplementary solicitations may also be made by mail, telephone, electronic communication or in person by directors, officers and employees of the Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates, none of whom will receive additional compensation for these services. The Company may retain an outside proxy solicitation firm to assist in the solicitation of proxies, but at this time does not have plans to do so. Costs of solicitation of proxies will be borne by the Company.

ELECTION OF SIX CLASS I DIRECTORS — PROPOSAL 1

The Company’s Board of Directors is divided into three classes (I, II and III). The terms of office for the six Class I directors of the Company will expire at the Annual Meeting. All such directors have been nominated for election to continue serving as directors in Class I. If elected, the nominees will serve until the 2018 annual meeting of shareholders or until the director’s mandatory retirement age as provided in the Company’s Bylaws, whichever date is earlier.

Pursuant to the Company’s Bylaws, as amended, no person age 70 or older is eligible to serve on the Board of Directors after the Annual Meeting following his or her 70^th birthday, with the exception of those individuals whom the Board of Directors has determined to be exempt from such bylaw provision. None of the nominees for Class I director is exempt from such bylaw provision. In accordance with the bylaw provision, if elected, Raymond L. Slaughter will serve a one-year term expiring at the 2016 annual meeting of shareholders.

The persons named in the accompanying proxy will vote for the election of all of the nominees for Class I director named below unless authority for a nominee is withheld. If for any reason any person named as a nominee below should become unavailable to serve, an event which management does not anticipate, proxies will be voted for such other person(s) as the Board of Directors may designate.

The nominees receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes cast, in person or by proxy, at the Annual Meeting, will be elected.

Members of the Company’s Board of Directors are expected to have the appropriate skills and characteristics necessary to function in the Company’s current operating environment and contribute to its future direction and strategies. These include legal, financial, management and other relevant skills, as well as varying experience, age, perspective, residence, and background. The Board of Directors believes that each nominee’s qualifications, credentials and business experience, set forth below, provide the reasons why he or she should continue to serve as a director of the Company.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the nominees set forth below.

Class I Nominees for Directors (Nominated to serve until the 2018 annual meeting of shareholders or the director’s mandatory retirement age as provided in the Company’s Bylaws, whichever date is earlier):

Beverley E. Dalton, 66, Altavista, Virginia; Owner and a member of the management team of English Construction Company, Inc., a diversified heavy construction services provider in the Mid-Atlantic region; currently serving a third term on the Town Council of Altavista, Virginia; member of the Board of Lynchburg College; member of the Board of Visitors of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (“Virginia Tech”) from 2004 to 2012; received her B.A. degree in education from the University of Richmond. Ms. Dalton was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne Corporation (“StellarOne”) on January 1, 2014.

Thomas P. Rohman, 60, Midlothian, Virginia; Partner at McGuireWoods, LLP, a global law firm with more than 900 lawyers and 19 offices worldwide; Chairman of the firm’s business tax group and serves on its Board of Partners and its Finance Committee; Adjunct Professor at the T. C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond; Chairman of the Board of Directors of Feed More, Inc. (Central Virginia Food Bank, Meals on Wheels, and the Community Kitchen); joined the Company’s Board of Directors in 2013; received his undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame, his law degree from Michigan State University College of Law, and his LL.M. (Taxation) from the New York University School of Law.

2

Raymond L. Slaughter, 69, Woodford, Virginia; Associate Professor of Accounting at the University of Richmond since 1977; attorney and certified public accountant; joined the Company’s Board of Directors in 2012; serves on the Board of Trustees for Mary Washington Healthcare; served on the Board of Directors of Union First Market Bank from 2004 to 2012; member of the Virginia Board of Accountancy from 1983 to 1988; qualifies as an audit committee financial expert under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regulations; received undergraduate degrees from Kentucky State University and his law degree from Howard University School of Law; received his M.B.A. from University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.

Charles W. Steger, 67, Blacksburg, Virginia; president emeritus of Virginia Tech; President of Virginia Tech from 2000 to 2014; member of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Building Sciences and Chairman of its foundation; Chairman of the Virginia Tech MARG-Swarnabhoomi, India Trust in Chennai, India; member of the Board of Trustees of Randolph-Macon College; member of the Board of Directors of the Virginia Business Higher Education Council; member of the Virginia Western Community College Educational Foundation, Inc. Dr. Steger was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne.

Ronald L. Tillett, 59, Midlothian, Virginia; Managing Director and Head, Mid-Atlantic Public Finance at Raymond James & Associates, Inc., since 2001; State Treasurer, Commonwealth of Virginia, from 1991 to 1996; Secretary of Finance, Commonwealth of Virginia, from 1996 to 2001; Member, Board of Visitors, Christopher Newport University since 2012; Board of Directors, Bon Secours Richmond Health System, 2008 to present; Chairman, Investment Advisory Committee, Virginia College Savings Plans, 2008 to present; Member, Commonwealth Debt Capacity Advisory Committee, 2010 to present; Chairman, Route 460 Funding Corporation; joined the Company’s Board of Directors in 2003; holds Series 7, 53, 63, 79 securities licenses; received his B.S. degree from Virginia Commonwealth University (“VCU”).

Keith L. Wampler, 57, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Chairman of the Board of PBMares, LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a regional public accounting firm with nine offices in Virginia and Maryland; formerly served as Managing Partner of PBGH, LLP, a Virginia based accounting firm that merged with Witt Mares PLC to form PBMares, LLP in January 2013; received his B.S. degree from Bridgewater College. Mr. Wampler was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne.

Information About Directors Whose Terms Do Not Expire This Year

Class III Directors (Elected to serve until the 2017 annual meeting of shareholders):

G. William Beale, 65, Woodford, Virginia; Chief Executive Officer of the Company since February 1, 2010 and President of the Company since October 1, 2013; served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from its inception in 1993 to February 2010; member of the Board of Directors of the Company since its inception in 1993; Chief Executive Officer of Union Bank & Trust, formerly known as Union First Market Bank (“Union Bank & Trust” or the “Bank”) since February 1, 2010; President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Bank and Trust Company from 1991 to 2004; Chair, Virginia Bankers Association, 2006 to 2007; gubernatorial appointment to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, 2008 to 2011; Member, Board of Directors of the American Bankers Association as of October 2010; graduate of The Citadel, majoring in business; attended graduate school of banking at Southern Methodist University.

Gregory L. Fisher, 65, Madison, Virginia; President and Owner of Eddins Ford, Inc., an automobile dealership; served on the Virginia Student Aid Foundation Board of the University of Virginia; served multiple three-year terms on the Washington Area Ford Dealer Advertising Fund Board; received a certification in business from the Jefferson Professional Institute. Mr. Fisher was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne.

Patrick J. McCann, 58, Charlottesville, Virginia; University of Virginia Foundation’s Chief Financial Officer from 2009 to date; private investor; served as Senior Finance Executive for Bank of America-Florida Division from 1998 to 2000; was Corporate Director of Finance from 1996 to 1998 and Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer from 1992 to 1996 for Barnett Banks, Inc.; joined the Company’s Board of Directors in

3

2004; qualifies as an audit committee financial expert under SEC regulations; received his B.S. degree in accounting from Florida State University.

Alan W. Myers, 64, Culpeper, Virginia; Retired; Former Senior Vice President for Omni Services, Inc., a holding company for several subsidiaries, including companies engaged in textile rental, restroom services, first aid supply distribution, and catalog sales of work garments, with 55 locations in 22 states; former Chairman of the Board of Directors of a legacy StellarOne bank; received his B.A. degree in political science from Virginia Tech. Mr. Myers was appointed to the Company’s Board in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne.

Linda V. Schreiner, 55, Richmond, Virginia; Senior Vice President — Human Resources and Communications, MeadWestvaco, a global packaging company, since 2000; member of the Darden School of Business Corporate Advisory Board since 2014; President, ChildSavers Board of Directors since 2014 and member of that Board since 2008; member of the Executive Committee of Venture Richmond from 2006 to 2014; Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Virginia Commonwealth University Rice Center until 2012 and member of that Board since 2008; Senior Manager, Strategy Consulting, Arthur D. Little, Inc. from 1997 to 1999; Vice President, Signet Banking Corporation from 1988 to 1997; joined the Company’s Board of Directors in 2012; received her B.A. degree from the University of Georgia and Masters of Education from the University of Vermont.

Raymond D. Smoot, Jr., 68, Blacksburg, Virginia; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company since January 1, 2014; Retired Chief Executive Officer of the Virginia Tech Foundation, Inc.; former Chairman of the Board of Directors of StellarOne and StellarOne Bank; serves as a director and Chairman of the Audit Committee of RGC Resources, Inc., a publicly traded diversified energy company; member of the Executive Committee and Chairman of the Finance and Investment Committee of Carilion Clinic, a comprehensive health care organization in western Virginia; serves on the Investment Advisory Committee of Harbert Venture Partners; director of the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center; former Chairman of the Board of Directors of a legacy StellarOne bank; received his B.A. and M.S. degrees from Virginia Tech and a Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. Dr. Smoot was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne.

Class II Directors (Elected to serve until the 2016 annual meeting of shareholders):

L. Bradford Armstrong, 67, Richmond, Virginia; Partner and Group Account Director, The Martin Agency, an international advertising agency and marketing services company (subsidiary of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.), since 2007 and Partner from 1994 to 2001; President and Chief Executive Officer, Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, from 2001 to 2006; joined the Company’s Board of Directors in 2010; extensive experience in sales and marketing for more than 35 years; received his B.S. degree in engineering from the University of Virginia and his M.B.A. from its Darden Graduate School of Business.

Glen C. Combs, 68, Roanoke, Virginia; Retired; Former Vice President of Acosta, Inc., a sales, marketing, and service company for grocery retailers; former President of M&M Brokerage, a food brokerage company that was acquired by Acosta Sales; serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations in the Roanoke, Virginia market; Chairman of the Compensation Committee of Friendship Manor, the largest nursing home in Virginia; serves on the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee for Petroleum Marketers, a large distributor of petroleum products in Virginia; received his degree in business administration from Virginia Tech. Mr. Combs was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne.

Daniel I. Hansen, 58, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Corporate Vice President and Corporate Secretary, DeJarnette & Beale, Inc., Bowling Green, Virginia, an independent insurance agency; first elected to the Company’s Board in 2007; first elected to the Board of Directors of Union Bank and Trust Company in 1987 and served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Union Bank and Trust Company from 2003 to 2007; also serves as a director of the Company’s affiliate, Union Mortgage Group, Inc.; received his B.S. degree from Virginia Tech.

4

Ronald L. Hicks, 68, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Vice Chairman of the Board of the Company since January 1, 2014; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company from 1998 to 2013; Of Counsel to Jarrell, Hicks and Sasser, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Chairman of the Board of Directors of Union Bank and Trust Company from 1987 to 2003; has served as a director of the Company since 1993; has also served as a director of Union Mortgage Group, Inc.; received his B.A. degree from Lynchburg College and his law degree from the University of Richmond’s T. C. Williams School of Law.

Jan S. Hoover, 58, Fishersville, Virginia; President of Arehart Associates, Ltd., an accounting services and financial consulting company; more than 30 years of experience providing auditing, accounting, income taxation, and consulting services; qualifies as an audit committee financial expert under SEC regulations; received her B.S. degree from the University of Virginia. Ms. Hoover was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in January 2014 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne.

W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., 82, Warsaw, Virginia; Attorney; Secretary of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia, from 2002 to 2006; Delegate of the Virginia General Assembly from 1982 to 2000; first elected to the Company’s Board of Directors in 1993; first elected to the Board of Directors of Northern Neck State Bank in 1966; President, Board of Trustees of The Menokin Foundation; serves on Board of Trustees of VCU Rice Rivers Center and Board of Trustees of Chesapeake Bay Foundation; received his B.A. degree from Hampden-Sydney College and his law degree from the University of Virginia.

APPROVAL OF THE UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION STOCK AND INCENTIVE PLAN — PROPOSAL 2

The Company is asking shareholders to approve the Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan (also referred to in this proxy statement as the “Amended and Restated SIP” or the “plan”), which amends and restates the Union First Market Bankshares Corporation 2011 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2011 SIP”). The 2011 SIP was approved by shareholders on April 26, 2011. The Amended and Restated SIP was adopted by the Board of Directors, subject to shareholder approval, on January 29, 2015, based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. If approved by the shareholders, the Amended and Restated SIP will become effective as of April 21, 2015.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the approval of the Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan.

The more significant features of the Amended and Restated SIP are described below. The summary below is not complete and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the provisions of the Amended and Restated SIP. To aid your understanding, the full text of the Amended and Restated SIP, as proposed for approval by shareholders, is provided in Appendix A to this proxy statement. In addition, a copy is available online as part of the Company’s proxy statement as filed with the SEC. The SEC’s website address is http://www.sec.gov.

Summary of Amendments

The Amended and Restated SIP includes the following amendments to the 2011 SIP, which have been approved by the Board of Directors, subject to approval of the shareholders at the Annual Meeting:

• renames the plan the “Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan;”

• increases the maximum number of shares that can be granted under the plan (since inception on April 26, 2011) to 2,500,000 shares, an increase of 1,500,000 shares;

• increases the annual per person limits on awards granted under the Amended and Restated SIP;

• identifies specific award types, including restricted stock units, stock awards, performance share units, and performance cash awards and eliminates the catch-all category of “other stock-based awards” under which certain such awards were previously made;

• adds non-employee members of the Board of Directors of the Company and certain subsidiaries, including members of regional advisory boards, as potential participants under the Amended and Restated SIP;

5

• adds specific provisions to enable awards granted under the Amended and Restated SIP to qualify as “performance-based compensation” awards granted under Section 162(m) (“Section 162(m)”) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Internal Revenue Code”), including a list of possible performance goals for such purpose;

• requires a minimum performance period of one year (subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances) for equity awards that are subject to performance criteria;

• modifies the change in control provision to encourage the use of double-trigger acceleration in certain situations;

• adds clawback language; and

• clarifies and updates certain terms and provisions of the Amended and Restated SIP.

The Company believes that increasing the number of shares reserved for issuance is necessary for the Company to continue to offer a competitive compensation program in the future because equity incentive awards, designed to reward long-term growth and profitability and align compensation with shareholder interests, are a fundamental component of the Company’s total compensation program, as discussed further in the section titled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” The Compensation Committee anticipates that the shares of common stock that will be available for new award grants under the Amended and Restated SIP if shareholders approve this proposal will provide the Company with flexibility to continue to grant equity awards under the Amended and Restated SIP for approximately ten years following the Annual Meeting. However, this is only an estimate, in the Company’s judgment, based on current circumstances. The total number of shares awarded in any one year or from year to year may change based on any number of variables, such as the value of the Company’s common stock (since higher stock prices generally require that fewer shares be issued to produce awards of the same grant date fair value), changes in the Company’s equity grant practices, changes in the number of employees, whether and to what extent vesting conditions applicable to equity-based awards are satisfied, acquisition activity and the need to grant awards to new employees in connection with acquisitions, the number of shares that become available for new award grants pursuant to the terms of the plan (for example, as a result of forfeitures), and changes in how the Company chooses to balance total compensation between cash and equity-based awards.

The proposed 2,500,000 aggregate share limit under the Amended and Restated SIP includes the 597,125 shares that have been granted under the 2011 SIP through February 26, 2015. If shareholders approve this proposal, approximately 1,902,875 of the 2,500,000 aggregate share limit under the Amended and Restated SIP would be available for future awards under the plan.

Section 162(m) limits the tax deductibility of compensation paid to certain officers of a public company in a given tax year if it exceeds $1 million, unless it is “performance-based compensation.” Certain types of awards will only qualify as performance-based compensation if they are based on achievement of objective performance goals set by the Compensation Committee and the material terms of the compensation or benefit to be paid, including the performance goals that may be used and the maximum that may be paid to any employee, are disclosed to and approved by shareholders before payment. Approval of the Amended and Restated SIP will constitute shareholder approval of the performance goals and other material terms of the plan, thus satisfying one of the Section 162(m) requirements.

If shareholders approve the Amended and Restated SIP, the Company may grant awards under the Amended and Restated SIP until April 20, 2025. If shareholders do not approve the Amended and Restated SIP, the Company may continue to grant awards under the existing 2011 SIP until December 31, 2021, although the shares remaining available under the 2011 SIP may not be sufficient for the Company’s anticipated future needs and the Company will not be able to use certain tax-effective incentives under Section 162(m) to align the interests of its employees and its shareholders.

Amended and Restated SIP Highlights

The Amended and Restated SIP provides for the grant to key employees and non-employee directors of awards that may include one or more of the following: stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock awards, performance share units and performance cash awards (collectively, the “awards”). The

6

Amended and Restated SIP will enable the Company to continue to ensure that its compensation programs are competitive in attracting, motivating, and retaining high level talent, are commensurate with the Company’s financial performance, and are aligned with the interests of the Company’s shareholders.

Some of the key features of the Amended and Restated SIP that enable the Company to maintain sound governance practices in granting awards include:

• Flexibility to Qualify for Section 162(m) Performance-Based Compensation Tax Treatment:  The Amended and Restated SIP adds provisions necessary for the Company to grant awards intended to qualify for the performance-based compensation exemption from the limitation on corporate tax deductions in Section 162(m).

• Encourages Double-Trigger Acceleration in Certain Change in Control Situations:  The Amended and Restated SIP adds principles that encourage “double-trigger” vesting in certain change in control situations. Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, the Amended and Restated SIP provides that if outstanding awards are assumed, converted, or replaced by the surviving entity in a change in control, the vesting of those awards will only accelerate if the participant’s employment or service is terminated without cause or the participant resigns for good reason within two years after the effective date of the change in control.

• No Liberal Share Recycling:  Under the Amended and Restated SIP, shares of the Company’s common stock used to pay the exercise price of a stock option or to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection with an award will not be added back (recycled) to the aggregate plan limit. In addition, the gross number of shares associated with a stock option exercise, and not just the net shares issued upon exercise, will count against the aggregate plan limit.

• No Discounted Stock Options:  The Amended and Restated SIP prohibits the grant of stock options with an exercise price less than the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the grant date.

• No Repricing of Stock Options:  The Amended and Restated SIP generally prohibits the repricing of stock options without shareholder approval.

• No Dividend-Equivalent Payments on Unearned Performance Awards or on Options:  The Amended and Restated SIP prohibits the payment of dividend equivalents or similar distributions on awards that are subject to performance criteria unless and until such performance criteria have been met. The Amended and Restated SIP also provides that a participant holding a stock option has no right to receive dividends on the shares underlying the option until after the option is exercised.

• Protective Provisions:  The Amended and Restated SIP provides for the forfeiture of outstanding awards upon a participant’s termination for cause and adds provisions subjecting all awards under the plan to the terms of any recoupment, clawback, or similar policy in effect at the Company from time to time.

• Independent Committee Administration:  Awards granted to named executive officers under the Amended and Restated SIP are recommended by the Compensation Committee, which is composed entirely of independent directors.

• Term of Amended and Restated SIP:  No awards may be granted under the Amended and Restated SIP more than ten years from the date of shareholder approval.

Purpose of the Amended and Restated SIP

The purpose of the Amended and Restated SIP is to promote the success of the Company by providing greater incentive to key employees and non-employee directors to associate their personal interests with the long-term financial success of the Company, including its subsidiaries, and with growth in shareholder value, consistent with the Company’s risk management practices. The plan is designed to provide flexibility to the

7

Company in its ability to motivate, attract, and retain the services of key employees and non-employee directors upon whose judgment, interest, and special effort the successful conduct of the Company’s operations largely depends.

Administration

The Amended and Restated SIP will be administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The Compensation Committee has the power to select plan participants and to grant awards on terms the Compensation Committee considers appropriate. In addition, the Compensation Committee has the authority, among other things, to interpret the plan, to adopt, amend, or waive rules or regulations for the plan’s administration, and to make all other determinations for administration of the plan. The Compensation Committee may delegate authority under the Amended and Restated SIP to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and/or Chief Financial Officer, except in the case of awards to the Company’s named executive officers or any individual who is subject to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

Eligibility

The Amended and Restated SIP provides that awards may be granted to key employees and non-employee directors, including members of regional advisory boards, of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Key employees include officers or other employees of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries who, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, can contribute significantly to the growth and profitability of, or perform services of major importance to the Company and its subsidiaries. If shareholders approve this proposal, approximately 150 employees and 29 non-employee directors, as of February 3, 2015, would be eligible to receive awards under the Amended and Restated SIP.

No Repricing

The Amended and Restated SIP prohibits stock option repricing, including by way of exchange for another award (except in connection with a corporate transaction such as a change in control or an event referred to in the Changes in Capitalization and Similar Changes section below) unless the repricing is submitted to and approved by shareholders.

Shares Subject to the Amended and Restated SIP

Subject to approval by shareholders, the aggregate number of shares reserved for issuance under the Amended and Restated SIP is 2,500,000, which is an increase of 1,500,000 shares over the share limit contained in the 2011 SIP. The proposed 2,500,000 aggregate share limit includes the 597,125 shares that have been granted under the 2011 SIP through February 26, 2015. If shareholders approve this proposal, approximately 1,902,875 of the 2,500,000 aggregate share limit under the Amended and Restated SIP would be available for future awards under the plan. As of February 26, 2015, the closing price per share of the Company’s common stock as reported on the NASDAQ market was $22.00. If shareholders do not approve the Amended and Restated SIP, the 1,000,000 aggregate share limit under the 2011 SIP will remain in effect as approved by shareholders in 2011.

In general, if any award granted under the Amended and Restated SIP terminates, expires, or lapses for any reason other than as a result of exercise or settlement, or if shares issued pursuant to an award are forfeited, the shares associated with such award will be available for future awards under the plan. In contrast, any shares withheld by the Company, delivered by the participant, or otherwise used to pay an option exercise price or withholding taxes associated with an award will not be available for future awards under the plan. Further, in the event shares are withheld or delivered in connection with an option exercise, the number of shares available for future awards will be reduced by the gross number of shares to which the exercise relates, rather than the net number of new shares issued upon the exercise.

Annual Limits on Awards

The maximum number of shares with respect to which equity awards may be granted in any calendar year to a participant under the Amended and Restated SIP is 150,000 shares, and the maximum dollar amount of cash awards that may be granted in any calendar year to a participant is $2.5 million.

8

Section 162(m) and Performance Goals

The Amended and Restated SIP is intended to permit the Company to grant awards that qualify as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, as well as awards that do not so qualify.

Under Section 162(m), compensation paid to certain officers of a public company in a given tax year is not deductible if it exceeds $1 million unless it is “performance-based compensation.” Stock options are deemed to be performance-based compensation if the exercise price is at least equal to fair market value of the shares subject to the option on the grant date and if the maximum number of shares of the Company’s common stock available for awards is disclosed to and approved by shareholders. Other awards may be performance-based compensation if they are based on achievement of objective performance goals set by the Compensation Committee and the material terms of the compensation or benefit to be paid, including the performance goals that may be used and the maximum that may be paid to any employee, are disclosed to and approved by shareholders before payment. The Compensation Committee must certify that the applicable performance goals and any other material terms are in fact satisfied.

If shareholders approve the Amended and Restated SIP, the Compensation Committee intends to grant some awards under the plan that constitute performance-based compensation under Section 162(m); however, the Compensation Committee is not required to grant awards under the Amended and Restated SIP that constitute performance-based compensation. The Compensation Committee believes that, in certain circumstances, factors other than tax deductibility may take precedence when determining the forms and levels of executive compensation. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee reserves the right, when appropriate, to approve elements of compensation that are not fully deductible by the Company. Further, there is no guarantee that compensation awarded or paid by the Company that is intended to qualify for deductibility under Section 162(m) will be fully deductible.

Under the Amended and Restated SIP, the Compensation Committee will determine the performance period during which a performance goal must be met, and attainment of any performance goal is subject to certification by the Compensation Committee. Performance goals may include a threshold level of performance below which no payment or vesting may occur, levels of performance at which specified payments or specified vesting will occur, and a maximum level of performance above which no additional payment or vesting will occur.

If shareholders approve this proposal, then under the Amended and Restated SIP, at the Compensation Committee’s discretion, the performance goals for any performance period may be based on one or more of the following: (i) stock value or increases therein; (ii) total shareholder return; (iii) operating revenue; (iv) tangible book value or tangible book value growth, tangible book value per share, or growth in tangible book value per share; (v) earnings per share or earnings per share growth; (vi) fully diluted earnings per share after extraordinary events; (vii) net earnings; (viii) earnings and/or earnings growth (before or after one or more of taxes, interest, depreciation, and/or amortization), operating earnings and/or operating earnings growth; (ix) profits or profit growth (net profit, gross profit, operating profit, economic profit, profit margins, or other corporate profit measures); (x) operating cash flow; (xi) operating or other expenses or growth thereof; (xii) operating efficiency; (xiii) return on equity; (xiv) return on tangible equity or return on tangible common equity; (xv) return on assets, capital, or investment; (xvi) sales or revenues or growth thereof; (xvii) deposits, loan and/or equity levels or growth thereof; (xviii) working capital targets; (xix) assets under management or growth thereof; (xx) cost control measures; (xxi) regulatory compliance; (xxii) gross, operating, or other margins; (xxiii) efficiency ratio (as generally recognized and used for bank financial reporting and analysis); (xiv) interest income; (xxv) net interest income; (xxvi) net interest margin; (xxvii) non-interest income; (xxviii) non-interest expense; (xxix) credit quality, net charge-offs, and/or non-performing assets (excluding such loans or classes of loans as may be designated for exclusion); (xxx) percentage of non-accrual loans to total loans or net charge-off ratio; (xxxi) provision expense; (xxxii) productivity; (xxxiii) customer satisfaction; (xxxiv) satisfactory internal or external audits; (xxxv) improvement of financial ratings; (xxxvi) achievement of balance sheet or income statement objectives; (xxxvii) quality measures; (xxxviii) regulatory exam results; (xxxix) achievement of risk management objectives; (xl) achievement of strategic performance objectives; (xli) achievement of merger or acquisition objectives; (xlii) implementation, management, or completion of critical projects or processes; or (xliii) any

9

component or components of the foregoing. In the Compensation Committee’s discretion, the performance goals may be particular to a participant and applied either individually, alternatively, or in any combination, subset or component, to the performance of the Company as a whole or to the performance of a subsidiary, division, strategic business unit, line of business or business segment, measured either quarterly, annually or cumulatively over a period of years or partial years, in each case as specified by the Compensation Committee in the award. In addition, the performance goals may be absolute in their terms or measured against or in relationship to a pre-established target, the Company’s budget or budgeted results, previous period results, a market index, a designated comparison group of other companies comparably, similarly or otherwise situated, or any combination thereof.

In the Compensation Committee’s sole discretion, performance goals may be adjusted when established, or later, to include or exclude without limitation, the effect of discontinued operations and dispositions of business units or segments, non-recurring items, material extraordinary items that are both unusual and infrequent, non-budgeted items, special charges, accruals for acquisitions, reorganization, and restructuring programs, and/or changes in tax law, accounting principles, or other such laws or provisions affecting the Company’s reported results. However, for an award that is intended to qualify as performance-based compensation, the Compensation Committee may modify or adjust a performance goal only to the extent permitted by Section 162(m).

In any case, in its discretion, the Compensation Committee may also use other performance goals for awards that are not intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m).

Types of Awards under the Amended and Restated SIP

Stock Options.  A stock option entitles the participant to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at the exercise price. Stock options granted under the plan may be incentive stock options or non-qualified stock options; however, non-employee directors are not eligible to receive incentive stock options. The Compensation Committee will fix the exercise price at the time the stock option is granted, but in the case of an incentive stock option the exercise price cannot be less than 100% of the shares’ fair market value on the grant date (or, in the case of an incentive stock option granted to a 10% shareholder of the Company, 110% of the shares’ fair market value on the grant date). The value in incentive stock options, based on the shares’ fair market value on the grant date, that can be exercisable for the first time in any calendar year under the plan or any other similar plan maintained by the Company is limited to $100,000 per participant. The exercise price may be paid in cash, by delivery of shares of common stock having a fair market value at the time of exercise equal to the exercise price, by the Company withholding shares otherwise issuable upon the exercise having a fair market value at the time of exercise equal to the exercise price, or by a combination of the foregoing. Stock options may be exercised at such times and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Compensation Committee, including the requirement that they will not be exercisable after ten years from the grant date.

Restricted Stock Awards.  Restricted stock is stock that is subject to forfeiture and may not be transferred by a participant until the restrictions established by the Compensation Committee lapse. The restrictions may take the form of a period of restriction during which the participant must remain employed or serving on the applicable board or may require the achievement of one or more pre-established performance criteria. Holders of restricted stock will have voting and, unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, dividend rights. Subject to any exceptions authorized by the Compensation Committee, shares of restricted stock will be forfeited if any performance criteria established with respect to such awards are not achieved within the required time period.

Restricted Stock Unit Awards.  A restricted stock unit is an award that is valued by reference to a share of common stock. Payment of the value of restricted stock units may not be made until the restrictions established by the Compensation Committee lapse. The restrictions may take the form of a period of restriction during which the participant must remain employed or serving on the applicable board or may require the achievement of one or more pre-established performance criteria.

Holders of restricted stock units have no right to vote the shares represented by the units. In addition, holders of restricted stock units are not eligible to receive dividend payments on the units (because dividend payments are only available for shares that have been issued and are outstanding). Unless otherwise provided

10

by the Compensation Committee, holders of restricted stock units also have no right to receive dividend equivalents or similar distributions in connection with the units. The Compensation Committee will not permit dividend equivalents or similar distributions to be paid with respect to restricted stock units subject to performance criteria unless and until such performance criteria have been met.

Subject to any exceptions authorized by the Compensation Committee, restricted stock units will be forfeited if any performance criteria established with respect to such awards are not achieved within the required time period.

Payment for vested restricted stock units may be made in cash or shares of common stock or a combination thereof at the time of vesting or, if provided for in the award agreement, on a delayed basis either electively or mandatorily. If paid on a delayed basis, the payment amount may be adjusted for deemed interest or earnings on such basis as the Compensation Committee may provide.

Stock Awards.  Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, a stock award is fully vested and freely transferable as of the date the award is granted, subject to restrictions under applicable federal or state securities laws.

Performance Share Unit Awards.  A performance share unit is a fixed dollar award or an award that is valued by reference to a share of common stock based on performance goals established and certified by the Compensation Committee. Performance share units may be paid in cash or shares of common stock or a combination thereof. Holders of performance share units have no right to vote the shares represented by the units. While holders of performance share units are not eligible to receive actual dividend payments (because dividend payments are only available for shares that have been issued and are outstanding), the Compensation Committee may provide for payment of dividend equivalents with respect to a performance share unit award under such terms and subject to such limitations as the Compensation Committee deems appropriate; however, the Compensation Committee will not permit dividend equivalents to be paid with respect to performance share units unless and until the related performance goals have been met.

Performance Cash Awards.  A performance cash award is a cash award based on performance goals established and certified by the Compensation Committee.

Transferability

In general, stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, and performance share units granted under the Amended and Restated SIP may not be sold, transferred, pledged, assigned, or otherwise encumbered by a participant, other than upon the death of the participant. A participant may designate a beneficiary to receive any award that may be paid or exercised after his or her death. The Amended and Restated SIP does permit, however, the grant of non-qualified stock options that are transferable to certain family members (or certain related trusts or entities), in accordance with applicable securities laws.

Termination of Employment or Service

Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, in the event a participant terminates employment or service due to normal retirement (as defined in the rules of the Company in effect at that time), then provided there is no “cause” to terminate the participant’s employment or service (as defined in the Amended and Restated SIP), and provided further the participant is subject to or executes a non-competition agreement, all options that are not already vested or exercisable will be vested and exercisable, any remaining period of restriction applicable to restricted stock or restricted stock units will terminate, and the achievement or satisfaction of any performance goals applicable to unvested awards during any performance period in effect will be adjusted through the date of termination as determined by the Compensation Committee.

Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, in the event a participant terminates employment or service due to early retirement or good reason (if provided in an applicable agreement), provided there is no cause to terminate the participant’s employment or service, or the Company terminates the participant’s employment or service other than for cause, the Compensation Committee may, in its sole discretion, waive the restrictions on unvested awards and add such new restrictions to such awards as it deems appropriate.

11

Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, in the event a participant’s employment or service is terminated due to death or disability, all options that are not already vested or exercisable will be vested and exercisable, any remaining period of restriction applicable to restricted stock or restricted stock units will terminate, and the achievement or satisfaction of any performance goals applicable to unvested awards during any performance period in effect will be adjusted through the date of termination as determined by the Compensation Committee.

Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, in the event a participant’s employment or service is terminated for cause, the unvested portion and the vested portion not yet paid or exercised of each award held by the participant will be automatically forfeited to the Company and no further exercise of an option will be allowed.

Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, in the event a participant terminates employment or service for any other reason and the change in control provisions do not apply, the unvested portion of each award held by the participant will be automatically forfeited to the Company.

Change in Control

In the event of a “change in control” (as defined in the Amended and Restated SIP), the Compensation Committee may, at the time an award is made or thereafter, take such action as it deems appropriate, in its sole discretion and without the consent of the participant, which may include, without limitation, the following actions: (i) provide for the purchase, settlement, or cancellation of any award by the Company for an amount of cash equal to the amount that could have been obtained upon the exercise of such award or realization of such participant’s rights had such award been currently exercisable or payable; (ii) adjust outstanding awards as the Compensation Committee deems appropriate to retain the economic value of the award; or (iii) cause any outstanding award to be assumed, or new rights substituted therefor, by the acquiring or surviving corporation in such change in control.

In connection with a change in control, the Compensation Committee may provide for acceleration of the vesting, delivery, and exercisability of, and the lapse of time-based and/or performance-based vesting restrictions with respect to, an outstanding award, and for the replacement of a stock-settled award with a cash-settled award. Unless otherwise provided by the Compensation Committee, if an award is assumed by the surviving corporation or otherwise equitably converted or substituted in connection with a change in control, the vesting, delivery, and exercisability of, or the lapse of restrictions on, such award will not be accelerated unless the participant’s employment or service with the Company or a subsidiary is terminated without cause or the participant resigns for good reason under an applicable plan or agreement within two years after the change in control (commonly referred to as “double-trigger” acceleration). The Board of Directors included these principles in the Amended and Restated SIP that encourage the use of double-trigger acceleration for awards that are assumed by the surviving corporation (or otherwise equitably converted or substituted in connection with a change in control) as a good governance practice.

While the Board of Directors recognizes the benefits of double-trigger acceleration in certain change in control circumstances and has included the principles described above for this reason, the Board of Directors also believes it is appropriate to retain flexibility in the specific terms of equity awards granted under the Amended and Restated SIP and to avoid restricting the range of available options for structuring incentive compensation opportunities for the Company’s executives and other employees. The Board of Directors believes that the Compensation Committee, which is composed entirely of independent directors and is advised by an independent compensation consultant, is in the best position to determine when to apply the double-trigger principles described above.

Changes in Capitalization and Similar Changes

As is customary in stock and incentive plans of this nature, in the event of any change in the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock by reason of any stock dividend, stock split, recapitalization, or similar transaction or change in the Company’s capital stock, the aggregate number and kind of shares reserved under the plan, and the exercise price, annual limits, and other relevant provisions will be proportionately, equitably and appropriately adjusted by the Compensation Committee in its discretion. For instance, a two-for-one stock split would generally double the number of shares reserved under the plan.

12

Similarly, a two-for-one stock split would generally double the number of shares covered by each outstanding stock option and reduce the corresponding exercise price by one-half.

Termination of or Changes to the Amended and Restated SIP

The Board of Directors may terminate, amend, or modify the Amended and Restated SIP in any respect without shareholder approval, unless the particular amendment or modification requires shareholder approval under the Internal Revenue Code, the rules and regulations under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations of the exchange on which the Company’s common shares are then listed, by any regulatory body having jurisdiction with respect thereto, or pursuant to any other applicable laws, rules, or regulations. No termination, amendment, or modification of the Amended and Restated SIP, other than in connection with a change in control or capital adjustments pursuant to the plan or as required by applicable law, may adversely affect any awards previously granted under the plan without the participant’s written consent.

Clawback

All awards under the Amended and Restated SIP (whether vested or unvested) will be subject to the terms of any recoupment, clawback, or similar policy in effect at the Company from time to time, as well as any similar provisions of applicable law, which could in certain circumstances require repayment or forfeiture of awards or any shares of common stock or other cash or property received with respect to the awards, including any value received from a disposition of the shares of common stock acquired upon payment of the awards.

Banking Regulatory Provision

All awards will be subject to any condition, limitation, or prohibition under any financial institution regulatory policy or rule to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is subject.

Certain Federal Income Tax Consequences

Options.  A participant who exercises a non-qualified stock option will realize ordinary income in an amount measured by the excess of the fair market value of the shares on the date of exercise over the exercise price. The Company generally will be entitled to a corresponding deduction for federal income tax purposes.

A participant who exercises an incentive stock option will not be subject to taxation at the time of exercise, nor will the Company be entitled to a deduction for federal income tax purposes. The difference between the exercise price and the fair market value of shares on the date of exercise is a tax preference item for purposes of determining a participant’s alternative minimum tax. A disposition of the purchased shares after the expiration of the required holding period (i.e., the later of two years from the grant date or one year from the exercise date) will generate long-term capital gain in the year of disposition, and the Company will not be entitled to a deduction for federal income tax purposes. A disposition of the purchased shares prior to the expiration of the required holding period will subject the participant to taxation at ordinary income rates in the year of disposition, and the Company generally will be entitled to a corresponding deduction.

Restricted Stock.  A participant receiving restricted stock generally will recognize ordinary income in the amount of the fair market value of the restricted stock at the time the stock is no longer subject to forfeiture, less the consideration paid for the stock (if any).

However, a participant may elect, under Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code within 30 days of the grant of the stock, to recognize taxable ordinary income on the grant date equal to the excess of the fair market value of the shares of restricted stock (determined without regard to the restrictions) over the amount of any purchase price of the restricted stock. Thereafter, if the shares are forfeited, the participant will be entitled to a deduction, refund, or loss, for tax purposes only, in an amount equal to any purchase price of the forfeited shares regardless of whether the participant made a Section 83(b) election. With respect to the sale of shares after the forfeiture period has expired, the holding period to determine whether any gain or loss is long term or short term begins when the forfeiture period expires, and the tax basis for such shares generally will be based on the fair market value of such shares on such date. However, if the participant makes an election under Section 83(b), the holding period will commence on the grant date, the tax basis will be equal to the fair market value of shares on such date (determined without regard to restrictions), and the Company

13

generally will be entitled to a federal income tax deduction equal to the amount that is taxable as ordinary income to the participant in the year that such income is taxable. Dividends paid on restricted stock generally will be treated as compensation that is taxable as ordinary income to the participant and will be deductible by the Company when paid. If, however, the participant makes a Section 83(b) election, the dividends will be taxable as ordinary income to the participant but will not be deductible by the Company.

Stock Awards.  A participant receiving an unrestricted stock award is required to include the fair market value of the shares received as ordinary compensation income upon receipt in an amount equal to the fair market value of the shares received. The Company will be entitled to a federal income tax deduction in the corresponding amount at that time. For each share of common stock received, the taxation of the post-receipt appreciation or depreciation is treated as either a short term or long term capital gain or loss, depending upon the length of time the participant held the shares.

Restricted Stock Units and Performance Share Units.  A participant will not realize income in connection with the grant of a restricted stock unit or the credit of any dividend equivalents to his or her account or the grant of a performance share unit. When shares of common stock and/or cash is delivered to the participant, the participant generally will be required to include as taxable ordinary income in the year of receipt, an amount equal to the amount of cash and the fair market value of any shares received. The Company will be entitled to a federal income tax deduction at the time and in the amount included in the participant’s income by reason of the receipt. For each share of common stock received in respect of a restricted stock unit or performance share unit, the taxation of the post-settlement appreciation or depreciation is treated as either a short term or long term capital gain or loss, depending upon the length of time the participant held the shares of common stock.

Performance Cash Awards.  A participant will not recognize any taxable income at the time a performance cash award is granted. When the terms and conditions to which a performance cash award is subject have been satisfied and the award is paid, the participant will recognize as ordinary income the amount of cash he or she receives. The Company generally will be entitled to a federal income tax deduction equal to the amount of ordinary income the participant recognizes.

Section 409A.  Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 409A”) imposes certain requirements on non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements, including requirements with respect to an individual’s election to defer compensation and the individual’s selection of the timing and form of distribution of the deferred compensation. Section 409A also generally provides that distributions must be made on or following the occurrence of certain events (e.g., the individual’s separation from service, a predetermined date, or the individual’s death). Section 409A imposes restrictions on an individual’s ability to change his or her distribution timing or form after the compensation has been deferred. For certain individuals who are officers, Section 409A requires that such individual’s distribution commence no earlier than six months after such officer’s separation from service.

Under current Internal Revenue Service guidance, certain awards under the Amended and Restated SIP are excluded from non-qualified deferred compensation to which Section 409A applies. These excluded awards are stock options under which shares of the Company’s common stock are issued, restricted stock, restricted stock units that are paid at or shortly after vesting, and performance share unit awards that are paid at or shortly after vesting. Other awards under the Amended and Restated SIP may be treated as non-qualified deferred compensation to which Section 409A applies, and in such case it is generally the Company’s intent that such awards be designed to comply with the election timing, payment timing, and other requirements of Section 409A.

If an award is subject to and fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 409A, the recipient of that award will recognize ordinary income on the amounts deferred under the award, to the extent vested, which may be prior to when the compensation is actually or constructively received. Also, if an award that is subject to Section 409A fails to comply with the provisions of Section 409A, Section 409A imposes an additional twenty percent (20%) federal income tax on compensation recognized as ordinary income, as well as possible interest requirements with respect to such amounts, and will have certain withholding requirements.

14

The foregoing is only a summary of the effect of federal income taxation upon the Company and upon participants, is not complete and does not discuss the tax consequences of any participant’s death or the income tax laws of any municipality, state, or foreign country in which a participant may reside. The foregoing is not legal advice or tax advice.

New Plan Benefits

No determination has yet been made as to the awards, if any, that any individuals who would be eligible to participate in the Amended and Restated SIP will be granted in the future and, therefore, the benefits to be awarded under the Amended and Restated SIP are not determinable.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table summarizes information, as of December 31, 2014, relating to the Company’s existing equity compensation plans.

	Year Ended December 31, 2014
	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights (A)		Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights (B)		Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (A)) (C)(1)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders		389,269	$	16.69		480,773
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders		—		—		—
Total		389,269	$	16.69		480,773

(1) Consists of shares available for future issuance under the 2011 SIP as of December 31, 2014 and does not reflect the 1,500,000 increase in the number of shares available under the Amended and Restated SIP if shareholders approve the Amended and Restated SIP at the Annual Meeting.

Vote Required

Approval of the Amended and Restated SIP requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast, in person or by proxy, at the Annual Meeting with respect to this proposal. Abstentions and broker non-votes are not included in determining the number of votes cast with respect to this proposal and therefore will have no effect on the outcome of this proposal.

Approval of the Amended and Restated SIP by shareholders will constitute approval of the material terms of the Amended and Restated SIP, including the performance-based awards, the performance goals that may be used and the maximum benefit that may be paid to any employee for purposes of Section 162(m).

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the approval of the Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan.

RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM — PROPOSAL 3

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, under Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act and the committee’s charter, has the sole authority to appoint or replace the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”) as the independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Company’s financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2015. The Audit Committee seeks shareholder ratification of this appointment. Prior to E&Y’s appointment, Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P. C. (“YHB”) served as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. See “Change In Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” on page 22. We do not expect that a representative of YHB will be present at the Annual Meeting. A representative from E&Y is expected to be present at the Annual Meeting, will have the opportunity to make a statement if he or she desires to do so, and is expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.

15

A majority of the votes cast, in person or by proxy, at the Annual Meeting, is required for the ratification of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm.

Should the shareholders not ratify the selection of E&Y, it is contemplated that the appointment of E&Y will be permitted to stand unless the Audit Committee finds other compelling reasons for making a change. Disapproval by the shareholders will be taken into consideration for the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm for the coming year.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015.

ADVISORY (NON-BINDING) VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — PROPOSAL 4

As part of implementing the “say on pay” requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), pursuant to applicable rules, the SEC requires a separate and non-binding shareholder vote to approve the compensation of the named executive officers in the proxy statement. This proposal, commonly known as a “say on pay” proposal, gives shareholders the opportunity to endorse or not endorse a company’s executive pay program. At the Company’s 2011 annual meeting of shareholders, the shareholders voted in favor of having an advisory (non-binding) vote on executive compensation every year, as recommended by the Company’s Board of Directors. Accordingly, shareholders of the Company are being asked to approve the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the shareholders of Union Bankshares Corporation approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the tabular disclosure regarding named executive officer compensation, and the accompanying narrative disclosure in this proxy statement.”

This is an advisory vote only. Approval of the proposed resolution requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast, in person or by proxy, at the Annual Meeting.

The Company believes its compensation policies and procedures are strongly aligned with the long term interests of its shareholders. Because your vote is advisory, it will not be binding upon the Board of Directors. However, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors will take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future executive compensation decisions.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the approval of the “say on pay” resolution set forth above.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, BOARD LEADERSHIP, AND BOARD DIVERSITY

The Board of Directors and Board Meetings

Each director is expected to devote sufficient time, energy and attention to ensure diligent performance of the director’s duties and to attend all regularly scheduled Board of Directors, committee, and shareholder meetings. Each director, other than Mr. Beale, has been deemed by the Board of Directors to be an “independent director” as such term is defined in Rule 5605(a)(2) of the Marketplace Rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”). In making this determination, the Board of Directors has concluded that none of these members has a relationship that, in the opinion of the Board of Directors, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director.

There were eight regular meetings of the Board of Directors in 2014. Each director attended 75% or more of the aggregate number of meetings of (i) the Board of Directors held during the period for which he or she was a director in 2014; and (ii) the committees of the Board of Directors of which he or she was a member in 2014. Fees were paid to the non-employee directors in accordance with the Company’s director compensation schedule.

Board Structure and Leadership

In connection with the Company’s acquisition of StellarOne and pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, dated June 9, 2013, between the Company and StellarOne, effective as of the January 1, 2014 acquisition date, the Company appointed eight former directors of StellarOne to serve on the

16

Company’s Board of Directors, and Dr. Smoot was appointed Chairman of the Board of Directors. Mr. Hicks, who had served as Chairman of the Board of Directors since 1998, was appointed Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors effective on January 1, 2014 but continues to serve on the Company’s Executive Committee; Mr. Murphy, who had served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors since 2002, stepped down as Vice Chairman on January 1, 2014 but continues to serve on the Executive Committee; Mr. Hicks has served on the Company’s Executive Committee since 1998; Mr. Murphy has served on the Company’s Executive Committee since 2001; Dr. Smoot and Messrs. Beale, McCann, Tillett, and Wampler also serve on the Company’s Executive Committee. To date, the Company has chosen not to combine the positions of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman. The Company believes that its leadership structure is appropriate because by having an outside independent Chairman and Vice Chairman, there exists a certain degree of control and balanced oversight of the management of the Board’s functions and its decision making processes.

The President and Chief Executive Officer makes frequent reports to the Board of Directors, often at the suggestion of the Chairman or other directors; he also explains in detail to the Board of Directors the reasons for certain recommendations of the Company’s executive management group.

Board Committees

The Board of Directors has a standing Executive Committee, Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and Risk Committee. Brief summaries of these standing committees follow.

Executive Committee.  The Executive Committee is composed of G. William Beale, Chairman, Ronald L. Hicks, Patrick J. McCann, W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Raymond D. Smoot, Jr., Ronald L. Tillett, and Keith L. Wampler. The committee, which is subject to the supervision and control of the Board of Directors, has been delegated substantially all of the powers of the Board of Directors to act between meetings of the Board of Directors, except for certain matters reserved to the Board of Directors by law. Mr. Beale serves as Chairman of the Executive Committee because of his day-to-day management responsibilities, which include identifying issues that require either the involvement of the Executive Committee or the full Board of Directors during interim periods between regularly scheduled Board of Directors meetings. Mr. Beale is well suited to convene such meetings with proper notices in an expeditious and efficient manner. There were twelve meetings of the Executive Committee in 2014; fees were paid to the non-employee directors who attended these meetings.

Audit Committee.   The Audit Committee is composed of Patrick J. McCann, Chairman, Daniel I. Hansen, Jan S. Hoover, and Raymond L. Slaughter. The functions of the committee are to oversee the accounting and financial reporting processes of the Company and audits of the Company’s financial statements, to engage the independent registered public accounting firm, to approve the scope of the independent registered public accountants’ audit, to review the reports of examination by the regulatory agencies, the independent registered public accountants, and the Company’s internal auditors, and to issue its reports to the Board of Directors. All members of the Audit Committee are “independent directors” as defined by applicable NASDAQ and SEC rules. Mr. McCann, Ms. Hoover, and Mr. Slaughter each qualify as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the regulations of the SEC; all Audit Committee members have significant financial experience in accordance with applicable NASDAQ rules. The Audit Committee met ten times in 2014; fees were paid to the director attendees in accordance with the Company’s director compensation fee schedule. The committee’s charter is on the Company’s website at: http://investors.bankatunion.com.

Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee consists of Ronald L. Tillett, Chairman, Glen C. Combs, Ronald L. Hicks, and Linda V. Schreiner. All members of the Compensation Committee are “independent directors” as defined by applicable NASDAQ rules. The primary functions of this committee are to review and recommend the compensation to be paid to the President and Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers of the Company, and to review and comply with compensation rules and regulations applicable to the Company under the Dodd-Frank Act and certain SEC disclosure rules. This committee also reviews, approves, and administers all incentive compensation plans for the benefit of persons eligible to participate in such plans. The Compensation Committee met seven times in 2014; fees were paid to the director attendees in accordance with the Company’s director compensation fee schedule. The committee’s charter is on the Company’s website at: http://investors.bankatunion.com.

17

Risk Committee.  The Risk Committee was formed in 2014 and consists of Keith L. Wampler, Chairman, L. Bradford Armstrong, Beverley E. Dalton, Alan W. Myers, and Raymond L. Slaughter. All members of the Risk Committee are “independent directors” as defined by applicable NASDAQ rules. The primary functions of this committee are to assist the Board of Directors in its oversight of the Company’s management of financial, operational, information technology (to include cyber risk), credit, market, capital, liquidity, reputation, strategic, legal, compliance and other risks; and to oversee the Company’s enterprise risk management framework. The Risk Committee met ten times in 2014; fees were paid to the director attendees in accordance with the Company’s director compensation fee schedule. The committee’s charter is on the Company’s website at: http://investors.bankatunion.com.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.  The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee consists of W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Chairman, Gregory L. Fisher, Thomas P. Rohman, and Charles W. Steger. All members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are “independent directors” as defined by applicable NASDAQ rules. The primary function of this committee is to evaluate and recommend individuals as nominees for election or reelection to the Board of Directors of the Company. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee identifies potential director nominees and reviews each nominee’s experience and background, conducting interviews as it deems appropriate. The committee also monitors the composition of the Board of Directors to ensure that it has the appropriate experience, skill sets and diversity, and provides guidance to the Board of Directors on a broad range of corporate governance issues. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee met six times in 2014; fees were paid to the director attendees in accordance with the Company’s director compensation fee schedule. The committee’s charter is on the Company’s website at: http://investors.bankatunion.com.

Consideration of Board Diversity

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers diversity in assessing the composition of the Board of Directors. The committee’s charter includes the following language:

“Board Membership Criteria
The Committee members will work together and with the Board, as appropriate, to determine the appropriate characteristics, skills, and experience required for consideration for any potential nominee, including, for example: independence; integrity; high standards of personal and professional ethics; sound business judgment; a general understanding of finance and other disciplines relevant to the success of a publicly traded bank holding company; educational and professional backgrounds; personal accomplishments; individual qualities and attributes that will contribute to Board heterogeneity; age, gender, ethnic, and geographic diversity. The objective of the Committee’s recommending any nominee or group of nominees is to put forward such persons who will help the Company remain successful and represent the shareholders’ interests through the exercise of sound business judgment and the diversity of experiences. In determining whether to recommend a director for re-election, the Committee will consider the director’s past attendance at meetings and his/her participation in and contribution to the activities of the Board and its committees.”

When considering any potential nominee to serve on the Board of Directors, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers several factors, such as the nominee’s professional experience, service on other boards, education, race, gender, and the geographic areas where the individual resides or works.

Further, as stated in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines under Board Membership Criteria:

“Members of the Board...are expected to have the appropriate skills and characteristics necessary to function in the Company’s current operating environment and contribute to its future direction and strategies. These include legal, financial, management and other relevant skills, as well as varying experiences, ages, judgments, residences and backgrounds.”

The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on the Company’s website at: http://investors.bankatunion.com.

18

Shareholder Nominations

Although the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has no formal policy with respect to the consideration of director candidates recommended by shareholders, the committee will consider candidates for directors proposed by shareholders in writing. Such written submissions should include the name, address, and telephone number of the recommended candidate, along with a brief statement of the candidate’s qualifications to serve as a director. All shareholder recommendations should be submitted to the attention of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors, Union Bankshares Corporation, 1051 East Cary Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219, and must be received by November 12, 2015 to be considered by the committee for the next annual election of directors. Any candidate recommended by a shareholder will be reviewed and considered in the same manner as all other director candidates considered by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The committee received no director candidates from any shareholder relating to the Annual Meeting.

In addition, any shareholder may nominate a person for election as director at an annual meeting if notice of the nomination is given in advance in writing and sets forth the information required by Section 4 of Article I of the Company’s Bylaws with respect to each director nomination that a shareholder intends to present at the annual meeting. Notice of any such shareholder nomination must be addressed to the Company’s Corporate Secretary and delivered personally to, or mailed to and received at, Union Bankshares Corporation, 1051 East Cary Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219, on or before February 10, 2016 for the next annual election of directors.

Board Members Serving on Other Publicly Traded Company Boards of Directors

Dr. Smoot currently serves as a director of RGC Resources, Inc., a publicly traded diversified energy company.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

All members of the Compensation Committee are independent directors and none of them is a present or past employee or officer of the Company or its subsidiaries.

During 2014 and up to the present time, there were transactions by certain members of the Compensation Committee, or their associates, and one or both of Union Bank & Trust, the Company’s wholly owned bank subsidiary; and StellarOne Bank, the Company’s wholly owned bank subsidiary that merged with and into Union Bank & Trust in 2014, all consisting of extensions of credit by such bank in the ordinary course of its business. Each transaction was made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates, collateral and repayment terms, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with the general public. In the opinion of management, none of the transactions involves more than the normal risk of collectibility or presents other unfavorable features.

Shareholder Communication

Shareholders may communicate with all or any member of the Board of Directors by addressing correspondence to the “Board of Directors” or to the individual director and addressing such communication to: Union Bankshares Corporation, Attention: Corporate Secretary, 1051 East Cary Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219. All communications so addressed will be forwarded to the Chairman of the Board of Directors (in the case of correspondence addressed to the “Board of Directors”), or to the individual director. All of the current directors of the Company attended the 2014 annual meeting of shareholders. Consistent with the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, all directors are expected to attend the Annual Meeting and each should be available to shareholders to discuss Company matters. The Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on the Company’s website at: http://investors.bankatunion.com.

19

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee’s 2014 Report to the Shareholders, which follows, was approved and adopted by the Audit Committee on February 24, 2015. The Board of the Company has a standing Audit Committee that consists of the independent directors whose names appear at the end of this report.

While management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the Company’s system of internal controls, the Audit Committee monitors and reviews the Company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. The role and responsibilities of the Audit Committee are set forth in a written charter adopted by the Board. The Audit Committee reviews and reassesses its charter periodically and recommends any changes to the Board for approval. Under applicable law, the selection of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is the sole responsibility of the Audit Committee.

The Audit Committee considers the quality, qualification, capacity and level of service of the firm, prior to reappointment. The results of all Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”) examinations are discussed with registered public accountants, Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P. C. (“YHB”), as part of this process. The Audit Committee also provides input to the independent registered public accounting firm with regards to engagement partner selection.

The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is responsible for performing independent audits of the Company’s consolidated financial statements and its internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB and to issue reports thereon. The Audit Committee monitors and oversees these processes. The Audit Committee relies on the work and assurances of the Company’s management, which has the primary responsibility for financial statements and reports, and of the independent registered public accounting firm, which, in its reports, expresses an opinion on the conformity of the Company’s consolidated annual financial statements to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and whether the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2014.

In this context, the Audit Committee met and held discussions with management and representatives of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, YHB, with respect to the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2014. Management represented to the Audit Committee that the consolidated financial statements of the Company were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the consolidated financial statements with management and the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee also discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by PCAOB Auditing Standard AU Section 380, “Communication with Audit Committees,” and Rule 2-07 of Regulation S-X promulgated by the SEC, as modified or supplemented.

In addition, the Audit Committee discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the auditors’ independence from the Company and its management, and the independent registered public accounting firm provided to the Audit Committee the written disclosures and letter required by PCAOB Rule 3526, “Communication with Audit Committees Regarding Independence.”

The Audit Committee also discussed with the Company’s internal auditors and the independent registered public accounting firm the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Audit Committee met with the internal auditors and the independent registered public accounting firm, with and without management in attendance, to discuss the results of their examinations, the evaluations of the internal controls of the Company, and the overall quality of the financial reporting of the Company. This included the Audit Committee’s monitoring the progress of remediation of noted control deficiencies, until resolved.

20

Principal Accounting Fees

The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, YHB, billed the following fees for services provided to the Company during 2014 and 2013:

	2014		2013
Audit fees(1)	$	495,850	$	316,763
Audit-related fees(2)		22,750		31,916
Tax fees(3)		—		—
All other fees		—		—
Total	$	518,600	$	348,679

(1) Audit fees: Audit and review services, consents, review of documents filed with the SEC, including the 2014 proxy statement; the Union Mortgage Group, Inc. stand alone audit in compliance with governmental auditing standards; attestation regarding the adequacy of internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; attest report on internal controls under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act; assistance with and consent to the Form S-4 registration statement filed in connection with the acquisition of StellarOne Corporation (S-4 filed in 2013).

(2) Audit-related fees: Audits of employee benefit plans; consultation concerning research, financial accounting, reporting standards, and other related issues.

(3) Tax fees: No tax services are performed by YHB.

The Audit Committee notes that YHB performed no services to the Company, other than those enumerated above, for 2014 and 2013. As a result, the Audit Committee has determined that the provision of these services by YHB is compatible with maintaining the firm’s independence from the Company. Any engagement beyond the scope of the annual audit engagement is required to be pre-approved by the Audit Committee. There were no adjustments to fees billed by YHB in 2014 or 2013.

Based on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors has approved, that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 for filing with the SEC.

Respectfully submitted by the members of the Audit Committee,

Patrick J. McCann, Chairman
Daniel I. Hansen
Jan S. Hoover
Raymond L. Slaughter

21

CHANGE IN INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

On February 24, 2015, the Audit Committee approved the selection of Ernst & Young LLP to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015. The selection of E&Y is effective as of February 27, 2015. On February 24, 2015, the Company notified Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C. that it had been dismissed as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm effective as of February 27, 2015. The decision to change the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm was approved by the Company’s Audit Committee.

YHB performed audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013. The audit reports of YHB on the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 did not contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principles.

During the two fiscal years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and from January 1, 2015 through February 27, 2015, (i) there were no disagreements with YHB on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedures that, if not resolved to YHB’s satisfaction, would have caused YHB to make reference in connection to their opinion to the subject matter of the disagreement and (ii) there were no “reportable events” as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K of the SEC.

YHB has furnished a letter to the SEC dated February 27, 2015 stating that it agrees with the above statements.

During the two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and from January 1, 2015 through February 27, 2015, neither the Company nor anyone on its behalf consulted E&Y regarding the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s financial statements, and no written report or oral advice was provided to the Company that E&Y concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue. During the two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and from January 1, 2015 through February 27, 2015, neither the Company nor anyone on its behalf consulted E&Y regarding any matter that was the subject of a disagreement or reportable event as defined in Regulation S-K, Item 304(a)(1)(iv) and Item 304(a)(1)(v), respectively.

On February 27, 2015, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC with respect to the above referenced change in the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

22

NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following persons, each of whom is an executive officer of the Company, are sometimes referred to in this proxy statement as the “named executive officers,” or the “NEOs.”

Name (Age)	Title and Principal Occupation During at Least the Past Five Years
G. William Beale (65)	Chief Executive Officer of the Company since February 1, 2010 and President of the Company since October 1, 2013; President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from 1993 to February 1, 2010; Chief Executive Officer of Union Bank & Trust, the Company’s wholly owned bank subsidiary, formerly known as Union First Market Bank, since February 1, 2010; President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Bank and Trust Company from 1991 to 2004.
Robert M. Gorman (56)	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company since joining the Company in July 2012; previously with SunTrust Banks, Inc. as Senior Vice President and Director of Corporate Support Services in 2011 and Senior Vice President and Strategic Financial Officer from 2002 until 2011.
John C. Neal (65)	President of Union Bank & Trust since March 2010 and Executive Vice President of the Company since 2005; Chief Banking Officer of the Company from 2005 to 2012; President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Bank and Trust Company from 2004 to March 22, 2010; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Union Bank and Trust Company from 1997 to 2004; joined Union Bank and Trust Company in 1991 as a Vice President. Mr. Neal serves on the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta.
D. Anthony Peay (55)	Executive Vice President of the Company and, since April 1, 2012, Chief Banking Officer of Union Bank & Trust; Chief Financial Officer of the Company from 1994 to June 2012; Executive Vice President of the Company since 2003.
Elizabeth M. Bentley (54)	Executive Vice President since 2007 and Chief Retail Officer of Union Bank & Trust; Senior Vice President from 2005 to 2007; Vice President from 2002 to 2005; joined the Company in 1998 as an Assistant Vice President.

23

OWNERSHIP OF COMPANY COMMON STOCK

The following table sets forth, as of February 25, 2015, certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of the Company’s common stock held by (a) each director and director-nominee of the Company, (b) each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section below, (c) each holder of more than five percent of common stock, and (d) by all the directors and the executive officers of the Company as a group.

Name of Beneficial Owner	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership(1)			Percent of Class
Named Executive Officers and Directors:
L. Bradford Armstrong		10,122	(2)			*
G. William Beale		195,532	(2)(3)			*
Glen C. Combs		43,246	(2)			*
Beverley E. Dalton		12,211	(3)			*
Gregory L. Fisher		12,708				*
Daniel I. Hansen		140,301	(2)			*
Ronald L. Hicks		103,139	(2)			*
Jan S. Hoover		15,145				*
Patrick J. McCann		15,497	(2)			*
W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.		157,190	(2)			*
Alan W. Myers		21,138				*
Thomas P. Rohman		2,337				*
Linda V. Schreiner		3,820				*
Raymond L. Slaughter		12,135	(2)			*
Raymond D. Smoot, Jr.		26,777	(3)			*
Charles W. Steger		11,645	(3)			*
Ronald L. Tillett		23,845				*
Keith L. Wampler		14,243				*
Robert M. Gorman		8,070				*
John C. Neal		69,355	(3)			*
D. Anthony Peay		63,325	(2)(3)			*
Elizabeth M. Bentley		35,153	(3)			*
All executive officers and directors as a group:
(25 persons)		1,050,414	(2)(3)		2.3	%
5% Shareholders:
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP Building One 6300 Bee Cave Road Austin, Texas 78746		2,554,556	(4)		5.7	%
Vaughan Nelson Investment Management L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 6300 Houston, Texas 77002		2,671,357	(5)		5.9	%
BlackRock, Inc. 55 East 52nd Street New York, New York 10022		2,567,482	(6)		5.7	%

(footnotes appear on following page)

24

(footnotes to table on previous page)

 * Represents less than 1% of the Company’s common stock.

(1) For purposes of this table, beneficial ownership has been determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13d-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 under which, in general, a person is deemed to be the beneficial owner of a security if he has, or shares, the power to vote, or direct the voting, of the security or the power to dispose of, or direct, the disposition of the security, or if he has the right to acquire beneficial ownership of the security within 60 days.

(2) Includes shares held by affiliated corporations, close relatives and dependent children, or as custodians or trustees, as follows: Mr. Armstrong, 4,471 shares; Mr. Beale, 28,465 shares; Mr. Combs, 9,777 shares; Mr. Hansen, 29,696 shares; Mr. Hicks, 12,919 shares; Mr. McCann, 201 shares; Mr. Murphy, 2,772 shares; Mr. Peay, 100 shares; Mr. Slaughter, 10,534 shares.

(3) Includes shares that may be acquired pursuant to currently exercisable stock options granted under the Company’s equity compensation plans as follows: Mr. Beale, 39,486 shares; Ms. Dalton, 1,346 shares; Dr. Smoot, 1,346 shares; Dr. Steger, 1,346 shares; Mr. Neal, 15,490 shares; Mr. Peay, 18,042 shares; Ms. Bentley, 13,006 shares.

(4) This information is based on a Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, which reported sole voting power over 2,447,589 shares, sole dispositive power over 2,554,556 shares and shared dispositive power over 0 shares.

(5) This information is based on a Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, which reported sole voting power over 2,049,625 shares, sole dispositive power over 2,427,600 shares and shared dispositive power over 243,757 shares.

(6) This information is based on a Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2015, which reported sole voting power over 2,463,717 shares, sole dispositive power over 2,567,482 shares and shared dispositive power over 0 shares.

25

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This section of the proxy statement provides an overview and explanation of the material information relevant to understanding the objectives, policies, and the philosophy underlying the Company’s compensation programs for its executives, focusing on the NEOs:

• G. William Beale, President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Company

• Robert M. Gorman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the Company

• John C. Neal, Executive Vice President of the Company and President, Union Bank & Trust (“Bank President”)

• D. Anthony Peay, Executive Vice President of the Company and Chief Banking Officer, Union Bank & Trust (“CBO”)

• Elizabeth M. Bentley, Executive Vice President of the Company and Chief Retail Officer, Union Bank & Trust (“CRO”)

In this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Company’s executive officers, including the NEOs, are sometimes referred to as the “Executive Group.”

This section also informs shareholders about certain incentive compensation plans as well as components of compensation paid to the NEOs. Following the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Company provides additional information relating to executive and director compensation in a series of tables, including important explanatory footnotes and narrative. The Summary Compensation Table is incorporated by reference into this Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

At the 2014 annual meeting of shareholders, the shareholders voted to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s NEOs, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the tabular disclosure regarding such compensation, and the accompanying narrative disclosure, set forth in the Company’s 2014 proxy statement. Excluding abstentions and broker non-votes, the vote was 31,194,074 shares “For” (94.6% of the shares voted) and 1,771,535 shares “Against” (5.4% of the shares voted).

The Compensation Committee took into account the result of the shareholder vote in determining executive compensation policies and decisions since the 2014 annual meeting. The Compensation Committee viewed the vote as an expression of the shareholders’ overall satisfaction with the Company’s current executive compensation programs. While the Compensation Committee considered this shareholder satisfaction in determining to continue the Company’s executive compensation programs for 2014 and into 2015, decisions regarding incremental changes in individual compensation were made in consideration of the factors described below.

Executive Summary

The Company’s compensation programs are designed to link the compensation that its NEOs receive through the Company’s various incentive plans to its financial performance. In making compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee considers market practices and compensation levels, the Company’s performance and good governance practices. The Company’s goal is to ensure that its compensation programs are competitive in attracting, motivating, and retaining high level executive talent, commensurate with its financial performance, and are aligned with the interests of its shareholders.

Each compensation element is generally targeted to the median of “market,” which is defined through the use of a select peer group and survey data that the Compensation Committee deems comparable. The incentive programs are designed so that superior financial performance should result in pay higher than the Company’s peers while substandard financial performance should result in pay lower than its peers.

26

Below are highlights of the Company’s executive compensation programs for 2014:

• Base salaries of the NEOs were adjusted to reflect the median of market data of an amended peer group that more closely resembled the Company’s asset size following the StellarOne acquisition in January 2014.

• Payments under the Company’s short term incentive compensation plan, known as the Management Incentive Plan or “MIP,” were made to the NEOs ranging from 15% to 23% of base salary. These payouts reflected above target achievement of corporate goals related to non-performing assets and merger savings in the StellarOne acquisition, and no payouts associated with below target performance with respect to net income and total loan goals.

• Equity awards were made in the form of time-based restricted stock and performance-based shares.

• Previously granted performance-based shares with a performance measurement date of December 31, 2013 did not vest in 2014 as a result of the relative Return on Assets and Return on Equity goals set for the awards not being achieved.

• Cash awards were paid to reward the NEOs, other than the CEO, for their contribution to the StellarOne acquisition.

These actions are in addition to the other best practices embedded in the Company’s executive compensation programs that ensure that the Compensation Committee maintains effective governance and oversight of the programs. For example:

• Claw-back provisions in the MIP allow the Company to recoup any excess incentive compensation paid to the NEOs under the MIP if the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company with any financial reporting requirement under applicable securities laws.

• The Company uses a structured, formulaic process for determining the amount of annual short term incentive cash compensation.

• Equity programs reward performance over a three or four-year time horizon.

• Stock ownership guidelines align the interests of management with the interests of shareholders.

• Performance-based share awards deliver value to executives according to pre-determined financial metrics.

• Annually, the Company’s Internal Audit Department evaluates the Company’s compensation plans as part of its enterprise risk management reviews. The Compensation Committee reviews the audit report as part of its effort to ensure the compensation plans do not encourage imprudent risk taking.

• The Company uses the services of an independent compensation consultant.

Elements of Compensation

What are the elements of compensation for the NEOs and other members of the Executive Group and how does the Company set the amount for each element in association with the pay strategy?

Annually, the Compensation Committee evaluates the elements of executive compensation. For 2014, the principal components of compensation for members of the Executive Group were:

• Base Salary:  Paid to recognize the day-to-day duties and responsibilities of the Company’s executives. Individual base salary determinations involve consideration of market competitiveness, incumbent qualifications, performance, and service longevity.

• Short Term Performance-Based Cash Incentive Opportunity:  Consistent with competitive practices, the executives have a portion of their targeted annual total cash compensation at risk, contingent upon meeting the Company’s corporate goals and the executive’s personal objectives.

27

• Long Term Incentive Opportunity — Time-Based Restricted Stock and Performance-Based Shares:  Executives who are critical to the Company’s long term success participate in long term incentive opportunities that link a significant portion of their total compensation to increasing shareholder value.

Generally, the Compensation Committee targets base salary compensation and the various percentages used to calculate short and long term incentive opportunities at the 50^th percentile of the selected peer group market data, using prevailing industry practices as a guide.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

What is the Company’s overall executive compensation philosophy?

The “total compensation philosophy” underlying the executive compensation program is to provide competitive, market-based total compensation programs that are tied to the Company’s business strategy and performance, and are aligned with the interests of its shareholders.

Within this framework, the Company observes the following principles:

• Attract and retain highly qualified executives:  Executive officers have base salaries that are market competitive with the Company’s identified industry peer group and permit the Company to hire and retain high quality individuals at all levels. The Company recognizes that by retaining high quality executives, its customers and shareholders will benefit from their expertise, high performance, and service longevity.

• Pay for performance:  Performance-related cash incentive compensation for executives that varies with annual Company performance. Executives are rewarded for achieving the Company’s operational and financial goals and providing a growing return to the shareholders.

• Reward long term growth and profitability:  Executive officers are rewarded through equity-based incentive compensation for the critical execution and achievement of long term results, and such rewards are aligned with the interests of the Company’s shareholders.

• Align compensation with shareholder interests:  The interests of the Company’s executive officers are linked with those of its shareholders through the risks and rewards of the ownership of the Company’s common stock.

What is the mix of cash and equity-based compensation for the NEOs?

Generally, the targeted mix of cash and equity-based compensation for the NEOs is on average 56% for base salary, 22% for annual cash incentives, and 22% for long term equity incentives. Incentive compensation for an individual executive may become a larger percentage of that person’s total direct compensation when he or she assumes significant responsibilities and has a significant impact on the financial or operational success of the Company.

Executive Compensation Administration

What is the Compensation Committee’s role with respect to executive compensation?

The Compensation Committee follows its charter (which is on the Company’s website at http://investors.bankatunion.com) and met seven times during 2014. The principal duties of the Compensation Committee are to:

• review and recommend to the Board of Directors for approval the compensation of the CEO and the other NEOs, taking into consideration the CEO’s compensation recommendations for them. The CEO does not deliberate in regard to his own pay and is not present during discussions concerning his pay;

• provide continuous oversight of executive compensation plans and adherence to the Company’s overall compensation philosophy;

• review and ensure compliance with the compensation rules and regulations applicable to the Company under the Dodd-Frank Act and certain SEC disclosure rules;

28

• approve the MIP corporate goals and objectives relevant to the Executive Group and evaluate each executive’s performance against these goals and objectives;

• recommend to the Board of Directors the compensation components for each member of the Executive Group; and

• review and recommend to the Board of Directors the appropriate level and type of compensation for service by non-employee members of the Board and Board committees.

Has the Compensation Committee retained and worked with an independent executive compensation consultant?

Yes; during 2014, the Compensation Committee retained the services of Pearl Meyer & Partners, LLC (“PM&P”), an independent executive compensation consulting firm, to provide comprehensive consulting services, including to:

• provide information regarding base salary ranges and recommendations for executives;

• review the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of the proxy statement;

• assist in developing goals for the short and long term incentive plans;

• update the Compensation Committee about regulatory matters and trends;

• provide feedback to the Compensation Committee regarding the incentive compensation plan for commercial loan officers;

• assist with the development of 2015 executive compensation decisions; and

• attend Compensation Committee meetings.

In addition, during 2014, the Compensation Committee relied on the services of Troutman Sanders LLP (“Troutman”), an independent law firm, to provide advisory services, including:

• provide information and advice on amendments to the 2011 SIP;

• update the Compensation Committee about regulatory matters and trends related to equity-based compensation;

• attend Compensation Committee meetings as needed;

• assist in drafting the amendment and restatement of the 2011 SIP; and

• assist in drafting and finalizing the shareholder proposal to approve the amendment and restatement of the 2011 SIP, as included in this proxy statement.

PM&P reports directly to the Compensation Committee and does not provide any other services to the Company. Troutman provides other services to the Company including advice on securities law, corporate governance, litigation, regulatory matters, and other commercial and transactional matters. The Compensation Committee has analyzed whether the work of both PM&P and Troutman have raised any conflicts of interest, taking into consideration the following factors, among others: (i) the provision of other services to the Company by both PM&P and Troutman; (ii) the amount of fees from the Company paid to PM&P and Troutman as a percentage of their respective total revenues; (iii) PM&P’s and Troutman’s policies and procedures that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationship of PM&P, Troutman, the individual compensation advisors employed by PM&P or the individual attorneys employed by Troutman with an executive officer of the Company; (v) any business or personal relationship of the individual compensation advisors or attorneys with any member of the Compensation Committee; and (vi) any stock of the Company owned by PM&P, Troutman, the individual compensation advisors employed by PM&P or the individual attorneys employed by Troutman. The Compensation Committee has determined, based on its analysis of the above factors, among others, that the work of PM&P, Troutman and the individual compensation advisors and attorneys employed by PM&P and Troutman as compensation consultants or advisors to the Company has not created any conflicts of interest.

29

What is the process the Compensation Committee uses to make executive compensation decisions?

The Compensation Committee reviews relevant market data and analyses provided by PM&P, its independent executive compensation advisor, confers with the Company’s Chief Audit Executive, and seeks the advice of other key executives, including the CEO, the CFO, and the Director of Human Resources. As a result of its work, the Compensation Committee recommends to the Board of Directors the annual base salaries and the short and long term incentive opportunity levels for the NEOs. The Compensation Committee considers the current economic and industry environment, as well as any merger activity of the Company, during its deliberative process.

How is risk considered in the development of the Company’s compensation programs?

The Company’s Internal Audit Department annually evaluates all compensation plans as part of its enterprise risk management reviews. The department reviews the performance metrics, approval mechanisms and related characteristics of the Company’s compensation policies and programs for all employees, including salaries, incentive plans, bonuses, sales incentives, stock options, restricted stock awards, and performance stock awards to determine whether any of these policies or programs could create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company or its affiliates. To date, these reviews have found the Company’s compensation plans do not present undue risk. In addition, the Compensation Committee regularly reviews incentive compensation arrangements and consults with the Company’s senior risk officers whenever appropriate to ensure that such arrangements do not encourage the NEOs to take unnecessary and excessive risks that could threaten the value of the Company.

What peer group did the Compensation Committee use as a guide during 2014?

In August 2013, in anticipation of the acquisition of StellarOne, the peer group was revised to reflect the Company’s new asset size after the acquisition. During 2014, the Compensation Committee compared the principal elements of total direct compensation against this new peer group of publicly traded U. S. banks with assets as of the 2^nd quarter of 2013 ranging from approximately 50% to 200% of the Company’s larger asset size. The companies comprising the peer group as of December 31, 2014 were:

1st Source Corporation	MB Financial, Inc.
BancFirst Corporation	National Penn Bancshares, Inc.
BancorpSouth, Inc.	Old National Bancorp
Chemical Financial Corporation	Park National Corporation
F.N.B. Corporation	Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation	S&T Bancorp, Inc.
First Financial Bancorp.	South State Corporation
First Financial Bankshares, Inc.	Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.	TowneBank
Heartland Financial USA, Inc.	Trustmark Corporation
IBERIABANK Corporation	United Bankshares, Inc.
International Bancshares Corporation	WesBanco, Inc.

What factors did the Compensation Committee consider in selecting the peer group?

The Compensation Committee considered the “compatibility” and “comparability” of each company when selecting the 2014 peer group. The Compensation Committee reviewed, among other things, each peer company’s asset size, earnings, geographical locations, organizational structure and governance, numbers of employees, numbers of branch offices, and service offerings. The Compensation Committee regularly reviews, evaluates, and adjusts the peer group when assessing and determining compensation so that its decisions are thoughtful, fair, and within the parameters of similarly situated institutions. The Compensation Committee also considers the peers used by proxy advisory firms to ensure reasonable overlap.

30

What survey data did the Compensation Committee use as a guide during 2014?

Positions were matched based on job duties using the appropriate scope for asset size. The survey data used in the executive compensation review primarily included national data from the following:

• Pearl Meyer & Partners, 2013 National Banking Compensation Survey Report;

• Kenexa, 2013 CompAnalyst;

• McLagan, 2013 Regional and Community Banks; and

• Additional proprietary survey sources.

Elements of Compensation

For 2014, the principal components of compensation for members of the Executive Group were:

• base salary;

• performance-based short term incentive compensation in the form of cash; and

• long term incentive compensation in the form of time-based restricted stock and performance-based shares.

These and other elements of compensation are described below and are detailed in the Summary Compensation Table and the other tables following this Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

Base Salary

Effective March 1, 2014, the NEOs received market adjustments to reflect the median of market data of the previously described peer group that more closely resembled the Company’s asset size after the StellarOne acquisition. The base salaries for 2014 were:

	2014 Base Salary
G. William Beale	$	679,021
Robert M. Gorman	$	344,000
John C. Neal	$	349,986
D. Anthony Peay	$	303,983
Elizabeth M. Bentley	$	263,011

Short Term Incentive Compensation

Consistent with competitive practices, the executives have a portion of their targeted annual total cash compensation at risk, contingent upon meeting the Company’s corporate goals and individual performance objectives.

The MIP is the Company’s short term incentive compensation plan. The MIP is an annual plan that begins each January 1, the first day of the Company’s fiscal year.

• The Compensation Committee administers the MIP and has final authority with respect to all matters or disputes relating to the plan.

• Award payouts range from 0% to 150% of the executives’ target opportunity based on achieving certain levels of performance.

• Currently, the aggregated awards to the MIP participants may not exceed 2.8% of the Company’s annual net income unless the Compensation Committee deems otherwise.

The plan includes a claw-back provision, which states that if the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, the participants shall reimburse the Company for any excess incentive payment that would otherwise not have been made had the Company’s financial performance been reported correctly.

31

What performance measures were used in the 2014 MIP?

The corporate performance measures and weightings outlined below were derived based on the 2014 corporate budget. The CEO presented the recommendations to the Compensation Committee for discussion and approval.

The Compensation Committee reviewed and approved the 2014 corporate performance measures and weightings of the MIP. This review included:

• reviewing quantitative data and making qualitative decisions regarding performance in light of events affecting the Company from an economic, regulatory, and operational perspective;

• establishing a net income goal by using a return on equity target set by the Compensation Committee; and

• setting the return on equity target, for which the Compensation Committee reviewed the Company’s 2014 budget, peer group return on equity, and peer group return on assets performance.

Performance Measures	Weighting
Net Income		40	%
Non-Performing Assets		15	%
Total Loans		25	%
StellarOne Merger Savings		20	%
		100	%

What were the incentive opportunities and the component weightings for the NEOs in 2014?

Taking into consideration the recommendations of PM&P, its independent compensation consultant, and the CEO’s recommendations for the other NEOs, the Compensation Committee assigns each NEO an incentive award target as a percentage of year end base salary. The Compensation Committee also assigns each NEO a weighting between the corporate and individual/divisional goals.

Listed below are each NEO’s targeted percentages and weightings for the 2014 MIP:

Name	Target as a Percentage of Base Salary			Corporate Goal Weighting			Individual/ Divisional Goal Weighting
G. William Beale		50	%		80	%		20	%
Robert M. Gorman		40	%		80	%		20	%
John C. Neal		30	%		60	%		40	%
D. Anthony Peay		40	%		80	%		20	%
Elizabeth M. Bentley		30	%		80	%		20	%

What award payouts did the NEOs receive under the 2014 MIP?

Payout on the MIP corporate goal weighting is formulaic and based on actual corporate results versus budget. The following table shows the targets as established and the Company’s performance against those goals.

Performance Measures	Weighting			Achievement %			Payout %
Net Income		40.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
Non-Performing Assets		15.0	%		150.0	%		22.5	%
Total Loans		25.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
StellarOne Merger Savings		20.0	%		108.6	%		21.7	%
		100.0	%					44.2	%

32

The NEOs have a portion of their MIP payouts based on individual/divisional goals. The payout is based on a combination of actual business results versus budget and CEO discretion. The CEO determines whether the NEO met his/her individual goals for the plan year and provides the information to the Compensation Committee as needed to inform the applicable recommendations and decisions.

The final award amounts below were approved by the Compensation Committee and the Company’s Board of Directors in February 2015 and paid in March 2015.

	Payout		% of Base Salary
G. William Beale	$	120,094		18	%
Robert M. Gorman	$	79,289		23	%
John C. Neal	$	54,104		15	%
D. Anthony Peay	$	49,727		16	%
Elizabeth M. Bentley	$	39,916		15	%

Did the NEOs receive any special cash awards in 2014?

On January 1, 2014, the Company acquired StellarOne Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, StellarOne Bank. To reward the NEOs other than the CEO for their contribution to the StellarOne acquisition, in February 2014, the CEO recommended and the Compensation Committee approved the below cash awards which were paid in March 2014.

	Amount
Robert M. Gorman	$	17,000
John C. Neal	$	10,000
D. Anthony Peay	$	12,000
Elizabeth M. Bentley	$	12,000

In addition, in lieu of any remaining relocation benefit due to Mr. Gorman, such as real estate and brokerage fees for the sale of his home, he also received a net cash payment of $12,000 in December 2014.

Long Term Incentive Compensation

Long term incentive compensation is provided to members of the Executive Group to reward the executives for the critical execution and achievement of long term results and to align their interests with those of the Company’s shareholders. The Compensation Committee approves long term incentive compensation awards annually, usually at its February meeting. The Compensation Committee does not time the approval of awards based on information, either positive or negative, about the Company that has not been publicly disseminated.

In making long term incentive compensation determinations, the Compensation Committee considers in its discretion the following:

• the Company’s performance relative to peers;

• industry-specific survey results;

• the data and opinions offered by PM&P, the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant;

• the Company’s earnings, growth, and risk management practices and results; and

• in determining the type of award to be granted, the accounting and tax treatment of the award for both the Company and the recipient.

What is the 2003 Stock Incentive Plan?

The 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (“2003 SIP”) is the Company’s former equity compensation plan used for granting stock awards to eligible employees of the Company and its subsidiaries in the form of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights and restricted stock. The 2003 SIP terminated on

33

June 30, 2013, and no awards were made after that date. Awards made prior to the 2003 SIP’s termination date, and outstanding on that date, remain valid in accordance with their terms.

What is the Company’s current equity compensation plan?

The Company’s current equity compensation plan is the 2011 SIP. The 2011 SIP was adopted by the Board of Directors on November 2, 2010 and became effective January 1, 2011, as approved by the shareholders on April 26, 2011. The 2011 SIP makes available up to 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for granting stock awards in the form of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, restricted stock, and other stock-based awards to eligible employees of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Compensation Committee administers the 2011 SIP and it has discretion with respect to determining whether, when, and to whom stock options, restricted stock, and other stock based awards may be granted. The Compensation Committee also determines the terms and conditions for each such award, including any vesting schedule. As of December 31, 2014, there were 480,773 shares remaining in the 2011 SIP for specific grants and awards.

On January 29, 2015, the Board of Directors voted to amend and restate the 2011 SIP as set forth in the Amended and Restated SIP. The Amended and Restated SIP will become effective as of April 21, 2015 if approved by the Company’s shareholders at the Annual Meeting on that date. The Amended and Restated SIP increases the maximum number of shares that can be granted under the plan (since inception on April 26, 2011) from 1,000,000 to 2,500,000, an increase of 1,500,000 shares. It also identifies specific award types, including restricted stock units, stock awards, performance share units, and performance cash awards and eliminates the catch-all category of “other stock-based awards” under which certain such awards were previously made. The Amended and Restated SIP also amends the former plan (i) to provide for the qualification of performance-based awards as exempt under the compensation limit of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code; (ii) to encourage the use of double-trigger acceleration of equity awards in certain situations; and (iii) to add non-employee members of the Board of Directors of the Company or any subsidiary thereof, including members of regional advisory boards, as potential recipients of awards under the plan. See “Approval of the Union Bankshares Corporation Stock and Incentive Plan — Proposal 2” for a description of the Amended and Restated SIP.

How are the members of the Executive Group, including the NEOs, granted awards under the Company’s long term incentive plans?

Beginning in 2013, the Compensation Committee amended its long term incentive compensation plan to use restricted stock for the portion of the award that in the past had been granted using stock options. The Compensation Committee believed that the combination of restricted stock coupled with meaningful stock ownership requirements would reduce the risk profile of the awards while ensuring that executives are focused on shareholder value and the long term success of the Company. The plan is comprised of two components:

• 50% of the executive’s target long term incentive value is to be awarded as a restricted stock award vesting ratably over four years; and

• 50% of the executive’s target long term incentive value is to be awarded as performance shares.

The number of shares is calculated using the per share closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ market on the date of approval by the Board of Directors.

Executives may earn the performance share portion of their awards by achieving certain metrics as established by the Compensation Committee. Since 2010, the number of shares to be awarded at the end of the period is based on the relative return on equity and return on assets of the Company versus an index of U.S. banks traded on major exchanges over a three-year performance period. The U.S. banks included in this index were compiled by PM&P for the Compensation Committee’s review and approval and range from 50% to 200% of the Company’s asset size. With respect to the plan for the period January 2014 through December 2016, asset size will be determined as of December 31, 2016.

34

What awards were made to the NEOs in 2014 under the 2011 SIP?

As part of a long term incentive plan for the period January 2014 through December 2016, on February 27, 2014, the Compensation Committee approved and recommended to the Board of Directors, which in turn approved, awards of restricted stock and a performance share opportunity to the NEOs, as listed below:

	Restricted Stock		Performance Share Opportunity
G. William Beale		6,712		6,712
Robert M. Gorman		2,720		2,720
John C. Neal		2,076		2,076
D. Anthony Peay		2,404		2,404
Elizabeth M. Bentley		1,560		1,560

What are the NEO Stock Ownership Guidelines?

As adopted in 2013, the stock ownership guidelines support the objective of increasing the amount of Company common stock owned by NEOs to further align the interests of management with the interests of shareholders, and to ensure that the NEOs have a significant stake in the organization’s long term success. The guidelines were developed based on a review of competitive market practice as conducted by the independent executive compensation advisor to the Compensation Committee. The stock ownership guidelines establish stock ownership levels for the NEOs as follows:

CEO — three times base salary

Bank President and CBO — two times base salary

Other NEOs — one times base salary

The guidelines state that each executive should achieve the designated level of stock ownership within five years. For the CEO and the other current NEOs, the five-year period began January 1, 2013; for a new NEO, the five-year period will begin on January 1 of the year following his or her date of hire or identification as an NEO.

Each NEO’s stock ownership level is reviewed annually by the Company and the Compensation Committee. As of the April 2014 review, all NEOs with the exception of Mr. Gorman had already met their respective stock ownership levels. Mr. Gorman is in compliance with the stock ownership guidelines and expected to achieve his recommended stock ownership level by January 31, 2018. Prior to meeting the guidelines, he is required to retain 50% of the shares received as a result of vesting or exercise of awards granted under the Company’s equity compensation plans.

What health, welfare, or other benefits do the members of the Executive Group receive?

All members of the Executive Group are eligible to participate in the health and welfare benefit programs available to all of the Company’s employees. These programs include medical, dental, and vision coverages, short and long term disability plans, and life insurance. All members of the Executive Group are also participants in the Employee Stock Ownership Plan sponsored by the Company.

Are there any other programs under which the members of the Executive Group may receive benefits?

Yes; the Company has a 401(k) profit sharing plan and all members of the Executive Group participate in this plan and are fully vested in their own contributions. The Company’s discretionary matching contributions vest pro-ratably and are fully vested after each plan participant has completed five years of service.

Executive Perquisites

The Company provides limited perquisites to members of its Executive Group. The Company provides to Mr. Beale an automobile, which is used primarily for business purposes, and covers the automobile’s related expenses; Mr. Beale’s membership dues for the Fredericksburg Country Club, the Farmington Country Club in Charlottesville, Virginia and The Commonwealth Club in Richmond, Virginia are also paid by the Company.

35

The Company pays the rent for an apartment for Mr. Beale in Richmond, and Mr. Beale pays all other costs associated with this apartment, such as utilities, insurance, and furnishings. Mr. Neal’s membership dues for the Fredericksburg Country Club are paid by the Company. Messrs. Peay, Neal, and Ms. Bentley each receive monthly car allowances. All members of the Executive Group currently have mobile devices, which are used for business purposes and are paid for by the Company (in accordance with the Company’s cell phone policy).

What decisions have been made in respect to NEO compensation for 2015?

In February 2015, the Compensation Committee met and approved new base salaries for the NEOs, which were approved by the Board of Directors on February 26, 2015 as follows:

	2015 Base Salary
G. William Beale	$	679,021
Robert M. Gorman	$	352,600
John C. Neal	$	358,736
D. Anthony Peay	$	311,583
Elizabeth M. Bentley	$	269,586

These new salaries reflect a 0% increase for Mr. Beale and a 2.5% increase for the other NEOs. No changes were made to their respective short-term or long-term incentive opportunity targets.

Executive Agreements

Were there agreements relating to executive compensation in 2014?

The Company has entered into employment agreements and “change in control,” or what it calls management continuity agreements, with certain employees. For Messrs. Beale, Peay, and Neal, these agreements were amended and restated in 2006; they were further amended and restated as of December 31, 2008 to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Peay’s employment agreement was amended on April 1, 2012 to address his change in role from Chief Financial Officer to Chief Banking Officer. Ms. Bentley’s agreements are dated as of October 24, 2011. Mr. Gorman’s agreements are dated as of July 17, 2012; Mr. Gorman’s management continuity agreement was amended and restated as of December 7, 2012 to remove his ability to receive severance payments and other benefits following a voluntary termination of his employment for any reason during a 45-day period beginning on the one year anniversary date of the change in control transaction. These agreements are described in more detail below.

Employment Agreements

G. William Beale.  As of December 31, 2008, to effectuate compliance with Section 409A, the Company entered into an amended and restated employment agreement with G. William Beale pursuant to which the Company agrees to employ Mr. Beale as President and Chief Executive Officer. The agreement supersedes and replaces the employment agreement between the Company and Mr. Beale that was entered into in 2006 providing for his employment as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. On February 1, 2010, the Company and Mr. Beale agreed to an amendment to the agreement to clarify Mr. Beale’s position as Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

Mr. Beale’s agreement, which has an initial term of three years, provides that beginning on the commencement of the employment period under the agreement, and on each day thereafter, the term of the agreement will automatically be extended an additional day, unless the Company gives notice that the employment term will not thereafter be extended.

Mr. Beale’s base salary and the recommendations of the Compensation Committee are reviewed annually by the Board of Directors. Mr. Beale is entitled to annual cash bonuses and stock-based awards in such amounts as may be determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of the applicable short and long term incentive compensation plans adopted on an annual basis by the Compensation Committee and approved by the Board of Directors.

The Company may terminate Mr. Beale’s employment at any time for “Cause” (as defined in the agreement) without incurring any additional obligations to him. If the Company terminates Mr. Beale’s

36

employment for any reason other than for “Cause” or if Mr. Beale terminates his employment for “Good Reason” (as defined in the agreement), the Company will generally be obligated to continue to provide the compensation and benefits specified in the agreement for two years following the date of termination. Upon the termination of his employment, Mr. Beale will be subject to certain noncompetition and nonsolicitation restrictions.

If Mr. Beale dies while employed by the Company, the Company will continue to pay Mr. Beale’s designated beneficiary, or his estate, as applicable, an amount equal to Mr. Beale’s then current base salary for six months after Mr. Beale’s death. If Mr. Beale is terminated as a result of his disability as determined pursuant to the agreement, then certain restrictions imposed by the agreement shall not apply after he ceases to be employed by the Company.

The agreement will terminate in the event that there is a change in control of the Company, at which time the Amended and Restated Management Continuity Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2008, between the Company and Mr. Beale, will become effective and any termination benefits will be determined and paid solely pursuant to the Amended and Restated Management Continuity Agreement.

Robert M. Gorman.  The Company entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Gorman effective as of July 17, 2012; this agreement contains substantially similar terms as and is modeled after Mr. Neal’s employment agreement. The Company and Mr. Gorman also entered into a Management Continuity Agreement effective as of July 17, 2012, which agreement is substantially similar to that of Mr. Neal, except that (i) Mr. Gorman does not have the right to receive severance payments and other benefits following a voluntary termination of his employment for any reason during a 45-day period beginning on the one year anniversary date of the change in control transaction; and (ii) Mr. Gorman’s agreement does not include a tax gross up provision. Mr. Gorman’s agreement has an initial term of two and-a-half years, and will be automatically renewed annually for an additional calendar year upon the expiration of the initial term unless the Company gives notice that the employment term will not be extended. Mr. Gorman’s employment agreement will terminate in the event there is a change in control of the Company, at which time the Management Continuity Agreement will become effective and any termination benefits will be determined and paid solely pursuant to that agreement.

D. Anthony Peay and John C. Neal.  The Company also entered into amended and restated employment agreements with Messrs. Peay and Neal as of December 31, 2008, again to effectuate compliance with Section 409A; these agreements contain substantially similar terms as and are modeled after Mr. Beale’s Agreement. These agreements supersede and replace the employment agreements Messrs. Neal and Peay entered into in 2006. Each agreement has an initial term of two years, and, similar to Mr. Beale’s Agreement, each is renewed automatically for an additional day during the term unless the Company gives notice that the employment term will not be extended. Similar to Mr. Beale’s Agreement, each agreement with Messrs. Peay and Neal will terminate in the event there is a change in control of the Company, at which time the Amended and Restated Management Continuity Agreements between Messrs. Peay and Neal and the Company, respectively, will become effective and any termination benefits will be determined and paid solely pursuant to those agreements.

Elizabeth M. Bentley.  The Company entered into an employment agreement with Ms. Bentley effective as of October 24, 2011; this agreement contains substantially similar terms as and is modeled after Mr. Neal’s employment agreement. The Company and Ms. Bentley also entered into a Management Continuity Agreement effective as of October 24, 2011, which agreement is substantially similar to that of Messrs. Gorman, Neal and Peay. Ms. Bentley’s employment agreement will terminate in the event there is a change in control of the Company, at which time the Management Continuity Agreement will become effective and any termination benefits will be determined and paid solely pursuant to that agreement.

The Executive Group/Potential Post-employment Payments.  Estimated potential payments to members of the Executive Group, upon the termination of their employment, including a termination following a change in control, if applicable, are set forth in the Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change In Control table.

37

Management Continuity Agreements

As stated above in the section describing their employment agreements, the Company has separate agreements with Messrs. Beale, Gorman, Peay, Neal, and Ms. Bentley that become effective upon a change in control of the Company. Under the terms of each of these agreements, the Company or its successor is required to continue in its employ Messrs. Beale, Gorman, Peay, Neal, and Ms. Bentley for a term of three years after the date of a change in control (as defined in the respective management continuity agreements). According to certain provisions, these Executive Group members will retain commensurate authority and responsibilities and compensation benefits. They will receive base salaries at least equal to those paid in the immediate prior year and bonuses at least equal to the annual bonuses paid prior to the change in control. If the employment of any of these five executives is terminated during the three years other than for cause or disability (as defined in the respective management continuity agreements), or if any of them should terminate employment because a material term of his or her agreement is breached by the Company, such terminating executive will be entitled to a lump sum payment, in cash, not later than the first day of the seventh month after the date of termination; for Mr. Beale, this lump sum will be equal to 2.99 times the sum of Mr. Beale’s base salary, plus his highest annual bonus paid or payable for the two most recently completed years, plus any of his pre-tax reductions or compensation deferrals for the most recently completed year; for 24 months following the date of termination, he will also continue to be covered under all health and dental plans, disability plans, life insurance plans and all other welfare benefit plans of the Company in which he or his dependents were participating immediately prior to the date of termination. Similarly, for each of Messrs. Gorman, Peay, Neal, and Ms. Bentley, the lump sum cash payment will be equal to 2.00 times the sum of his or her respective base salary, plus his or her highest annual bonus paid or payable for the two most recently completed years, plus any of his or her pre-tax reductions or compensation deferrals for the most recently completed year; for 24 months following the date of termination, Messrs. Gorman, Peay, Neal, and Ms. Bentley will also continue to be covered under all health and dental plans, disability plans, life insurance plans and all other welfare benefit plans of the Company in which the executive or his or her dependents were participating immediately prior to the date of termination.

Does the Company have any other plans or agreements, not already discussed above, that relate to any other form of compensation for the executives listed in the Summary Compensation Table?

Yes; the Company and certain members of the Executive Group are parties to certain separate agreements, each of which is known commonly as a split dollar life insurance agreement; some of these agreements are referred to as “BOLI” agreements. The acronym “BOLI” means “bank owned life insurance.” Generally, under each split dollar or BOLI agreement, the Company has applied to a reputable insurance company for an insurance policy on the executive’s life. The insured executive is requested to designate his or her beneficiary upon death. A death benefit will be paid to the executive’s designated beneficiary, or to his or her estate, as may be applicable, under the provisions of the applicable agreement, and a death benefit will also be paid to the Company. Any death benefit paid to the Company will be in excess of any death benefit paid to the insured executive’s designated beneficiary.

The Company has entered into BOLI agreements with certain NEOs on three occasions, in 2000, 2005, and 2013. With respect to the first occasion (2000), the Company’s BOLI agreements with Messrs. Beale, Peay, and Neal, and the respective death benefit for each such executive’s designated beneficiary or estate, include a benefit equal to 3.0 times each executive’s respective annual compensation as of the date of termination. With respect to the second occasion (2005), Messrs. Beale, Peay, Neal, and Ms. Bentley each have a separate BOLI agreement with a death benefit equal to $100,000. With respect to the third occasion (2013), Messrs. Beale, Gorman, Peay, and Neal, and Ms. Bentley each have a separate BOLI agreement with a death benefit equal to $100,000.

38

Does the Company have any split dollar life insurance or BOLI agreements with any employees other than the members of the Executive Group?

Yes; the Company has other split dollar life insurance or BOLI agreements with numerous other employees who are not considered to be members of the Executive Group. Generally, the BOLI agreements contain provisions that are substantially similar to the above-described BOLI agreements that the Company has with the Executive Group members. BOLI agreements were entered into in 2000, 2005, 2013, and 2014. In addition, four split dollar agreements were entered into on two occasions (2001 and 2003) for four employees of the former First Market Bank, FSB who are not members of the Executive Group.

REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis that appears above in this proxy statement. Based on its reviews and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and incorporated by reference into the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Respectfully submitted by the members of the Compensation Committee,

Ronald L. Tillett, Chairman
Ronald L. Hicks
Linda V. Schreiner
Glen C. Combs

39

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Summary Compensation Table

The following Summary Compensation Table provides information on the compensation accrued or paid by the Company or its subsidiaries during the years indicated for the CEO, CFO, the Bank President, the CBO, and the CRO.

Name and Principal Position	Year		Salary ($)		Bonus ($)		Stock Awards(1) ($)		Option Awards(1) ($)		Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation (MIP)(2) ($)		Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings(3) ($)		All Other Compensation(4) ($)		Total ($)
G. William Beale(5) President and Chief Executive Officer, Union Bankshares Corporation		2014		679,021		—		339,493		—		120,094		—		79,922		1,218,530
		2013		477,142		—		240,124		—		101,145		17,815		66,949		903,174
		2012		457,716		—		117,716		117,716		199,195		16,126		56,169		964,638
Robert M. Gorman(6) EVP/Chief Financial Officer, Union Bankshares Corporation		2014		344,000		—		137,578		—		79,289		—		24,312		585,178
		2013		253,333		17,000		142,000		—		52,729		—		7,023		472,085
		2012		110,577		—		—		—		38,779		—		1,050		150,406
John C. Neal EVP, Union Bankshares Corporation/President, Union Bank & Trust		2014		349,986		—		105,004		—		54,104		—		43,680		552,774
		2013		295,637		10,000		89,257		—		47,133		—		43,498		485,525
		2012		288,912		—		43,762		43,762		73,374		—		40,707		490,516
D. Anthony Peay EVP, Union Bankshares Corporation/Chief Banking Officer, Union Bank & Trust		2014		303,983		—		121,594		—		49,727		—		30,078		505,382
		2013		272,806		12,000		109,840		—		56,647		—		28,455		479,748
		2012		260,504		—		53,843		53,843		91,911		—		26,142		486,242
Elizabeth M. Bentley EVP, Union Bankshares Corporation/Chief Retail Officer, Union Bank & Trust		2014		263,011		—		78,905		—		39,916		—		21,077		402,909
		2013		234,227		12,000		71,045		—		44,081		—		22,137		383,490
		2012		224,848		—		34,376		34,376		58,990		—		21,334		373,923

(1) The amounts reported reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of the awards computed in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation. Stock awards consist of both restricted and performance-based awards. Both restricted and performance-based awards in the above table assume the probable outcome of performance conditions is equal to the maximum potential value of the awards. Restricted awards vest 50% on each of the third and fourth anniversaries from date of grant. For valuation and discussion of the assumptions related to stock options and awards, refer to the Company’s 2014 Form 10-K note 14 “Employee Benefits and Share Based Compensation” of the notes to the consolidated financial statements.

(2) Represents cash award for individual and company performance under the MIP based upon achievement of specific goals approved by the Company’s Board of Directors. Achievement of specific goals and amount of cash award are determined by the Company’s Compensation Committee and submitted to the Company’s Board of Directors for approval.

(3) Represents the change in actuarial present value under the deferred supplemental compensation program for the prior completed fiscal year.

(4) The details of the components of this column are provided in a separate table below.

(5) $112,413 of Mr. Beale’s compensation has been voluntarily deferred into the Virginia Bankers Association’s nonqualified deferred compensation plan for the Company.

(6) Mr. Gorman joined the Company on July 17, 2012; his compensation information for 2012 is pro-rated accordingly.

40

2014 ALL OTHER COMPENSATION TABLE

Name	Insurance Premiums ($)		Company Contributions to Retirement and 401(k) Plans ($)		Dividends on Restricted Stock Awards(1) ($)		Other Plan Payments(2) ($)		BOLI Income ($)		Other Benefits(3) ($)		Total ($)
G. William Beale		17,451		10,400		6,790		13,529		7,224		24,528		79,922
Robert M. Gorman		—		8,074		4,139		—		99		12,000		24,312
John C. Neal		—		9,968		2,340		7,551		3,673		20,148		43,680
D. Anthony Peay		—		10,400		2,813		7,376		1,089		8,400		30,078
Elizabeth M. Bentley		—		4,698		1,821		5,986		172		8,400		21,077

(1) The executives receive the same cash dividends on restricted shares as holders of regular common stock.

(2) Represents a bonus available to all employees beginning in 1999 in lieu of disbanding a defined benefit plan. The amount provided is available to all eligible employees who were employed at that time and who continue to be employed by the Company or its subsidiaries. The bonus is currently determined as 2% of base salary or commissions for only those employees.

(3) Represents private and country club membership dues, car allowances, and use of a Company-leased apartment. For Mr. Gorman this column includes a net of tax cash payment in lieu of any additional relocation benefit.

Stock Option Grants and Stock Awards in 2014

During 2014, did the Company make any awards of either stock options or stock to the executives identified in the Summary Compensation Table?

Yes; the Company awarded restricted shares and a performance share opportunity to each member of the Executive Group under the 2011 SIP on February 27, 2014. The Company’s 2011 SIP provides for grants of stock options, stock appreciation rights, and restricted stock to executive officers and key employees of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2014 table and the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End 2014 table provide information for both non-equity and equity incentive plan awards, if any, and all other stock option grants and stock awards. The awards made to each NEO are also included in the Summary Compensation Table and represent a portion of the long term incentive compensation available to the executive for the period January 2014 through December 2016.

How does the Company determine the awards for performance-based shares of the Company’s common stock?

The right to earn performance-based shares of the Company’s common stock by certain members of the Executive Group is determined according to each participant’s salary level, based on survey data, and does not vary based on individual performance. The actual payouts of these performance-based shares, if any, are determined by a non-discretionary formula.

41

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS IN 2014

Name	Grant Date		Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)						All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units(2) (#)		All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (#)		Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards ($/Sh)		Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards(3) ($)
			Threshold ($)		Target ($)		Maximum ($)
G. William Beale		N/A		33,950		339,500		509,250		—		—		—		—
		2/27/2014		—		—		—		13,424		—		—		339,493
Robert M. Gorman		N/A		13,760		137,600		206,400		—		—		—		—
		2/27/2014		—		—		—		5,440		—		—		137,578
John C. Neal		N/A		10,500		104,996		157,494		—		—		—		—
		2/27/2014		—		—		—		4,152		—		—		105,004
D. Anthony Peay		N/A		12,159		121,593		182,390		—		—		—		—
		2/27/2014		—		—		—		4,808		—		—		121,594
Elizabeth M. Bentley		N/A		7,890		78,903		118,355		—		—		—		—
		2/27/2014		—		—		—		3,120		—		—		78,905

(1) Represents cash award for individual and Company performance under the MIP based upon achievement of specific goals. The annual cash incentive awards earned by the NEOs in 2014 under the plans are shown in the Summary Compensation Table under the column captioned “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.” Maximum represents the potential payout for performance that exceeds expectations, which is subject to a cap of 2.8% of the Company’s net income for 2014.

(2) Consists of both restricted and performance-based stock awards granted February 27, 2014.

(3) The amounts reported reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of the awards computed in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation. The grant date per share fair value for the performance-based awards of $25.29 was based on the per share closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date of February 27, 2014. Both restricted and performance-based awards in the above table assume the probable outcome of performance conditions is equal to the maximum potential value of the awards. Restricted awards vest 50% on each of the third and fourth anniversaries from date of grant. For valuation and discussion of the assumptions related to stock options and awards, refer to the Company’s 2014 Form 10-K note 14 “Employee Benefits and Share Based Compensation” of the notes to the consolidated financial statements.

42

The following table shows certain information regarding outstanding awards for unexercised stock options and non-vested stock (includes restricted and performance stock) at December 31, 2014 for the members of the Executive Group. This table discloses outstanding awards whose ultimate value is unknown and has not been realized (i.e., dependent on future results of certain measures).

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END 2014

Name	Grant Date or Performance Period		OPTION AWARDS										STOCK AWARDS
			Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable		Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable		Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options (#)		Option Exercise Price ($)		Option Expiration Date(1)		Number of Shares of Stock That Have Not Vested(2) (#)		Market Value of Shares of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)		Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares That Have Not Vested(3) (#)		Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares That Have Not Vested ($)
G. William Beale		4/28/2010		14,720		3,680		—		16.45		4/28/2020
		4/26/2011		14,810		9,872		—		12.11		4/26/2021
		2/23/2012		9,956		14,931		—		14.40		2/23/2022
		2/28/2013												6,615		159,289		—		—
		2/27/2014												6,712		161,625		—		—
		1/1/2012 – 12/31/2014																8,175		196,854
		1/1/2013 – 12/31/2015																6,615		159,289
		1/1/2014 – 12/31/2016																6,712		161,625
Robert M. Gorman		2/1/2013												2,262		54,469		—		—
		2/28/2013												2,810		67,665		—		—
		2/27/2014												2,720		65,498		—		—
		1/1/2013 – 12/31/2015																2,810		67,665
		1/1/2014 – 12/31/2016																2,720		65,498
John C. Neal		4/28/2010		5,968		1,491		—		16.45		4/28/2020
		4/26/2011		5,820		3,880		—		12.11		4/26/2021
		2/23/2012		3,702		5,550		—		14.40		2/23/2022
		2/28/2013												2,459		59,213		—		—
		2/27/2014												2,076		49,990		—		—
		1/1/2012 – 12/31/2014																3,039		73,179
		1/1/2013 – 12/31/2015																2,459		59,213
		1/1/2014 – 12/31/2016																2,076		49,990
D. Anthony Peay		4/28/2010		6,828		1,707		—		16.45		4/28/2020
		4/26/2011		6,660		4,440		—		12.11		4/26/2021
		2/23/2012		4,554		6,829		—		14.40		2/23/2022
		2/28/2013												3,026		72,866		—		—
		2/27/2014												2,404		57,888		—		—
		1/1/2012 – 12/31/2014																3,739		90,035
		1/1/2013 – 12/31/2015																3,026		72,866
		1/1/2014 – 12/31/2016																2,404		57,888
Elizabeth M. Bentley		1/27/2005		825		—		—		23.50		1/27/2015
		2/23/2006		750		—		—		31.57		2/23/2016
		4/28/2010		4,080		1,019		—		16.45		4/28/2020
		4/26/2011		4,443		2,961		—		12.11		4/26/2021
		2/23/2012		2,908		4,360		—		14.40		2/23/2022
		2/28/2013												1,957		47,125		—		—
		2/27/2013												1,560		37,565		—		—
		1/1/2012 – 12/31/2014																2,387		57,479
		1/1/2013 – 12/31/2015																1,957		47,125
		1/1/2014 – 12/31/2016																1,560		37,565

(1) Each of the incentive stock option awards vests according to the following schedule: 20% of the award is exercisable one year after the grant date, and 20% vests for each subsequent year thereafter for a period of five years; once an installment of shares vests and becomes exercisable, the award recipient may exercise such options, or any portion of such installment, during the term of the subject Incentive Stock Option Agreement, which term is ten years after the date of such agreement.

(2) This column represents restricted stock awards. Restricted awards vest 50% on each of the third and fourth anniversaries from date of grant.

(3) This column represents performance-based stock awards. The performance-based shares are based upon the achievement of specific goals. The actual payout of shares, if any, will be determined by a non-discretionary formula which measures the Company’s performance over a three-year period and is subject to approval by the Company’s Compensation Committee in its sole discretion for such three-year periods.

43

The market value of the stock awards that have not vested, as shown in the above table, was determined based on the per share closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 31, 2014 ($24.08).

Stock Option Exercises and Stock Vested in 2014

During 2014 there were no stock option exercises or vestings of restricted stock awards or performance shares for any NEOs; therefore, the total value realized in equity compensation related to these events for 2014 is zero.

Employee and/or Director Benefit Plans

Does the Company have any type of deferred compensation plans for employees and/or directors? If so, what compensation will be paid under them?

Yes; there is a type of deferred compensation plan for some directors. By way of background, in 1985, the then Union Bank and Trust Company offered its directors the option to participate in a deferred supplemental compensation program. Certain directors entered into agreements with Union Bank and Trust Company to participate in this program. To participate in the program, a director must have elected to forego the director’s fees that would otherwise be payable to him by Union Bank and Trust Company for a period of 12 consecutive months beginning immediately after his election to participate.

While its obligation under each supplemental compensation agreement represents an unsecured, general obligation of the Company’s wholly owned bank subsidiary, Union Bank & Trust, a substantial portion of the benefits payable under the agreements is funded by key person life insurance owned by the Bank on each director. The fees deferred by each participating director in 1985 were applied towards the first year’s premium expense of a life insurance policy and thereafter the Bank has paid the premiums. Similarly, in 1991, a sum equivalent to one year of director compensation was applied toward the first year’s premium expense of a life insurance policy on the life of Mr. Beale, who, at the time, served on the Bank’s Board of Directors and was the Bank’s President; subsequently, the Bank has paid the premium necessary to continue the subject life insurance policy in effect.

Each supplemental compensation agreement provides that the director will receive from the Bank a designated fixed amount, payable in equal monthly installments over a period of 10 years beginning upon the director’s “Normal Retirement Date,” which is defined in the agreements to be the last day of the month in which the director reaches age 65. No interest is paid on the installments. The amount of each director’s monthly benefit is actuarially determined based on, among other factors, the age and health condition of each director at the time he elects to participate in the program. In the event a director retires but dies before receiving all the installments due under the agreement, the Bank has the option of making one lump sum payment (based on the discounted present value of the remaining installment obligation) to the director’s designated beneficiary or his estate or continuing the balance of the installment payments in accordance with the original payment plan. Each agreement further provides that a reduced fixed amount is payable in the event of a director’s death prior to reaching the Normal Retirement Date.

The supplemental compensation agreement with Mr. Beale calls for the Bank to pay him $26,500 per year for ten years upon his Normal Retirement Date. On October 20, 2014, Mr. Beale’s agreement was amended to allow him to defer commencement of his distributions, subject to the requirements of Section 409A. The Company’s other participating directors receive or will receive from the Bank an annual installment in the respective following amounts upon reaching the Normal Retirement Date(s) as follows: Mr. Hicks, $55,368; and Mr. Hansen, $22,299. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had accrued approximately $4.9 million to cover its obligations under all of the supplemental compensation agreements with current and former directors and executive officers who participate in the director deferred compensation plan.

While the insurance policies were purchased as a means of funding the deferred compensation liability created under this plan, there exists no obligation to use any insurance funds from policy loans or death proceeds to curtail the deferred compensation liability.

44

Does any NEO participate in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan?

Yes; the following table and narrative summarize the nonqualified deferred compensation for the NEOs.

NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

Name	Executive Contributions in Last FY ($)		Registrant Contributions in Last FY ($)		Aggregate Earnings in Last FY ($)		Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions ($)		Aggregate Balance at Last FYE ($)
G. William Beale		112,413		—		27,040		—		922,897
Robert M. Gorman		—		—		—		—		—
John C. Neal		21,834		—		6,013		—		151,662
D. Anthony Peay		—		—		—		—		—
Elizabeth M. Bentley		5,986		—		2,136		—		42,024

Messrs. Beale, Neal, and Ms. Bentley have elected to participate in the Company’s nonqualified deferred compensation plan administered by the Virginia Bankers Association (“VBA”) Benefits Corporation.

The VBA’s nonqualified deferred compensation plan is a defined contribution plan under which contributions are posted to the participant’s account and the account is credited with earnings commensurate with the elected investments. These investments are held in a “rabbi trust” administered by the VBA Benefits Corporation. The funds are to be held in the rabbi trust until such time as the executive or director is entitled to receive a distribution.

Post-employment Compensation

Are any of the executives listed in the Summary Compensation Table entitled to receive any payments from the Company if his or her employment ceases or there is a change in control? If so, how much could each be paid?

Yes; as discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis above, Messrs. Beale, Gorman, Peay, Neal, and Ms. Bentley have each entered into an employment agreement and a management continuity agreement or “change in control” agreement with the Company, as the same may have been amended or restated. The following table provides the estimated potential payments, which would be due to each of the executives under two different scenarios, if either had occurred as of December 31, 2014, based on the relevant agreements: (1) termination of employment under the executive’s employment agreement, or (2) a payout following termination of employment under his or her respective management continuity agreement.

45

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL

Name	Benefit		Before Change in Control Termination Without Cause or for Good Reason		After Change in Control Termination Without Cause or for Good Reason		Death Benefits		Disability Benefits(1)
G. William Beale		Post-Termination Compensation	$	1,478,094	$	2,150,304	$	339,500	$	—
		Early vesting of Restricted Stock		320,914		320,914		320,914		320,914
		Health care benefits continuation		22,205		38,322		—		10,468
		Early vesting of Performance Stock		517,768		517,768		517,768		517,768
		Early vesting of Stock Options		290,778		290,778		290,778		290,778
		Tax Gross-up		—		1,487,617		—		—
		Total Value	$	2,629,760	$	4,805,704	$	1,468,961	$	1,139,928
Robert M. Gorman		Post-Termination Compensation	$	767,289	$	767,289	$	172,000	$	—
		Early vesting of Restricted Stock		187,631		187,631		187,631		187,631
		Health care benefits continuation		15,645		33,442		—		15,645
		Early vesting of Performance Stock		133,162		133,162		133,162		133,162
		Early vesting of Stock Options		—		—		—		—
		Tax Gross-up		—		—		—		—
		Total Value	$	1,103,728	$	1,121,525	$	492,794	$	336,439
John C. Neal		Post-Termination Compensation	$	754,076	$	754,076	$	174,993	$	—
		Early vesting of Restricted Stock		109,203		109,203		109,203		109,203
		Health care benefits continuation		25,830		29,172		—		12,522
		Early vesting of Performance Stock		182,382		182,382		182,382		182,382
		Early vesting of Stock Options		111,544		111,544		111,544		111,544
		Tax Gross-up		—		394,637		—		—
		Total Value	$	1,183,034	$	1,581,015	$	578,122	$	415,650
D. Anthony Peay		Post-Termination Compensation	$	657,693	$	657,693	$	151,992	$	—
		Early vesting of Restricted Stock		130,754		130,754		130,754		130,754
		Health care benefits continuation		23,444		26,787		—		11,231
		Early vesting of Performance Stock		220,790		220,790		220,790		220,790
		Early vesting of Stock Options		132,276		132,276		132,276		132,276
		Tax Gross-up		—		394,637		—		—
		Total Value	$	1,164,958	$	1,562,936	$	635,811	$	495,051
Elizabeth M. Bentley		Post-Termination Compensation	$	565,938	$	565,938	$	131,506	$	—
		Early vesting of Restricted Stock		84,689		84,689		84,689		84,689
		Health care benefits continuation		21,318		22,692		—		10,332
		Early vesting of Performance Stock		142,168		142,168		142,168		142,168
		Early vesting of Stock Options		85,423		85,423		85,423		85,423
		Tax Gross-up		—		303,357		—		—
		Total Value	$	899,537	$	1,204,267	$	443,786	$	322,612

(1) In addition to the amounts shown above, each of the NEOs would be eligible upon disability to receive a maximum annual long-term disability benefit of $45,000 under the Union Bankshares Corporation Long Term Disability Plan.

Does the Company have a defined benefit plan or a defined contribution plan?

The Company does not participate in a defined benefit plan; however, the Company does have a defined contribution plan for all eligible employees, including the members of the Executive Group. This plan is known formally as the Union First Market Bankshares Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, or informally as the 401(k) Plan. All members of the Executive Group participate in the 401(k) Plan. Each NEO participant is fully vested in his or her own contributions to the 401(k) Plan. The Company provides discretionary matching contributions to plan participants. The Company’s matching contributions are fully vested after five years.

46

Does the Company have a pension plan or some kind of similar plan for any of the executives listed in the Summary Compensation Table that is tied to a retirement age?

Yes; as stated above, certain directors have supplemental compensation agreements that are tied to a “Normal Retirement Age,” which is defined to be age 65. Because Mr. Beale serves as a director and is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, the following table provides information relating to his entitlement to the supplemental compensation, including the present value of the accumulated benefit for him. No other NEO participates in a pension plan or similar plan that is tied to a retirement age.

PENSION BENEFITS

Name	Plan Name		Number of Years Credited Service (#)		Present Value of Accumulated Benefit ($)		Payments During Last Fiscal Year ($)
G. William Beale		Deferred Supplemental Compensation Program		25		167,104		—

Mr. Beale has been credited with 25 years of service and having reached his Normal Retirement Age in 2014 is eligible to receive benefits; however, as stated above, Mr. Beale has elected to defer receipt of his benefit, subject to the requirements of Section 409A. Age 65 has been used for purposes of calculating the present value of accumulated benefit.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Are the directors of the Company paid for their services, and if so, how are they paid?

Yes; in early 2014, PM&P conducted a competitive market analysis of non-employee directors compensation utilizing the same peer group of companies used for the executive compensation review. On June 26, 2014, the Board of Directors voted to make changes to the non-employee director pay program effective July 1, 2014 to better align with the market. Prior to July 1, 2014, each non-employee member of the Board of Directors was paid a per-meeting cash fee of $1,000 which was paid in arrears. Following July 1, 2014, each non-employee member receives an annual cash retainer, paid quarterly in advance, which covers a maximum number of meetings, and any director attending a meeting above the maximum is paid a per-meeting fee of $1,000.

Additionally, each non-employee director receives a $25,000 annual retainer paid in shares of the Company’s common stock. Prior to July 1, 2014, the stock retainer was paid on an annual basis in December and was based on the average per share closing price of the Company’s common stock for the five consecutive trading days ending immediately prior to the issue date. Under the new program, the stock retainer is paid quarterly and is based on the closing stock price on the date prior to the issue date.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors and the directors serving as chairs or members of the various committees of the Board of Directors also receive additional cash and stock retainers as described in more detail in the director compensation table below. Mr. Beale does not receive any additional compensation above his regular salary for his service as a director or for attending any Board of Directors or committee meetings.

47

The following table summarizes the director compensation paid by the Company during 2014.

2014 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Name	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)		Stock Awards(1) ($)		All Other Compensation(2) ($)		Total ($)
L. Bradford Armstrong(3)		22,500		22,917		—		45,417
Glen C. Combs		23,500		31,250		—		54,750
Beverley E. Dalton		24,000		31,250		—		55,250
Gregory L. Fisher		21,000		31,250		—		52,250
Daniel I. Hansen(4)(5)