ThZeal - The Zeal

ck0001872253-20221231

CROMWELL FORESIGHT GLOBAL
SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

Investor Class Shares (CFGVX)

Institutional Class Shares (CFGIX)

Prospectus

January 31, 2023

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has not approved or disapproved of these securities or determined if this Prospectus is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund

Table of Contents


SUMMARY SECTION			1
INVESTMENT STRATEGIES, RELATED RISKS AND DISCLOSURE OF PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS			10
Investment Objective			10
Additional Information about the Fund's Principal Investment Strategies			12
Principal Risks			13
Portfolio Holdings Information			21
MANAGEMENT OF THE FUND			21
The Adviser			21
Manager-of-Managers Arrangement			22
The Sub-Adviser			23
Similarly Managed Account Historical Performance			23
Portfolio Managers			24
Fund Expenses			24
SHAREHOLDER INFORMATION			25
Choosing a Share Class			25
Share Price			26
How to Purchase Shares			27
How to Redeem Shares			31
Converting Shares			35
Tools to Combat Frequent Transactions			35
Other Fund Policies			36
DISTRIBUTION OF FUND SHARES			38
The Distributor			38
Distribution and Shareholder Service (Rule 12b-1) Plan			38
Payments to Financial Intermediaries			38
DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES			39
Distributions			39
Federal Income Tax Consequences			39
DERIVATIVE ACTIONS			41
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS			41


Summary Section

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE

The Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund’s (the “Fund”) investment objective is to achieve capital appreciation.

FEES AND EXPENSES OF THE FUND

This table describes the fees and expenses that you may pay if you buy, hold and sell shares of the Fund. You may pay other fees, such as brokerage commissions and other fees to financial intermediaries, which are not reflected in the table and examples below.


Shareholder Fees (fees paid directly from your investment)	Investor Class	Institutional Class
	None	None
Annual Fund Operating Expenses (expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)
Management Fees	0.85%	0.85%
Distribution and Service (12b-1) Fees	0.25%	None
Other Expenses(1)	0.60%	0.60%
Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses(1)	0.28%	0.28%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses	1.98%	1.73%
Less: Fee Waiver and/or Expense Reimbursement	-0.40%	-0.40%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver and/or Expense Reimbursement(2)	1.58%	1.33%

(1) Because the Fund is new, these expenses are based on estimated amounts for the Fund’s current fiscal year.

(2) Pursuant to an operating expense limitation agreement, Cromwell Investment Advisors, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), has agreed to waive its management fees and/or reimburse Fund expenses to ensure that Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses (exclusive of taxes, leverage, interest, brokerage commissions, expenses incurred in connection with any merger or reorganization, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 1.30% and 1.05% of the Fund’s average daily net assets for Investor Class shares and Institutional Class shares, respectively, through at least January 31, 2025. The operating expense limitation agreement can be terminated only by, or with the consent of, the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board of Trustees”). The Adviser may request recoupment of previously waived fees and paid expenses from the Fund for up to 36 months from the date such fees and expenses were waived or paid, subject to the operating expense limitation agreement, if such reimbursement will not cause the Fund’s expense ratio, after recoupment has been taken into account, to exceed the lesser of: (1) the expense limitation in place at the time of the waiver and/or expense payment; or (2) the expense limitation in place at the time of the recoupment.

EXAMPLE

This example is intended to help you compare the costs of investing in the Fund with the cost of investing in other mutual funds. The example assumes that you invest $10,000 in the Fund for the time periods indicated and that you then redeem or hold all of your shares at the end of those periods. The example also assumes that your investment has a 5% return each year and that the Fund’s operating expenses remain the same. Although your actual costs may be higher or lower, based on these assumptions, your costs would be:


	One Year	Three Years
Investor Class	$161	$542
Institutional Class	$135	$465

PORTFOLIO TURNOVER

The Fund pays transaction costs, such as commissions, when it buys and sells securities (or “turns over” its portfolio). A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs and may result in higher taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. These costs, which are not reflected in Annual Fund Operating Expenses or in the Example, affect the Fund’s performance. Because the Fund is newly organized, portfolio turnover information is not yet available.

PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

Under normal circumstances, the Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities of sustainable infrastructure companies. The Fund will invest directly in the shares of companies (including listed investment trusts, real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), ETFs or units of master limited partnerships (“MLPs”) that, in each case, invest in infrastructure companies and are publicly-traded (listed) on stock exchanges in developed markets, meaning North America, Western Europe and Asia Pacific (specifically Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong); and that own and operate real infrastructure or sustainable assets anywhere in the world. Such companies’ revenue streams are typically directly or indirectly supported by long-term government or public sector contracts and government supported initiatives.

The Fund considers a company to be an infrastructure company if it derives at least 50% of its revenue or profits from the ownership or operation of infrastructure assets, such as the physical structures, networks and systems of transportation, energy, water and sewage, medical facilities, government facilities and communication assets.

The Fund defines “sustainable companies” as companies which, through both their business operations and the impact of their products or services, have a positive environmental and/or social effect on their stakeholders. The Fund’s sustainability criteria states that the Fund will only invest in the shares of a company if the Sub-Adviser, in its discretion, considers that the company delivers a net social or environmental benefit. In determining whether a company delivers a net social or environmental gain, the Sub-Adviser will assess company shares based on the ten principles of the United Nations Global Compact for business which cover areas including human rights, labor rights, environmental safeguards and combating bribery and corruption. The Sub-Adviser utilizes its own company research and the portfolio manager’s judgment to determine if a company is contributing positively to sustainable development. The Sub-Adviser may but is not obligated to consider external research from third-party providers.

The sustainable infrastructure companies in which the Fund invests will typically own and operate assets in the following infrastructure subsectors: renewable energy generation (e.g., offshore wind, onshore wind, solar energy, and hydro-electricity), core economic infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals and transport), property with infrastructure characteristics (e.g., social housing and medical facilities) and digital infrastructure (e.g., data centers and communications towers).

As a “global” Fund, under normal market conditions, the Fund will provide exposure to investments that are economically tied to at least three different countries, not including the U.S. Under normal circumstances, at least 40%, unless market conditions are not deemed favorable, in which case at least 30%, of the Fund’s net assets will provide exposure to investments that are economically tied to countries other than the U.S, including depositary receipts. The Fund considers a company to be located outside the U.S. when the company’s primary listing location or headquarters is outside of the U.S. No more than 50% of the Fund by value will be invested in shares of companies that have a primary listing in a single country.

The Fund may also invest in cash for liquidity and cash flow purposes and to pay Fund expenses and redemptions.

Sustainability considerations play an important role in the Sub-Adviser’s stock selection process. The Sub-Adviser uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative measurements when determining when a company meets the sustainability criteria. From a qualitative perspective, the Sub-Adviser’s due diligence process involves an initial framework driven approach assessing whether a company aligns with the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact (“UNGC”) combined with a qualitative assessment on whether the company’s strategy, economic activity, and fundamental purpose help to deliver environmental or social benefits. This is assessed on an ongoing basis through continued monitoring and engagement with the company. Ongoing engagement with holdings includes discussions to improve climate-related practices, change sustainability outcomes, and improve disclosures. Furthermore, the Sub-Adviser will undertake continued engagement with the company to ensure that the business model, sustainability strategy, investment strategy, and risk policies continue to align with the initial assessment. From a quantitative perspective, the Sub-Adviser may, but is not obligated to, assess, interpret and evaluate data and analysis provided by external research providers as part of its process. This is an important pillar upon which assessments of the continued compliance of securities to the Fund’s sustainability criteria is measured.

The Sub-Adviser continuously tracks the operational performance of the Fund’s holdings with a specific focus on impact metrics, ESG performance, and progress against targets and goals. For this purpose, impact metrics include carbon footprint as a proportion of enterprise value, the proportion of a company’s activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas, violations of the UN Global Compact Principles, and board gender diversity. The Sub-Adviser has developed a data-driven proprietary monitoring system which evaluates holdings across multiple metrics and key performance indicators to enable the identification of relative weaknesses and evaluation of progress over the holding period. This engagement forms part of the ongoing monitoring process. If the Sub-Adviser believes that after initial due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and engagement a security no longer meets the threshold required to match the Fund’s sustainability criteria, the Sub-Adviser will not make any further investments in the company and, in an orderly fashion, will seek to sell its investment from such a company in a controlled and orderly manner.

The Sub-Adviser’s process in conducting its sustainability assessment involves:

(1)Summarizing the overall due diligence findings related to sustainability of a company’s operations.

(2)Reviewing assessments of each company’s compliance with the ten principles of the UNGC.

(3)Assessing each asset / sector impact on the environment and society.

(4)Conducting a review of each company’s strategy, sustainability integration and performance.

(5)Identifying topics during due diligence for specific focus, key performance indicators, and engagement with management.

(6)Summarizing the process and findings.

PRINCIPAL RISKS

In addition to possibly not achieving your investment goals, you could lose money by investing in the Fund. The principal risks of investing in the Fund are:

•Infrastructure Companies Risk. Infrastructure companies may be subject to a variety of factors that may adversely affect their business or operations, including high interest costs in connection with capital construction programs, high leverage, costs associated with environmental and other regulations, the effects of economic slowdown, surplus capacity, increased competition from other providers of services, uncertainties concerning the availability of fuel at reasonable prices, the effects of energy conservation policies and other factors. Some of the specific risks that infrastructure companies may be particularly affected by, or subject to, include the following: regulatory risk, technology risk, regional or geographic risk, natural disasters risk, through-put risk, project risk, strategic asset risk, operation risk, customer risk, interest rate risk, inflation risk and financing risk.

In particular, the operations of infrastructure projects are exposed to unplanned interruptions caused by significant catastrophic events, such as cyclones, earthquakes, landslides, floods, explosion, fire, terrorist attack, major plant breakdown, pipeline or electricity line rupture or other disasters. Operational disruption, as well as supply disruption, could adversely impact the cash flows available from these assets.

Further, national and local environmental laws and regulations affect the operations of infrastructure projects. Standards are set by these laws, and regulations are imposed regarding certain aspects of health and environmental quality, and they provide for penalties and other liabilities for the violation of such standards, and establish, in certain circumstances, obligations to remediate and rehabilitate current and former facilities and locations where operations are, or were, conducted. These laws and regulations may have a detrimental impact on the financial performance of infrastructure projects.

•Industrial Sector Risk. The industrial sector can be significantly affected by, among other things, worldwide economic growth, supply and demand for specific products and services, rapid technological developments, international political and economic developments, environmental issues, tariffs and trade barriers, and tax and governmental regulatory policies. As the demand for, or prices of, industrials increase, the value of the Fund’s investments generally would be expected to also increase. Conversely, declines in the demand for, or prices of, industrials generally would be expected to contribute to declines in the value of such securities. Such declines may occur quickly and without warning and may negatively impact the value of the Fund and your investment.

•Listed Investment Trusts Risk. Listed investment trusts are investment vehicles organized as trusts that issue a fixed number of shares in an initial public offering, after which their shares trade at market value on an exchange. The net asset value of an investment trust fluctuates due to the valuation changes of the investment securities or assets held by the investment trust (assets denominated in foreign currencies are also subject to the exchange rate fluctuations subject to hedging strategy). However, because the shares of a listed investment trust trade at market value on an exchange, such shares can trade below their net asset value (known as a discount) or above net asset value (known as a premium). Current market uncertainty has pushed investment trusts to the widest discounts in years, and there is a risk that such discounts may continue to widen after the Fund has made an investment. Investment trusts that trade at a discount are not typically able to issue new shares to invest in new assets or securities and may not succeed in conducting accretive investment activity for growth.

•Sustainable Investment Risk: The Fund follows a sustainable investment approach by investing in companies that demonstrate a focus on long-term sustainability in their overall strategy and business practices. In pursuing such a strategy, the Fund may forgo opportunities to gain exposure to certain companies, industries or sectors, and may be overweight or underweight in certain industries or sectors relative to its benchmark index, which may cause the Fund's performance to be more or less sensitive to developments affecting those sectors. In addition, since sustainable investing takes into consideration factors beyond traditional financial analysis, the Fund may have fewer investment opportunities available to it than it would have if it did not take into account sustainable criteria for investments. Sustainability-related information provided by issuers and third parties, upon which the portfolio managers may rely, continues to develop, and may be incomplete, inaccurate, use different methodologies, or be applied differently across companies and industries. The Sub-Adviser’s criteria of sustainable investing will vary from other managers. Further, the regulatory landscape for sustainable investing in the United States is still developing and future rules and regulations may require the Fund to adapt its investment process. There is also a risk that the companies identified through the investment process may fail to adhere to sustainable business practices, which may result in the Fund choosing to sell a security when it might otherwise be disadvantageous to do so. Further, investors may differ in their views of what constitutes positive or negative ESG characteristics of a security. As a result, the Fund may invest in securities that do not reflect the beliefs of any particular investor. There is no guarantee that sustainable investments will outperform the broader market on either an absolute or relative basis. There is also no guarantee that the Sub-Adviser will successfully implement strategies or make investments in companies that result in favorable ESG outcomes while enhancing long-term shareholder value and achieving financial returns.

•Foreign Securities Risk. Investments in foreign securities may be riskier than investments in U.S. securities. Differences between U.S. and foreign regulatory regimes and securities markets, including less stringent investor protections and disclosure standards of some foreign markets, less liquid trading markets and political and economic developments in foreign countries, may affect the value of the Fund’s investments in foreign securities. Foreign securities may also subject the Fund’s investments to changes in currency rates.

•Risk of Focusing Investment on Region or Country: Investing a significant portion of assets in one country or region makes the Fund more dependent upon the political and economic circumstances of that particular country or region.

market values of Eurozone and various other securities and currencies, cause redenomination of certain securities into less valuable local currencies and create more volatile and illiquid markets. Certain countries and regions in the EU are experiencing significant financial difficulties. Some of these countries may be dependent on assistance from other European governments and institutions or agencies. One or more countries could depart from the EU, which could weaken the EU and, by extension, its remaining members. For example, the United Kingdom’s departure, described in more detail below. As a result of continuing political tensions and armed conflicts, including the war between Ukraine and Russia, the U.S. and the European Union imposed sanctions on certain Russian individuals and companies, including certain financial institutions, and have limited certain exports and imports to and from Russia. The war has contributed to recent market volatility and may continue to do so.

•REIT Investment Risk. The Fund’s investments in REITs will, among other things, be subject to many of the same risks as a direct investment in real estate. The stock prices of companies in the real estate industry, including REITs, are typically sensitive to changes in real estate values, property taxes, interest rates, cash flow of underlying real estate assets, occupancy rates, government regulations affecting zoning, land use, and rents, as well as the management skill and creditworthiness of the issuer.

•Exchange-Traded Fund Risk. The risks of owning an ETF generally reflect the risks of owning the underlying securities they are designed to track, although lack of liquidity in an ETF could result in it being more volatile than the underlying portfolio of securities. Disruptions in the markets for the securities underlying ETFs purchased or sold by the Fund could result in losses on the Fund’s investment in ETFs. ETFs also have management fees that increase their costs versus the costs of owning the underlying securities directly. The Fund may purchase shares of ETFs at prices that exceed the net asset value of their underlying investments (i.e., premium) and may sell shares of ETFs at prices below such net asset value (i.e., discount), and the Fund will likely incur brokerage costs when it purchases and sells ETFs. Due to the costs of buying or selling shares, including brokerage commissions imposed by brokers and bid-ask spreads, frequent trading of shares may significantly reduce investment results and an investment in shares may not be advisable for investors who anticipate regularly making small investments. Additionally, supply and demand for shares of an ETF or market disruptions may cause the market price of the ETF to deviate from the value of the ETF’s investments, which may lead to widening of the bid-ask spread quoted throughout the day and may be exacerbated in less liquid or volatile markets.

•Other Investment Companies Risk. Investing in other investment companies subjects the Fund to those risks affecting the investment companies themselves, including the possibility that the value

of the underlying securities held by an investment company could decrease or an investment company’s portfolio becomes illiquid. Additionally, an investment company may not achieve its investment objective or execute its investment strategy effectively, which may adversely affect the Fund’s performance. To the extent that the Fund invests in other investment companies, investors in the Fund will bear both their proportionate share of expenses in the Fund and, indirectly, the expenses of the investment companies in which the Fund invests.

•Master Limited Partnership Risk. Investment in securities of an MLP involves risks that differ from investments in common stock, including risks related to limited control and limited rights to vote on matters affecting the MLP, risks related to potential conflicts of interest between the MLP and the MLP’s general partner, cash flow risks, dilution risks and risks related to the general partner’s right to require unit-holders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price. Certain MLP securities may trade in lower volumes due to their smaller capitalizations. Accordingly, those MLPs may be subject to more abrupt or erratic price movements and may lack sufficient market liquidity to enable the Fund to effect sales at an advantageous time or without a substantial drop in price. Investment in those MLPs may restrict the Fund’s ability to take advantage of other investment opportunities. MLPs are generally considered interest-rate sensitive investments. During periods of interest rate volatility, these investments may not provide attractive returns.

•MLP Tax Risk. A change in current tax law, or a change in the business of a given MLP, could result in an MLP being treated as a corporation or other form of taxable entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which would result in the MLP being required to pay U.S. federal income tax, excise tax or another form of tax on its taxable income. The classification of an MLP as a corporation or other form of taxable entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes could reduce the amount of cash available for distribution by the MLP and could cause any such distributions received by the Fund to be taxed as dividend income, return of capital, or capital gain. Therefore, if any MLPs owned by the Fund were treated as corporations or other forms of taxable entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the after-tax return to the Fund with respect to its investment in such MLPs could be materially reduced which could cause a material decrease in the net asset value per share (“NAV”) of the Fund’s shares.

•Non-Diversified Fund Risk. The Fund is non-diversified and therefore a greater percentage of holdings may be focused in a small number of issuers or a single issuer, which can place the Fund at greater risk. Notwithstanding the Fund’s status as a “non-diversified” investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), the Fund intends to qualify as a regulated investment company accorded special tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes its own diversification requirements that are less restrictive than the requirements applicable to “diversified” investment companies under the 1940 Act.

•New Fund Risk. The Fund is new with no operating history, and there can be no assurance that the Fund will grow to or maintain an economically viable size, in which case the Board of Trustees may determine to liquidate the Fund.

•Equity Securities Risk. Investments in common stocks and other equity securities are particularly subject to the risk of changing economic, stock market, industry and company conditions and the risks inherent in a portfolio manager’s ability to anticipate such changes that can adversely affect the value of the Fund’s holdings.

•Management Risk. The investment strategies, practices and risk analysis used by the Sub-Adviser may not produce the desired results.

•Market Risk. Market prices of investments held by the Fund may fall rapidly or unpredictably due to a variety of factors, including economic, political, or market conditions, or other factors including terrorism, war, natural disasters and the spread of infectious illness or other public health issues, including epidemics or pandemics such as the COVID-19 outbreak, or in response to events that affect particular industries or companies.

•Recent Market Events Risk. U.S. and international markets have experienced significant periods of volatility in recent months and years due to a number of economic, political and global macro factors including the impact of the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic which has resulted in public health issues, business interruptions, growth concerns in the U.S. and overseas, layoffs, rising unemployment claims, changed travel and social behaviors, and reduced consumer spending. The effects of COVID-19 may lead to a substantial economic downturn or recession in the U.S. and global economies, the recovery from which is uncertain and may last for an extended period of time. The full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and other epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future, on national and global economies, individual companies and the financial markets continues to be unpredictable, may result in a high degree of uncertainty for potentially extended periods of time and may adversely affect the Fund’s performance.

•Newer Adviser Risk. The Fund’s adviser is a newly organized investment adviser and has been managing assets since March 2022.

PERFORMANCE

When the Fund has been in operation for a full calendar year, performance information will be shown here. Updated performance information will be available on the Fund’s website at www.thecromwellfunds.com or by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-855-625-7333.

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT

Adviser

Cromwell Investment Advisors, LLC (the “Adviser”) is the Fund’s investment adviser.

Sub-Adviser

Foresight Group LLP (the “Sub-Adviser”) is the Fund’s investment sub-adviser.

Portfolio Managers

The following portfolio managers are jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund:

Nick Scullion, CFA®

Lead Portfolio Manager, Foresight;

Portfolio Manager of the Fund since inception, December 2022.

Mark Brennan

Portfolio Manager, Foresight;

Co-Portfolio Manager of the Fund since inception, December 2022.

Eric Bright, CFA®

Portfolio Manager, Foresight;

Co-Portfolio Manager of the Fund since inception, December 2022.

PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES

Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares

You may purchase or redeem shares by mail addressed to Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund, c/o U.S. Bank Global Fund Services, P.O. Box 701, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-0701, by telephone at 1-855-625-7333 (toll free), on any day the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is open for trading, or through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary (such as a bank) approved by the Fund (an “Authorized Intermediary”). You may also purchase or redeem Fund shares by wire transfer. Purchases and redemptions by telephone are permitted if you have previously established these options for your account. Investors who wish to purchase or redeem Fund shares through an Authorized Intermediary should contact the Authorized Intermediary directly.

Minimum Investment Amounts


	Initial Investment	Subsequent Investments
Investor Class
Regular Accounts	$2,000	$100
Individual Retirement Accounts	$1,000	$100
Institutional Class
Regular Accounts	$100,000	$100
Individual Retirement Accounts	$25,000	$100

TAX INFORMATION

A portion of the Fund’s distributions may be taxed as ordinary income unless you are investing through a tax-deferred or other tax-advantaged arrangement, such as a 401(k) plan or an IRA. It is anticipated that the majority of the Fund’s distributions may also be taxable as long-term capital gains. You may be taxed later upon withdrawal of monies from such tax-deferred or other tax-advantaged arrangements.

PAYMENTS TO BROKER-DEALERS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES

If you purchase Fund shares through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary (such as a bank), the Fund and its related companies may pay the intermediary for the sale of Fund shares and related services. These payments may create conflicts of interest by influencing the broker-dealer or other intermediary and your Financial Professional to recommend the Fund over another investment. Ask your Financial Professional or visit your financial intermediary’s website for more information.


Investment Strategies, Related Risks and Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings

The Fund will invest primarily in the securities and instruments as described in the summary section of the Fund’s Prospectus. This section contains additional information about the Fund’s investment strategies and the investment techniques utilized by the Sub-Adviser in managing the Fund, and additional information about the Fund’s expenses and performance.

Investment Objective

The Fund’s investment objective is to achieve capital appreciation. The Fund’s investment objective is non-fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval upon at least 60-day prior written notice to shareholders.

Principal Investment Strategies

Under normal circumstances, the Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities of sustainable infrastructure companies. This investment policy may be changed by the Board of Trustees without shareholder approval, but shareholders would be given at least 60 days’ written notice before any such change.

The Fund will invest directly in the shares of companies (including listed investment trusts, real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), ETFs or units of master limited partnerships (“MLPs”) that, in each case, invest in infrastructure companies and are publicly-traded (listed) on stock exchanges in developed markets, meaning North America, Western Europe and Asia Pacific (specifically Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong); and that own and operate real infrastructure or sustainable assets anywhere in the world. Such companies’ revenue streams are typically directly or indirectly supported by long-term government or public sector contracts and government supported initiatives.

The Fund’s investment in infrastructure-related companies organized as MLPs may include up to 20% of its net assets in MLPs that are not taxed as regular corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The MLPs in which the Fund invests are publicly traded partnerships or limited liability companies engaged, among other things, in the transportation, storage, processing, refining, marketing, exploration, production and mining of minerals and natural resources. MLPs are partnerships the interests of which are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are able to trade on public securities exchanges like shares of a corporation.

development. The Sub-Adviser may but is not obligated to consider external research from third-party providers.

The Fund may also invest in cash for liquidity and cash flow purposes and to pay Fund expenses and redemptions.

The Sub-Adviser maintains a database used to monitor companies on a standalone basis, within their sector, and relative to peers and industry leaders. Those data points include:

•security information,

•external third-party ESG ratings,

•environmental data (such as portfolio weighted carbon footprint, emissions reduction initiatives, and waste reduction policies)

•social, including UNGC Principles (such as Human Rights Policies, Policy Against Child Labor, Modern Slavery Statement), human capital (such as employee engagement surveys and whistleblowing policies), community impact, product responsibility (such as health and safety policies and training policies)

•governance, including Board performance and compensation for executives.

The Sub-Adviser’s process in conducting its sustainability assessment involves:

1.Sustainability overview — Prepare a summary of overall due diligence findings related to sustainability and overview of company operations.

2.United Nations Global Compact Assessment overview — Review evidence-based assessment of each company’s compliance with the ten principles of the UNGC following company due diligence meetings, regulatory filings, and review of policies and procedures.

3.Net Social and/or Environmental Benefit overview — Assess each asset / sector impact on the environment and society. Each asset / sector is given a rating of “positive,” “neutral,” or “negative.” Evidence for each assessment is provided and the weight of the asset is included in the assessment. Percentage weightings of each asset type / sector are used to determine net benefit.

4.Qualitative Review overview — Conduct a holistic review of each company’s own strategy, sustainability integration and performance on a standalone basis, within their sector and relative to peers and industry leaders.

5.Future Areas to Re-assess overview — Identify topics during due diligence for specific focus, key performance indicators, and engagement with management.

6.Conclusion overview — Summarize the process and findings.

The process above includes quantitative and qualitative inputs with the overall goal to identify companies that meet the sustainable investment criteria of complying with the ten UNGC principles and delivering a net environmental and/or social benefit. Key performance indicators for individual companies may include specific goals (e.g., a company may commit to signing up to the UNGC and that would be a specific and measurable KPI with a quantitative, binary outcome). Some KPIs require more assessment and context.

The Fund may have significant investments in securities of companies within the same economic sector, such as the Industrials Sector. The Fund is non-diversified, which means that it can invest a greater percentage of its assets in a small group of issuers or in any one issuer compared to a diversified fund can.

Additional Information about the Fund’s Principal Investment Strategies

Other Important Information About the Fund and Its Investment Strategies and Risks

In addition to the principal investment strategies described in this Prospectus, the Fund may also make other types of investments, and, therefore, may be subject to other risks.

Temporary Defensive Measures, Cash or Similar Investments

From time to time, the Fund may invest a portion of its assets in money market securities, cash, or cash equivalents as a temporary defensive measure in response to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions. The Fund may also invest in cash for liquidity and cash flow purposes and to pay Fund expenses and redemptions. These temporary defensive measures may be inconsistent with the Fund’s investment objective and principal investment strategies. The Fund may not be able to achieve its stated investment objective while taking these defensive measures. Furthermore, to the extent that the Fund invests in money market mutual funds for its cash position, there will be some duplication of expenses because the Fund would bear its pro rata portion of such money market funds’ management fees and operational expenses.

Principal Risks

Before investing in the Fund, you should carefully consider your own investment goals, the amount of time that you are willing to leave your money invested and the amount of risk that you are willing to take. In addition to possibly not achieving your investment goals, you could lose money by investing in the Fund. Information about the Fund’s objective, principal investment strategies, investment practices and principal risks appears at the beginning of this Prospectus. Additional information about the investment practices of the Fund and risks pertinent to these practices is included in the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”). The information below describes in greater detail the other risks pertinent to the Fund. Each risk summarized below is considered a “principal risk” of investing in the Fund, regardless of the order in which it appears.

Infrastructure Companies Risk. Infrastructure companies may be subject to a variety of factors that may adversely affect their business or operations, including high interest costs in connection with capital construction programs, high leverage, costs associated with environmental and other regulations, the effects of economic slowdown, surplus capacity, increased competition from other providers of services, uncertainties concerning the availability of fuel at reasonable prices, the effects of energy conservation policies and other factors. Some of the specific risks that infrastructure companies may be particularly affected by, or subject to, include the following: regulatory risk, technology risk, regional or geographic risk, natural disasters risk, through-put risk, project risk, strategic asset risk, operation risk, customer risk, interest rate risk, inflation risk and financing risk.

In particular, the operations of infrastructure projects are exposed to unplanned interruptions caused by significant catastrophic events, such as cyclones, earthquakes, landslides, floods, explosion, fire, terrorist attack, major plant breakdown, pipeline or electricity line rupture or other disaster. Operational disruption, as well as supply disruption, could adversely impact the cash flows available from these assets.

Further, national and local environmental laws and regulations affect the operations of infrastructure projects. Standards are set by these laws and regulations are imposed regarding certain aspects of health and environmental quality, and they provide for penalties and other liabilities for the violation of such standards, and establish, in certain circumstances, obligations to remediate and rehabilitate current and former facilities and locations where operations are, or were, conducted. These laws and regulations may have a detrimental impact on the financial performance of infrastructure projects.

Other factors that may affect the operations of infrastructure companies include difficulty in raising capital in adequate amounts on reasonable terms in periods of high inflation and unsettled capital markets, inexperience with and potential losses resulting from a developing deregulatory environment, increased susceptibility to terrorist acts or political actions, and general changes in market sentiment towards infrastructure assets.

Industrial Sector Risk. The value of securities issued by companies in the industrials sector may be adversely affected by supply and demand related to their specific products or services and industrials sector products in general. The products of manufacturing companies may face obsolescence due to rapid technological developments and frequent new product introduction. Government regulations, world events, economic conditions and exchange rates may adversely affect the performance of companies in the industrials sector. Companies in the industrials sector may be adversely affected by liability for environmental damage and product liability claims. The industrials sector may also be adversely affected by changes or trends in commodity prices, which may be influenced by unpredictable factors. Companies in the industrials sector, particularly aerospace and defense companies, may also be adversely affected by government spending policies because companies involved in this sector rely to a significant extent on government demand for their products and services.

Listed Investment Trusts Risk. Listed investment trusts are investment vehicles organized as trusts that issue a fixed number of shares in an initial public offering, after which their shares trade at market value on an exchange. The net asset value of an investment trust fluctuates due to the valuation changes of the investment securities or assets held by the investment trust (assets denominated in foreign currencies are also subject to the exchange rate fluctuations subject to hedging strategy). However, because the shares of a listed investment trust trade at market value on an exchange, such shares can trade below their net asset value (known as a discount) or above net asset value (known as a premium). The more an investment trust falls out of favor and the less demand there is for its shares, the lower the price those selling shares of the trust may have to accept in order to liquidate their position; conversely, purchasers of shares may take advantage of such discount. Current market uncertainty has pushed investment trusts to the widest discounts in years, and there is a risk that such discounts may continue to widen after the Fund has made an investment. Investment trusts that trade at a discount are not typically able to issue new shares to invest in new assets or securities and may not succeed in conducting accretive investment activity for growth. In addition to these risks, when the Fund invests in a listed investment trust it is subject to the risks described herein with respect to investments in other investment companies generally, including that shareholders of the Fund will indirectly bear their proportionate share of fees and expenses of the investment trust, as well as commissions in connection with its purchase and sale of shares.

Sustainable Considerations Risk: The Fund follows a sustainable investment approach by investing in companies that demonstrate a focus on long-term sustainability in their overall strategy and business practices. In pursuing such a strategy, the Fund may forgo opportunities to gain exposure to certain companies, industries or sectors, and may be overweight or underweight in certain industries or sectors relative to its benchmark index, which may cause the Fund's performance to be more or less sensitive to developments affecting those sectors. In addition, since sustainable investing takes into consideration factors beyond traditional financial analysis, the Fund may have fewer investment opportunities available to it than it would have if it did not take into account sustainable criteria for investments. Sustainability-related information provided by issuers and third parties, upon which the portfolio managers may rely, continues to develop, and may be incomplete, inaccurate, use different methodologies, or be applied differently across companies and industries. The Sub-Adviser’s criteria of sustainable investing will vary from other managers. Further, the regulatory landscape for sustainable investing in the United States is still developing and future rules and regulations may require the Fund to adapt its investment process. There is also a risk that the companies identified through the investment process may fail to adhere to sustainable business practices, which may result in the Fund choosing to sell a security when it might otherwise be disadvantageous to do so. Further, investors may differ in their views of what constitutes positive or negative ESG characteristics of a security. As a result, the Fund may invest in securities that do not reflect the beliefs of any particular investor. There is no guarantee that sustainable investments will outperform the broader market on either an absolute or relative basis. There is also no guarantee that the

Sub-Adviser will successfully implement strategies or make investments in companies that result in favorable ESG outcomes while enhancing long-term shareholder value and achieving financial returns.

Foreign Securities Risk. Generally, foreign securities are issued by companies organized outside the U.S. and are traded primarily in markets outside the U.S., but foreign debt securities may be traded on bond markets or over-the-counter markets in the U.S. Foreign securities may be more difficult to sell than U.S. securities. Investments in foreign securities may involve difficulties in receiving or interpreting financial and economic information, possible imposition of taxes, higher brokerage and custodian fees, possible currency exchange controls or other government restrictions, including possible seizure or nationalization of foreign deposits or assets. Foreign securities may also be less liquid and more volatile than U.S. securities. There may also be difficulty in invoking legal protections across borders.

Risk of Focusing Investment on Region or Country. Investing a significant portion of assets in one country or region makes the International Fund more dependent upon the political and economic circumstances of that particular country or region.

Eurozone Investment Risk. The Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU) is comprised of the European Union (EU) members that have adopted the euro currency. By adopting the euro as its currency, a member state relinquishes control of its own monetary policies and is subject to fiscal and monetary controls. EMU members could voluntarily abandon or be forced out of the euro. Such events could impact the market values of Eurozone and various other securities and currencies, cause redenomination of certain securities into less valuable local currencies and create more volatile and illiquid markets. As a result, European countries are significantly affected by fiscal and monetary controls implemented by the EMU. The euro currency may not fully reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the various economies that comprise the EMU and Europe generally. Certain countries and regions in the EU are experiencing significant financial difficulties. Some of these countries may be dependent on assistance from other European governments and institutions or agencies. Assistance may be dependent on a country’s implementation of reforms or reaching a certain level of performance. Failure to reach those objectives or an insufficient level of assistance could result in an economic downturn that could significantly affect the value of investments in those and other European countries. One or more countries could depart from the EU, which could weaken the EU and, by extension, its remaining members. For example, the United Kingdom’s departure, described in more detail below. As a result of continuing political tensions and armed conflicts, including the war between Ukraine and Russia, the U.S. and the European Union imposed sanctions on certain Russian individuals and companies, including certain financial institutions, and have limited certain exports and imports to and from Russia. The war has contributed to recent market volatility and may continue to do so.

Asia/Pacific Investment Risk. Investments in countries in the Asian/Pacific region will be impacted by the market conditions, legislative or regulatory changes, competition, or political, economic and other developments in Asia or the Pacific. Investments in China, New Zealand, Australia and Singapore may subject the Fund to certain additional risks, including exposure to currency fluctuations, less liquidity, expropriation, confiscatory taxation, nationalization, exchange control regulations (including currency blockage), trading halts, imposition of tariffs, limitations on repatriation and differing legal standards. Hong Kong is one of the most significant global financial centers. Since 1997, when Great Britain transferred control of Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland government, Hong Kong has been a special administrative district of China but is governed by a regulatory scheme called the “Basic Law” designed to preserve autonomy in most matters (excluding defense and foreign affairs) until 2047. China has contractually

committed that it will not alter Hong Kong’s autonomy before 2047. Currently, Hong Kong is undergoing a period of political and social unrest relating to extradition treaties proposed in 2019. If China were to exercise authority to impose changes in Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s economy and shares of companies trading on Hong Kong’s securities markets would be adversely affected.

United Kingdom Investment Risk. Commonly known as “Brexit,” the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU may result in substantial volatility in foreign exchange markets and may lead to a sustained weakness in the British pound’s exchange rate against the United States dollar, the euro and other currencies, which may impact fund returns. Brexit may destabilize some or all of the other EU member countries and/or the Eurozone. These developments could result in losses to the International Fund, as there may be negative effects on the value of the Fund’s investments and/or on the Fund’s ability to enter into certain transactions or value certain investments, and these developments may make it more difficult for the International Fund to exit certain investments at an advantageous time or price. Such events could results from, among other things, increased uncertainty and volatility in the United Kingdom, the EU and other financial markets; fluctuations in asset values; fluctuations in exchange rates; decreased liquidity of investments located, traded or listed within the United Kingdom, the EU or elsewhere; changes in the willingness or ability of financial and other counterparties to enter into transactions or the price and terms on which other counterparties are willing to transact; and/or changes in legal and regulatory regimes to which fund investments are or become subject.

REIT Investment Risk. The Fund’s investments in REITs will, among other things, be subject to many of the same risks as a direct investment in real estate. The stock prices of companies in the real estate industry, including REITs, are typically sensitive to changes in real estate values, property taxes, interest rates, cash flow of underlying real estate assets, occupancy rates, government regulations affecting zoning, land use, and rents, as well as the management skill and creditworthiness of the issuer.

In general, real estate values are affected by a variety of factors, including supply and demand for properties, the economic health of the country or of different regions, and the strength of specific industries that rent properties. REITs also depend generally on their ability to generate cash flow to make distributions to shareholders or unitholders and are subject to the risk of failing to qualify for favorable tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”). Qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) in any particular year is a complex analysis that depends on a number of factors. There can be no assurance that an entity in which the Fund invests with the expectation that it will be taxed as a REIT will, in fact, qualify as a REIT. An entity that fails to qualify as a REIT would be taxed as a corporation, and thus, would not be entitled to a deduction for dividends paid to its shareholders and would not pass through to its shareholders the character of income earned by the entity. Dividends paid by REITs may not receive preferential tax treatment afforded other dividends.

Exchange-Traded Fund Risk. To the extent the Fund may invest in securities of other investment companies, the Fund may invest in shares of ETFs. ETFs are investment companies that trade like stocks. The price of an ETF is derived from and based upon the securities held by the ETF. However, like stocks, shares of ETFs are not traded at NAV, but may trade at prices above or below the value of their underlying portfolios. The level of risk involved in the purchase or sale of an ETF is similar to the risk involved in the purchase or sale of a traditional common stock, except that the pricing mechanism for an ETF is based on a basket of securities. Thus, the risks of owning an ETF generally reflect the risks of owning the underlying securities they are designed to track, although lack of liquidity in an ETF could result in it being more volatile than the underlying portfolio of securities. Disruptions in the markets for the securities underlying ETFs purchased or sold by the Fund could result in losses on the Fund’s

investment in ETFs. ETFs are subject to management fees and other fees that may increase their costs versus the costs of owning the underlying securities directly. The Fund may from time to time invest in ETFs, primarily as a means of gaining exposure for its portfolio to the market without investing in individual securities, particularly in the context of managing cash flows into the Fund.

The Fund may rely on Rule 12d1-4 of the 1940 Act, which allows a fund to invest in other funds, including ETFs, in excess of the limits imposed by Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, subject to certain conditions specified in the Rule.

Other Investment Companies Risk. The Fund may invest in other investment companies, including open-end funds and ETFs. See “Exchange-Traded Funds Risk” above.

The Fund may purchase the securities of another investment company to temporarily gain exposure to a portion of the market while awaiting purchase of securities or as an efficient means of gaining exposure to a particular asset class. The Fund might also purchase shares of another investment company to gain exposure to the securities in the investment company’s portfolio at times when the Fund may not be able to buy those securities directly. Any investment in another investment company would be consistent with the Fund’s investment objective and investment program.

The risks of owning another investment company are generally similar to the risks of investment directly in the securities in which that investment company invests. However, an investment company may not achieve its investment objective or execute its investment strategy effectively, which may adversely affect the Fund’s performance. In addition, because ETFs trade on a secondary market, their shares may trade at a premium or discount to the actual NAV of their portfolio securities and their shares may have greater volatility because of the potential lack of liquidity.

Master Limited Partnership Risk. Investments in securities of an MLP involve risks that differ from investments in common stock, including risks related to limited control and limited rights to vote on matters affecting the MLP, risks related to potential conflicts of interest between the MLP and the MLP’s general partner, cash flow risks, dilution risks and risks related to the general partner’s right to require unit-holders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price. Certain MLP securities may trade in lower volumes due to their smaller capitalizations. Accordingly, those MLPs may be subject to more abrupt or erratic price movements and may lack sufficient market liquidity to enable the Fund to effect sales at an advantageous time or without a substantial drop in price. Investment in those MLPs may restrict the Fund’s ability to take advantage of other investment opportunities. MLPs are generally considered interest-rate sensitive investments. During periods of interest rate volatility, these investments may not provide attractive returns.

In addition, the use of capital to seek to increase incentive distribution payments to the general partner may conflict with the interests of limited partners. Generally, incentive distribution payments involve the general partner receiving an increasing progressive share of MLP distributions. Although limited partners will receive an increased total distribution if the general partner achieves its incentive benchmarks, the percentage of the increased distribution received by the limited partners generally decreases at each benchmark level. As a result, any increased risk associated with the management of the MLP for the purpose of increasing distributions may not correspond with the incremental benefit received by the limited partners.

MLP Tax Risk. Much of the benefit that the Fund may derive from its investment in equity securities of MLPs is a result of MLPs generally being treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Partnerships do not pay U.S. federal income tax at the partnership level. Rather, each partner of a

partnership, in computing its U.S. federal income tax liability, must include its allocable share of the partnership’s income, gains, losses, deductions and tax credits. A change in current tax law, or a change in the business of a given MLP, could result in an MLP being treated as a corporation or other form of taxable entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which would result in such MLP being required to pay U.S. federal income tax, excise tax or other form of tax on its taxable income (currently at a rate of 21% for federal corporate income tax). The classification of an MLP as a corporation or other form of taxable entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes could have the effect of reducing the amount of cash available for distribution by the MLP. In addition, it could cause such distributions paid by the MLP to be taxed to the Fund as: dividend income, to the extent it is from the MLP’s earnings and profits; return of capital, to the extent the MLP’s distributions are not paid from its earnings and profits and to the extent of (and in reduction of) the Fund’s basis in its MLP interest; or gain from the sale of the Fund’s MLP interest to the extent the distribution exceeds the MLP’s earnings and profits and the Fund’s basis in its MLP interest. Thus, if any of the MLPs owned by the Fund were treated as corporations or other form of taxable entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the after-tax return to the Fund with respect to its investment in such MLPs could be materially reduced, which could cause a material decrease in the NAV of the Fund’s shares.

To the extent that the Fund invests in the equity securities of an MLP classified as a partnership, the Fund will be required to include in its taxable income the Fund’s allocable share of the income, gains, losses and deductions recognized by each such MLP and take into account its allocable share of the MLP’s tax credits, regardless of whether the MLP distributes cash to the Fund. The portion of an MLP’s distributions to the Fund, which is not derived from the MLP’s earnings and profits, generally will not be taxable unless the cash amount (or, in certain cases, the value of marketable securities) distributed exceeds the Fund’s basis in its interest in the MLP. Distributions received by the Fund from an MLP will reduce the Fund’s adjusted basis in its interest in the MLP, but not below zero. A reduced basis generally will result in an increase in the amount of gain (or decrease in the amount of loss) that will be recognized by the Fund for tax purposes on the sale of its interest in the MLP. Cash distributions from an MLP to the Fund (and, in certain cases, the value of marketable securities distributed by an MLP to the Fund) in excess of the Fund’s basis in the MLP generally will be taxable to the Fund as capital gain. The Fund will not benefit from current favorable federal income tax rates on long-term capital gains because it will be taxed as a corporation for federal income tax purposes.

Historically, energy and certain other MLPs have been able to offset a significant portion of their taxable income with tax deductions. The Fund will incur a current income tax liability on the portion of its share of the income and gain from each MLP investment that is not offset by its share of the MLPs’ tax deductions, by its share of the MLPs’ tax credits or by the Fund’s net operating loss carryforwards, if any. The percentage of an MLP’s income that is offset by the MLP’s tax deductions will fluctuate over time. For example, new acquisitions of depreciable property by MLPs tend to generate accelerated depreciation and other tax deductions, and therefore a decline in acquisition activity by such MLPs owned by the Fund could increase the Fund’s current tax liability. If the percentage of the income allocated to the Fund that is offset by tax deductions declines, or the Fund’s portfolio turnover increases, the Fund could incur increased tax liabilities and the portion of the distributions paid by the Fund that is treated as tax-deferred return of capital would be reduced and the portion treated as taxable dividend income would be increased. This generally would result in lower after-tax distributions to shareholders. If the amount of a Fund distribution to U.S. Shareholders exceeds the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, such excess will be treated first as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of, and in reduction of, U.S. Shareholder’s tax basis in the shares, and thereafter as capital gain. Any such capital gain will be long-term capital gain if such U.S. Shareholder has held the applicable shares for more than one year. The portion of the distribution received by the U.S. Shareholder from the Fund that constitutes a return of

capital will decrease the U.S. Shareholder’s tax basis in his or her Fund shares (but not below zero), which will result in an increase in the amount of gain (or decrease in the amount of loss) that will be recognized by the U.S. Shareholder for tax purposes on the later sale of such Fund shares.

Depreciation or other cost recovery deductions passed through to the Fund from investments in MLPs in a given year generally will reduce the Fund’s taxable income (and earnings and profits), but those deductions may be recaptured in the Fund’s taxable income (and earnings and profits) in subsequent years when the MLPs dispose of their assets or when the Fund disposes of its interests in the MLPs. When deductions are recaptured, distributions to the Fund’s shareholders may be taxable, even though the shareholders at the time of the distribution might not have held shares in the Fund at the time the deductions were taken by the Fund, and even though the Fund’s shareholders at the time of the distribution will not have corresponding economic gain on their shares at the time of the distribution.

The portion of the distributions received by the Fund each year that is considered a return of capital from the MLPs will not be known until the Fund receives a schedule K-1 for that year with respect to each of its MLP investments. The Fund’s tax liability will not be known until the Fund completes its annual tax return. The Fund’s tax estimates could vary substantially from the actual liability and therefore the determination of the Fund’s actual tax liability may have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV. The payment of corporate income taxes imposed on the Fund will decrease cash available for distribution to shareholders.

Non-Diversified Fund Risk. Funds that are non-diversified can invest a greater percentage of their assets in a single issuer or a group of issuers, and, as a result, may be subject to greater credit, market, and other risks than a diversified fund. The poor performance by a single issuer may have a greater impact on the performance of a non-diversified fund than a diversified fund. A non-diversified fund’s shares tend to be more volatile than shares of a diversified fund and are more susceptible to the risks of focusing investments in a small number of issuers or industries, and the risks of a single economic, political or regulatory occurrence. Notwithstanding the Fund’s status as a “non-diversified” investment company under the 1940 Act, the Fund intends to qualify as a regulated investment company accorded special tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes its own diversification requirements that are less restrictive than the requirements applicable to “diversified” investment companies under the 1940 Act. The Fund’s intention to qualify as a regulated investment company may limit its pursuit of its investment strategy and its investment strategy could limit its ability to so qualify.

New Fund Risk. There can be no assurance that the Fund will grow to or maintain an economically viable size, in which case the Board of Trustees may determine to liquidate the Fund. Liquidation of the Fund can be initiated without shareholder approval by the Board of Trustees if it determines that liquidation is in the best interest of shareholders. The timing of such liquidation may not be favorable and could have negative tax consequences for shareholders. From time to time, an Authorized Participant, a third-party investor, the Adviser or an affiliate of the Adviser, may invest in the Fund and hold its investment for a specific period of time in order to facilitate commencement of the Fund’s operations or for the Fund to achieve size or scale. There can be no assurance that any such entity would not redeem its investment or that the size of the Fund would be maintained at such levels, which could negatively impact the Fund. The Fund’s distributor does not maintain a secondary market in the shares.

Equity Securities Risk. Publicly held corporations may raise needed cash by issuing or selling equity securities to investors. When the Fund buys the equity securities of a corporation it becomes a part owner of the issuing corporation. Equity securities may be bought on domestic stock exchanges, foreign stock

exchanges, or in the over-the-counter market. There are many different types of equity securities, including (without limitation) common stocks, preferred stocks, ADRs, and real estate investment trusts.

Investors buy equity securities to make money through dividend payments and/or selling them for more than they paid. The risks involved with investing in equity securities include (without limitation):

•Changing economic conditions: Equity securities may fluctuate as a result of general economic conditions, including changes in interest rates.

•Industry and company conditions: Certain industries or individual companies may come in and out of favor with investors. In addition, changing technology and competition may make the equity securities of a company or industry more volatile.

•Security selection: A portfolio manager may not be able to consistently select equity securities that appreciate in value or anticipate changes that can adversely affect the value of the Fund’s holdings. Investments in smaller and mid-size companies may be more volatile than investments in larger companies.

Management Risk. The investment strategies, practices and risk analysis used by the Sub-Adviser may not produce the desired results. The ability of the Fund to meet its investment objective is directly related to the Sub-Adviser’s investment strategies for the Fund. The value of your investment in the Fund may vary with the effectiveness of the Sub-Adviser’s research, analysis and asset allocation among portfolio securities. If the Sub-Adviser’s investment strategies do not produce the expected results, your investment could be diminished or even lost.

Various techniques can be used to increase or decrease the Fund’s exposure to changing security prices, interest rates, currency exchange rates, commodity prices or other factors that affect security values. These practices can be used in an attempt to adjust the risk and return characteristics of the Fund’s portfolio of investments. If the Sub-Adviser judges market conditions incorrectly or employs a strategy that does not correlate well with the Fund’s investments, these techniques could result in a loss, which in some cases may be unlimited, regardless of whether the intent was to reduce risk or increase return. These techniques may increase the volatility of the Fund and may involve a small investment of cash relative to the magnitude of the risk assumed. In addition, these techniques could result in a loss if the counterparty to the transaction does not perform as promised.

Market Risk: The value of the securities in which the Fund invests may be adversely affected by fluctuations in the financial markets, regardless of how well the companies in which the Fund invests perform. The market as a whole may not favor the types of investments the Fund makes. Also, there is the risk that the price(s) of one or more of the securities or other instruments in the Fund’s portfolio will fall or will fail to rise. Many factors can adversely affect a security’s performance, including both general financial market conditions and factors related to a specific company, government, industry, country, or geographic region. Extraordinary events, including extreme economic or political conditions, natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics, and other factors can lead to volatility in local, regional, or global markets, which can result in market losses that may be substantial. The impact of one of these types of events may be more pronounced in certain regions, sectors, industries, or asset classes in which the Fund invests, or it may be pervasive across the global financial markets. The timing and occurrence of future market disruptions cannot be predicted, nor can the impact that government interventions, if any, adopted in response to such disruptions may have on the investment strategies of the Fund or the markets in which the Fund invests.

Recent Market Events Risk. U.S. and international markets have experienced volatility in recent months and years due to a number of economic, political and global macro factors, including the impact of the

coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic, which has at times resulted in a public health crisis, business interruptions, growth concerns in the U.S. and overseas, layoffs, rising unemployment claims, changed travel and social behaviors and reduced consumer spending. The effects of COVID-19 may lead to a substantial economic downturn or recession in the U.S. and global economies, the recovery from which is uncertain and may last for an extended period of time. Uncertainties regarding interest rates, political events, rising government debt in the U.S. and trade tensions have also contributed to market volatility. Global economies and financial markets are increasingly interconnected, which increases the possibility that conditions in one country or region might adversely impact issuers in a different country or region. In particular, a rise in protectionist trade policies, slowing global economic growth, risks associated with epidemic and pandemic diseases, risks associated with the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, the risk of trade disputes, and the possibility of changes to some international trade agreements, could affect the economies of many nations, including the United States, in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. Continuing market volatility as a result of recent market conditions or other events may have adverse effects on your account.

Newer Adviser Risk. The Adviser registered with the SEC in July 2021 and has managed mutual funds since March 2022. Mutual funds and their advisers are subject to restrictions and limitations imposed by the 1940 Act and the Internal Revenue Code. As a result, investors do not have a long-term track record of managing a mutual fund from which to judge the newly-formed Adviser and the Adviser may not achieve the intended result in managing the Fund.

Portfolio Holdings Information

A description of the Fund’s policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of the Fund’s portfolio holdings is available in the Fund’s SAI and on the Fund’s website at www.thecromwellfunds.com.


Management of the Fund

The Adviser

The Fund has entered into an Investment Advisory Agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with the Adviser, Cromwell Investment Advisors, LLC, located at 810 Gleneagles Court, Suite 106, Baltimore, Maryland 21286. Cromwell registered as an investment adviser with the SEC in July 2021 and is dedicated to managing mutual funds.

The Adviser has overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Fund. For its services, the Fund will pay the Adviser a management fee that is calculated at an annual rate of 0.85% of its average daily net assets, to be paid monthly.

The Adviser is authorized to delegate certain of its duties with respect to the Fund to one or more sub-advisers. The Adviser has engaged Foresight Group LLP (“Foresight” or the “Sub-Adviser”) pursuant to this authority and has delegated day-to-day management of the Fund in accordance with its investment objective and policies to the Sub-Adviser. The Adviser is also responsible for determining the portion of the Fund’s assets to be managed by any given sub-adviser and reallocating those assets as necessary from time to time.

The Adviser retains overall responsibility for the management and investment of the assets of the Fund. In this capacity, the Adviser develops the overall investment strategy for the Fund and plays an active role in overseeing, monitoring and reviewing the Sub-Adviser in the performance of its duties. The Adviser monitors the investment performance of the Sub-Adviser and also evaluates the portfolio management

teams to determine whether its investment activities remain consistent with the Fund’s investment objectives, strategies and policies. The Adviser supervises all compliance functions related to the operation of the Fund and the Sub-Adviser’s management of the Fund’s portfolio. The Adviser also monitors changes that may impact the Sub-Adviser’s overall business and regularly performs due diligence reviews of the Sub-Adviser. In addition, the Adviser obtains detailed, comprehensive information concerning the Sub-Adviser’s performance and Fund operations and provides regular reports on these matters to the Board of Trustees (the “Board” or the “Board of Trustees”).

Discussions regarding the basis of the Board’s approval of the Investment Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements for the Fund will be available in the Fund’s first semi-annual report to shareholders for the period ending June 30, 2023.

Manager-of-Managers Arrangement

Section 15(a) of the 1940 Act requires that all contracts pursuant to which persons serve as investment advisers to investment companies be approved by shareholders. This requirement also applies to the appointment of sub-advisers to the Fund. The Trust and the Adviser will apply for exemptive relief from the SEC (the “Order”), which will permit the Adviser, on behalf of the Fund and subject to the approval of the Board, including a majority of the independent members of the Board, to hire, and to modify any existing or future sub-advisory agreement with, unaffiliated sub-advisers and affiliated sub-advisers, including sub-advisers that are wholly-owned subsidiaries (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Adviser or its parent company and sub-advisers that are partially-owned by, or otherwise affiliated with, the Adviser or its parent company (the “Manager-of-Managers Structure”). The Adviser has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing a Fund’s sub-advisers and recommending their hiring, termination and replacement, subject to oversight by the Board. Assuming the Order is granted, it will also provide relief from certain disclosure obligations with regard to sub-advisory fees. With this relief, the Fund may elect to disclose the aggregate fees payable to the Adviser and wholly-owned sub-advisers and the aggregate fees payable to unaffiliated sub-advisers and sub-advisers affiliated with Adviser or its parent company, other than wholly-owned sub-advisers. The Order will be subject to various conditions, including that the Fund will notify shareholders and provide them with certain information required by the exemptive order within 90 days of hiring a new sub-adviser. The Fund may also rely on any other current or future laws, rules or regulatory guidance from the SEC or its staff applicable to the Manager-of-Managers Structure. The sole initial shareholder of the Fund has approved the operation of the Fund under a Manager-of-Managers Structure with respect to any affiliated or unaffiliated sub-adviser, including in the manner that is permitted by the Order.

The Manager-of-Managers Structure will enable the Trust to operate with greater efficiency by not incurring the expense and delays associated with obtaining shareholder approvals for matters relating to sub-advisers or sub-advisory agreements. Operation of the Fund under the Manager-of-Managers Structure will not permit management fees paid by the Fund to the Adviser to be increased without shareholder approval. Shareholders will be notified of any changes made to the Sub-Adviser or material changes to sub-advisory agreements within 90 days of the change. There is no assurance the Order will be granted.

not consider any other relationship it or its affiliates may have with a sub-adviser or its affiliates, and the Adviser discloses to the Board the nature of any material relationships it has with a sub-adviser or its affiliates when making recommendations to the Board to appoint or to change a sub-adviser, or to change the terms of a sub-advisory agreement.

The Sub-Adviser

The Fund’s Sub-Adviser is Foresight Group LLP. Foresight is located at The Shard, 32 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9SG, United Kingdom. Foresight was founded in 1984 and is a leading listed infrastructure and private equity investment manager with a long-established focus on ESG and sustainability-led strategies. Foresight Group Holdings Ltd listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange in February 2021 and operates from 13 offices across seven countries in Europe and Australia. As of December 31, 2022, Foresight had assets under management of approximately $14.88 billion.

Subject to the general supervision of the Board of Trustees, the Sub-Adviser is responsible for managing the Fund in accordance with its investment objective and policies and for making decisions with respect to and placing orders for all purchases and sales of portfolio securities. The Sub-Adviser also maintains related records for the Fund. For its services, the Adviser will pay the Sub-Adviser a management fee. The management fee paid to the Sub-Adviser is paid by the Adviser and not the Fund.

Similarly Managed Account Historical Performance

The following table sets forth historical performance information for three UCITS Funds (Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) managed by the Sub-Adviser that have substantially similar investment objectives, policies, strategies, risks and investment restrictions, and are subject to the same sustainability criteria, as the Fund (the “Composite”). A UCITS Fund is an investment fund that invests in liquid assets and can be distributed publicly to retail investors across the EU. The Composite includes all accounts managed or advised by the Sub-Adviser with substantially similar investment objectives, policies and strategies as the Fund.

The Composite’s performance is provided to illustrate the past performance of the Sub-Adviser in managing substantially similar accounts as measured against a broad based securities market index, and does not represent the historical performances of the Fund. The UCITS Funds that are included in the Composite are separate and distinct from the Fund; the performance of the Composite is not intended as a substitute for the Fund’s performance and should not be considered a prediction of the future performance of the Fund or of the Sub-Adviser. The Fund’s performance will vary significantly from the performance of the Composite.

The Composite returns are presented after the deduction of all fees and expenses, including investment advisory fees, brokerage commissions and execution costs. The Composite does not reflect any sales loads or placement fees; as such fees are not assessed on the UCITS Funds that are included in the Composite. The UCITS Funds in the Composite have different fees, expenses and cash flows than the Fund, which could negatively impact the performance of the Fund in relation to the Composite. The actual fees and expenses of the UCITS Funds that are included in the Composite are lower than the anticipated operating expenses of the Fund and, accordingly, the performance results for the Composite would have been lower using the Fund’s expense structure.

The UCITS Funds that are included in the Composite are not subject to the diversification requirements, specific tax restrictions and investment limitations imposed on the Fund by the 1940 Act or Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code. If the UCITS Funds that are included in the Composite had been registered under the 1940 Act, their performance may have been adversely affected.

Investors should be aware that the method for computing historical performance information for the Composite differs from the SEC’s method for computing the historical performance of the Fund. Composite performance was calculated using an equally weighted basket of each account, with each account being included in the Composite at the inception of the account.

Annual Returns


Period	Composite Total Returns	S&P Global Infrastructure Index
06/03/2019-12/31/2019	20.36%	10.83%
01/01/2020-12/31/2020	31.97%	-5.80%
01/01/2021-12/31/2021	-3.07%	11.75%
01/01/2022-06/30/2022	-14.45%	-0.52%
06/03/2019-06/30/2022	31.72%	16.08%

Composite Average Annual Returns as of December 31, 2021


	1 Year	Since Inception June 3, 2019
Composite Returns	11.75%	26.28%
S&P Global Infrastructure Index	-3.07%	8.70%

Composite performance is reported in U.S. dollars. Within the Composite, accounts are denominated in Sterling, Euros and U.S. dollars. Composite performance will differ from account performance due to the translation of returns into U.S. dollars.

Portfolio Managers

Nick Scullion is the lead manager of the Fund, and Mark Brennan and Eric Bright, CFA® are co-managers of the Fund. The portfolio managers are jointly responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund. Mr. Scullion and Mr. Brennan are partners of the Sub-Adviser, having joined in 2017, and have acted of managers of the strategy since inception in 2019. Both Mr. Scullion and Mr. Brennan joined Foresight Group to launch its public equities capability, and have served as portfolio managers on a UK fund since its inception in December 2017. Mr. Bright is a Senior Investment Manager who joined the Sub-Adviser in 2019. He has co-managed the strategy since 2021. Previous to joining Foresight Group, Mr. Bright worked at Reyker Securities for over five years managing discretionary portfolios and a listed real asset strategy.

The SAI provides additional information about the portfolio managers’ compensation, other accounts managed and ownership of securities in the Fund.

Fund Expenses

by, or with the consent of, the Board of Trustees. The Adviser may request recoupment of previously waived fees and paid expenses from the Fund for up to 36 months from the date such fees and expenses were waived or paid, subject to the operating expense limitation agreement, if such reimbursement will not cause the Fund’s expense ratio, after recoupment has been taken into account, to exceed the lesser of: (1) the expense limitation in place at the time of the waiver and/or expense payment; or (2) the expense limitation in place at the time of the recoupment.


Shareholder Information

Choosing a Share Class

Below is information about the manner in which the Fund offers shares.

The Fund offers Investor Class shares and Institutional Class shares. The different classes represent investments in the same portfolio of securities, but the classes are subject to different expenses and may have different share prices as outlined below. Each class of shares has different expenses and distribution arrangements to provide for different investment needs. You should always discuss the suitability of your investment with your broker-dealer or financial professional.


	Investor Class	Institutional Class
Initial sales charge	None	None
Maximum Deferred Sales Charge (Load) (as a percentage of shares redeemed within 12 months of purchase)	None	None
Ongoing distribution and/or shareholder service (Rule 12b-1) fees	0.25%	None
Conversion feature(1)	Yes	Yes
Purchase maximum	None	None

(1)See the section titled “Shareholder Information - Converting Shares” for more information on the voluntary and/or automatic conversions that apply to each share class and the impact such conversion may have on the fees and expenses of your shares.

Investor Class Shares. Investor Class shares of the Fund are retail shares that are subject to a Rule 12b‑1 distribution fee of 0.25% on an annual basis. Investment minimums may be waived for wrap fee programs.

Institutional Class Shares. Institutional Class shares of the Fund are offered for sale at NAV, without the imposition of a sales charge. Institutional Class shares also pay lower annual expenses than the Fund’s Investor Class shares. Investment minimums may be waived for wrap fee programs. Institutional Class shares are available to the following:

•certain IRAs if the amounts invested represent rollover distributions from investments by any of the retirement plans invested in the Fund;

•certain financial institutions, endowments, foundations, government entities or corporations investing on their own behalf;

•existing Institutional Class shareholders;

•Trustees of the Trust, former Fund trustees, employees of affiliates of the Fund and the Adviser and other individuals who are affiliated with the Fund (this also applies to any spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren and in-laws of those mentioned) and Adviser affiliate employee benefit plans; and

•wrap fee programs of certain broker-dealers. Please consult your financial representative to determine if your wrap fee program is subject to additional or different conditions or fees.

Share Price

The price of a Fund’s shares is the Fund’s NAV. The Fund’s NAV is calculated by dividing the value of the Fund’s total assets, less its liabilities, by the number of its shares outstanding. In calculating the NAV, portfolio securities are valued using current market values or official closing prices, if available. The NAV for the Fund is calculated at the close of regular trading on the NYSE which is generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time. The NAV will not be calculated on days on which the NYSE is closed for trading. If the NYSE closes early, the Fund will calculate its NAV as of the close of trading on the NYSE on that day. If an emergency exists as permitted by the SEC, the NAV may be calculated at a different time.

Each equity security owned by the Fund, including shares of closed-end funds, that is listed on a national securities exchange, except portfolio securities listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”), is valued at its last sale price on that exchange at the close of that exchange on the date as of which assets are valued. If a security is listed on more than one exchange, the Fund will use the price on the exchange that the Fund generally considers to be the principal exchange on which the security is traded. Portfolio securities listed on NASDAQ will be valued at the NASDAQ Official Closing Price (“NOCP”), which may not necessarily represent the last sale price. If there has been no sale on such exchange or on NASDAQ on such day, the security is valued at the mean between the most recent quoted bid and asked prices at the close of the exchange on such day the latest sales price on the “composite market” for the day such security is being valued. The composite market is defined as the consolidation of the trade information provided by national securities and foreign exchanges and over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets as published by an approved independent pricing service (“Pricing Service”).

Exchange traded options are valued at the composite price, using the National Best Bid and Offer quotes. If there are no trades for the option on a given business day composite option pricing calculates the mean of the highest bid price and lowest ask price across the exchanges where the option is traded. Option contracts on securities, currencies and other financial instruments traded in the OTC market with less than 180 days remaining until their expiration are valued at the evaluated price provided by the broker-dealer with which the option was traded. Option contracts on securities, currencies and other financial instruments traded in the OTC market with 180 days or more remaining until their expiration are valued at the prices provided by a recognized independent broker-dealer.

Debt securities, including short-term instruments having a maturity of 60 days or less, are valued at the mean in accordance with prices supplied by a Pricing Service. Pricing Services may use various valuation methodologies such as the mean between the bid and ask prices, matrix pricing method or other analytical pricing models as well as market transactions and dealer quotations. When the price of a debt security is not available from a Pricing Service, the most recent quotation obtained from one or more broker-dealers known to follow the issue will be obtained. Quotations will be valued at the mean between the bid and the offer. Fixed income securities purchased on a delayed-delivery basis are typically marked to market daily until settlement at the forward settlement date. Any discount or premium is accreted or amortized using the constant yield method until maturity.

Money market funds, demand notes and repurchase agreements are valued at cost. If cost does not represent current market value, the securities will be priced at fair value.

If market quotations are not readily available, any security or other asset will be valued at its fair value as determined under fair value pricing procedures adopted by the Adviser. These fair value pricing

procedures will also be used to price a security when corporate events, events in the securities market or world events cause the Sub-Adviser to believe that the security’s last sale price may not reflect its actual market value. The intended effect of using fair value pricing procedures is to ensure that Fund shares are accurately priced. The Board has designated the Adviser as its “valuation designee” under Rule 2a-5 of the 1940 Act, subject to its oversight.

When fair value pricing is employed, the prices of securities used by the Fund to calculate its NAV may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Due to the subjective and variable nature of fair value pricing, it is possible that the fair value determined for a particular security may be materially different (higher or lower) from the price of the security quoted or published by others or the value when trading resumes or is realized upon its sale. Therefore, if a shareholder purchases or redeems Fund shares when it holds securities priced at a fair value, the number of shares purchased or redeemed may be higher or lower than it would be if the Fund were using market value pricing. The Sub-Adviser anticipates that the Fund’s portfolio holdings will be fair valued only if market quotations for those holdings are unavailable or considered unreliable.

In the case of foreign securities, the occurrence of certain events after the close of foreign markets, but prior to the time the Fund’s NAV is calculated (such as a significant surge or decline in the U.S. or other markets) often will result in an adjustment to the trading prices of foreign securities when foreign markets open on the following business day. If such events occur, the Fund will value foreign securities at fair value, taking into account such events, in calculating the NAV. In such cases, use of fair valuation can reduce an investor’s ability to seek to profit by estimating the Fund’s NAV in advance of the time the NAV is calculated. In the event the Fund holds portfolio securities that trade in foreign markets or that are primarily listed on foreign exchanges that trade on weekends or other days when the Fund does not price its shares, the Fund’s NAV may change on days when shareholders will not be able to purchase or redeem the Fund’s shares.

How to Purchase Shares

All purchase requests received in good order by the Transfer Agent, or by an Authorized Intermediary before the close of the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) will be processed at that day’s NAV per share, plus any applicable sales charges. Purchase requests received by the Transfer Agent or an Authorized Intermediary after the close of the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) will receive the next business day’s NAV per share, plus any applicable sales charges. An “Authorized Intermediary” is a financial intermediary that has made arrangements with the Fund to receive purchase and redemption orders on its behalf. For additional information about purchasing shares through financial intermediaries, see “Purchasing Shares Through a Financial Intermediary” below.

Each account application (an “Account Application”) to purchase Fund shares is subject to acceptance by the Fund and is not binding until so accepted. The Fund reserves the right to reject any purchase order if, in its discretion, it is in the Fund’s best interest to do so. For example, a purchase order may be refused if it appears to be so large that it would disrupt the management of the Fund. Purchases may also be rejected from persons believed to be “market timers.” See “Tools to Combat Frequent Transactions” below. A service fee, currently $25, as well as any loss sustained by the Fund, will be deducted from a shareholder’s account for any payment that is returned to the Transfer Agent unpaid. Written notice of a rejected purchase order will be provided to the investor within one or two business days under normal circumstances. The Fund and the Transfer Agent are not responsible for any losses, liability, cost or expense resulting from rejecting any purchase order. Your order will not be accepted until a completed Account Application is received by the Fund or the Transfer Agent.

Minimum Investment Amounts


	Initial Investment	Subsequent Investments
Investor Class
Regular Accounts	$2,000	$100
Individual Retirement Accounts	$1,000	$100
Institutional Class
Regular Accounts	$100,000	$100
Individual Retirement Accounts	$25,000	$100

A Fund reserves the right to waive the minimum initial investment or minimum subsequent investment amounts in its sole discretion. Shareholders will be given at least 30 days’ written notice of any increase in the minimum dollar amount of initial or subsequent investments. The minimum investment may be modified for certain financial intermediaries that submit trades on behalf of underlying investors. Certain intermediaries also may have investment minimums which may differ from a Fund’s minimums, and may be waived at the intermediaries’ discretion. Investment minimums may be waived for wrap fee programs. For accounts sold through financial intermediaries, it is the primary responsibility of the financial intermediary to ensure compliance with investment minimums.

Purchase Requests Must Be Received in Good Order. Your share price will be the next calculated NAV per share, after the Transfer Agent or your Authorized Intermediary receives your purchase request in good order. “Good order” means that your purchase request includes:

•the name of the Fund and share class;

•the dollar amount of shares to be purchased;

•your account application or, for subsequent investments, an investment stub; and

•a check payable to Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund

The Fund reserves the right to change the requirements of “good order.” Shareholders will be given advance notice if the requirements of “good order” change.

The offering and sale of shares of the Fund have not been registered outside of the United States. The Fund generally does not sell shares to investors residing outside the United States, even if they are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents, except to investors with United States military APO or FPO addresses.

Investing by Telephone. If you accepted telephone options (on the Account Application or by subsequent arrangement in writing), and your account has been open for at least 7 business days, you may purchase additional shares by telephoning the Fund at 1-855-625-7333 (toll free). You must also have submitted a voided check or a savings deposit slip to have banking information established on your account. This option allows shareholders to move money from their bank accounts to their Fund accounts upon request. Only bank accounts held at U.S. financial institutions that are Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) members may be used for telephone transactions. The minimum telephone purchase amount is $100 once an initial investment has been made. If your order is received prior to the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time), shares will be purchased in your account at the NAV, plus any applicable sales charges, determined on the day that your order is placed. During periods of high market

activity, shareholders may encounter higher than usual call waiting times. Please allow sufficient time to place your telephone transaction.

Purchase by Mail. To purchase Fund shares by mail, complete and sign the Account Application and mail it, together with your check made payable to Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund to one of the addresses below. To make additional investments once you have opened your account, write your account number on the check and send it together with the Invest by Mail form from your most recent confirmation statement received from the Transfer Agent. If you do not have the Invest by Mail form, include the Fund name and your name, address, and account number on a separate piece of paper and mail it with your check made payable to the Fund to:


Regular Mail			Overnight or Express Mail
Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund			Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund
c/o U.S. Bank Global Fund Services			c/o U.S. Bank Global Fund Services
P.O. Box 701			615 East Michigan Street, 3rd Floor
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0701			Milwaukee, WI 53202

The Fund does not consider the U.S. Postal Service or other independent delivery services to be its agents. Therefore, deposit in the mail or with such services, of purchase orders or redemption requests does not constitute receipt by the Transfer Agent. Receipt of purchase orders or redemption requests is based on when the order is received at the Transfer Agent’s offices. All purchases by check must be in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. financial institution. The Fund will not accept payment in cash or money orders. To prevent check fraud, the Fund will not accept third-party checks, Treasury checks, credit-card checks, traveler’s checks or starter checks for the purchase of shares. The Fund is unable to accept post-dated checks or any conditional order or payment.

The Transfer Agent will charge a $25 fee against a shareholder’s account, in addition to any loss sustained by the Fund, for any payment that is returned. It is the policy of the Fund not to accept applications under certain circumstances or in amounts considered disadvantageous to other shareholders. The Fund reserves the right to reject any application.

Purchase by Wire Transfer. If you are making your first investment in the Fund through a wire purchase, the Transfer Agent must have received a completed Account Application before you wire funds. You may mail or use an overnight service to deliver your Account Application to the Transfer Agent at one of the above addresses. Upon receipt of your completed Account Application, the Transfer Agent will establish an account for you. Once your account has been established, you may instruct your financial institution to send the wire transfer. Prior to sending the wire transfer, please call the Transfer Agent at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free) to advise it of the wire transfer and to ensure proper credit upon receipt. Your financial institution must include the name of the Fund, your name and your account number so that monies may be correctly applied. Your financial institution should transmit immediately available funds by wire to:


Wire to:			U.S. Bank National Association
			777 East Wisconsin Avenue
			Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
ABA Number:			075000022
Credit:			U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC
Account:			112-952-137


Further Credit:			Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund
			(Shareholder Name/Account Registration)
			(Shareholder Account Number)

Wired funds must be received prior to the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) to be eligible for same day pricing. The Fund and U.S. Bank National Association are not responsible for the consequences of delays from the banking or Federal Reserve wire systems or from incomplete wiring instructions.

Subsequent Investments. The minimum subsequent investment for Investor Class shares and Institutional Class shares is $100. Shareholders will be given at least 30 days’ notice of any increase in the minimum dollar amount of subsequent investments. You may add to your account at any time by purchasing shares by mail, by telephone or by wire transfer. You must call to notify the Fund at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free) before wiring. An Invest by Mail form, which is attached to your confirmation statement, should accompany any subsequent investments made through the mail. All purchase requests must include your shareholder account number.

Automatic Investment Plan. For your convenience, the Fund offers an Automatic Investment Plan (the “AIP”). Under the AIP, after your initial investment, you may authorize the Fund to withdraw automatically from your personal checking or savings account an amount that you wish to invest, which must be at least $100, on a monthly basis. In order to participate in the AIP, your financial institution must be a member of the ACH network. If you wish to enroll in the AIP, complete the appropriate section in the Account Application. The Fund may terminate or modify this privilege at any time. You may terminate your participation in the AIP at any time by notifying the Transfer Agent five days prior to the effective date of the request. A fee (currently $25) will be charged if your bank does not honor an AIP draft for any reason.

Purchasing Shares Through a Financial Intermediary. Investors may be charged a fee if they effect transactions through a financial intermediary. If you are purchasing shares through a financial intermediary, you must follow the procedures established by your financial intermediary. Your financial intermediary is responsible for sending your purchase order and wiring payment to the Transfer Agent. Your financial intermediary holds the shares in your name and receives all confirmations of purchases and sales. Financial intermediaries placing orders for themselves or on behalf of their customers should call the Fund at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free) or follow the instructions listed in the sections above entitled “Investing by Telephone,” “Purchase by Mail” and “Purchase by Wire.”

If you place an order for the Fund’s shares through a financial intermediary that is not an Authorized Intermediary in accordance with such financial intermediary’s procedures, and the financial intermediary then transmits your order to the Transfer Agent in accordance with the Transfer Agent’s instructions, your purchase will be processed at the NAV, next calculated after the Transfer Agent receives your order. The financial intermediary must promise to send to the Transfer Agent immediately available funds in the amount of the purchase price in accordance with the Transfer Agent’s procedures. If payment is not received within the time specified, the Transfer Agent may rescind the transaction and the financial intermediary will be held liable for any resulting fees or losses.

In the case of Authorized Intermediaries that have made satisfactory payment or redemption arrangements with the Fund, orders will be processed at the NAV, next calculated after receipt in good order by the Authorized Intermediary, consistent with applicable laws and regulations. An order is deemed to be received when the Fund or an Authorized Intermediary accepts the order.

For more information about your financial intermediary’s rules and procedures, whether your financial intermediary is an Authorized Intermediary, and whether your financial intermediary imposes cut-off times for the receipt of orders that are earlier than the cut-off times established by the Fund, you should contact your financial intermediary directly.

Brokerage Platforms. Institutional Class shares may be available on certain brokerage platforms. An investor transacting in Institutional Class shares through a broker that is acting as an agent for the investor may be required by such broker to pay a separate commission and/or other forms of compensation to their broker. Such broker commissions are not reflected in the Fund’s fee table or expense examples.

Anti-Money Laundering Program. The Trust has established an Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program (the “AML Program”) as required by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”) and related anti-money laundering laws and regulations. To ensure compliance with this law, the Account Application asks for, among other things, the following information for all “customers” seeking to open an “account” (as those terms are defined in rules adopted pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act):

•full name;

•date of birth (individuals only);

•Social Security or taxpayer identification number; and

•permanent street address (a post office box number alone is not acceptable).

If you are opening an account in the name of a legal entity (e.g., a partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, etc.), you must also supply the identity of the beneficial owners of the legal entity. Accounts opened by entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships or trusts, will require additional documentation.

If any information listed above is missing, your Account Application will be returned, and your account will not be opened. In compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act and other applicable anti-money laundering laws and regulations, the Transfer Agent will verify the information on your application as part of the AML Program. The Fund reserves the right to request additional clarifying information and may close your account if clarifying information is not received by the Fund within a reasonable time of the request or if the Fund cannot form a reasonable belief as to the true identity of a customer. In the rare event that we are unable to verify your identity, the Fund reserves the right to redeem your account at the current day’s NAV. If you require additional assistance when completing your application, please contact the Transfer Agent at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free).

How to Redeem Shares

In general, orders to sell or “redeem” shares may be placed either directly with the Fund or through an Authorized Intermediary. However, if you originally purchased your shares through an Authorized Intermediary, your redemption order must be placed with an Authorized Intermediary. Your Authorized Intermediary is responsible for sending your order to the Transfer Agent and for crediting your account with the proceeds. You may redeem all or part of your Fund shares on any business day that the Fund calculates its NAV. To redeem shares directly through the Fund, you must contact the Fund either by mail or by telephone to place a redemption request. Shares of the Fund are redeemed at the next calculated NAV after the Fund has received your redemption request in good order. Your redemption request must be received in good order (as discussed under “Payment of Redemption Proceeds,” below) prior to the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) by the Transfer Agent or your

Authorized Intermediary. Redemption requests received by the Transfer Agent or an Authorized Intermediary after the close of regular trading on the NYSE will be treated as though received on the next business day.

Shareholders who hold their shares in an IRA or other tax-advantaged account must indicate on their written redemption request whether to withhold federal income tax. Redemption requests failing to indicate an election not to have tax withheld will generally be subject to 10% withholding. Shares held in IRA or other retirement plan accounts may be redeemed by telephone at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free). Investors will be asked whether or not to withhold taxes from any distribution.

Payment of Redemption Proceeds. You may redeem your Fund shares at the NAV per share next determined after the Transfer Agent or your Authorized Intermediary receives your redemption request in good order. Your redemption request will not be processed on days on which the NYSE is closed. All requests received by the Fund in good order before the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) will usually be sent one to three business days following the receipt of your redemption request.

A redemption request will be deemed in “good order” if it includes:

•the shareholder’s name;

•the name of the Fund and share class you are redeeming from;

•the account number;

•the share or dollar amount to be redeemed; and

•the signatures of all shareholders on the account (for written redemption requests, with signature(s) guaranteed if applicable).

The Fund reserves the right to change the requirements of “good order.” Shareholders will be given advance notice if the requirements of “good order” change. For more information about your financial intermediary’s requirements for redemption requests in “good order”, please contact your financial intermediary.

You may receive proceeds of your sale by a check sent to the address of record, electronically via the ACH network using the bank instructions previously established for your account, or federal wire transfer to your pre-established bank account. The Fund typically expects that it will take one to three business days following the receipt of your redemption request to pay out redemption proceeds, regardless of whether the redemption proceeds are paid by check, ACH transfer or wire. Please note that wires are subject to a $15 fee. There is no charge to have proceeds sent via ACH; however, funds are typically credited to your bank within two to three business days after redemption. Proceeds will be sent within seven calendar days after the Fund receives your redemption request, unless the Fund has suspended your right of redemption or postponed the payment date as permitted under the federal securities laws.

The Fund typically expects it will hold cash or cash equivalents to meet redemption requests. The Fund may also use the proceeds from the sale of portfolio securities to meet redemption requests if consistent with the management of the Fund. These redemption methods will be used regularly and may also be used in stressed market conditions.

If the Transfer Agent has not yet collected payment for recently purchased shares that you are selling, it may delay sending the proceeds until the payment is collected, which may take up to 12 calendar days from the purchase date. Shareholders can avoid this delay by utilizing the wire purchase option. Furthermore, there are certain times when you may be unable to sell Fund shares or receive proceeds.

Specifically, the Fund may suspend the right to redeem shares or postpone the date of payment upon redemption for more than seven calendar days as determined by the SEC: (1) during any period in which the NYSE is closed (other than customary weekend or holiday closings) or trading on the NYSE is restricted, (2) during any period in which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal by the Fund of securities owned by it is not reasonably practicable or it is not reasonably practicable for the Fund to fairly determine the value of its net assets or (3) during such other periods as the SEC prescribes for the protection of shareholders. Your ability to redeem shares by telephone may be delayed or restricted after you change your address online or by telephone. You may change your address at any time by a written request, addressed to the Transfer Agent. Confirmation of an address change will be sent to both your old and new address. Redemption proceeds will be sent to the address of record. The Fund is not responsible for interest lost on redemption amounts due to lost or misdirected mail.

The Fund may delay paying redemption proceeds for up to 7 calendar days after receiving a request if an earlier payment could adversely affect the Fund.

Redemption in-Kind. The Fund generally pays redemption proceeds in cash. However, the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has filed a notice of election pursuant to Rule 18f-1 under the 1940 Act, under which the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has reserved the right for the Fund to redeem in-kind under certain circumstances, meaning that redemption proceeds are paid in liquid securities with a market value equal to the redemption price. If the Fund pays your redemption proceeds by a distribution of securities, you could incur brokerage or other charges when converting the securities to cash. These securities received in-kind remain subject to general market risks until sold. For federal income tax purposes, redemptions in-kind are taxed in the same manner to a redeeming shareholder as redemptions made in cash. In addition, sales of such in-kind securities may generate taxable gains.

Redemptions in-kind are typically used to meet redemption requests that represent a large percentage of the Fund’s net assets in order to minimize the effect of large redemptions on the Fund and its remaining shareholders. Redemptions in-kind may be used in circumstances as described above, and may also be used in stressed market conditions. The Fund has in place a line of credit that may be used to meet redemption requests during stressed market conditions.

Redemption in-kind proceeds are limited to securities that are traded on a public securities market or for which quoted bid prices are available. In the unlikely event that the Fund redeems shares in-kind, the procedures utilized by the Fund to determine the securities to be distributed to redeeming shareholders will generally be representative of a shareholder’s interest in the Fund’s portfolio securities. However, the Fund may also redeem in-kind using individual securities as circumstances dictate.

Signature Guarantees. The Transfer Agent may require a signature guarantee for some redemption requests. Signature guarantees can be obtained from domestic banks, brokers, dealers, credit unions, national securities exchanges, registered securities associations, clearing agencies and savings associations, as well as from participants in the New York Stock Exchange Medallion Signature Program and the Securities Transfer Agents Medallion Program (“STAMP”), but not from a notary public. A signature guarantee, from either a Medallion program member or a non-Medallion program member, of each owner is required in the following situations:

•if ownership is being changed on your account;

•when redemption proceeds are payable or sent to any person, address or bank account not on record;

•when a redemption request is received by the Transfer Agent and the account address has changed within the last 15 calendar days; or

•for all redemptions in excess of $100,000 from any shareholder account.

Non-financial transactions, including establishing or modifying certain services on an account, may require a signature guarantee, signature verification from a Signature Validation Program member or other acceptable form of authentication from a financial intermediary source.

In addition to the situations described above, the Fund and/or the Transfer Agent reserve the right to require a signature guarantee or other acceptable signature verification in other instances based on the circumstances relative to the particular situation.

Redemption by Mail. You may execute most redemption requests by furnishing an unconditional written request to the Fund to redeem your shares at the current NAV per share. Redemption requests in writing should be sent to the Transfer Agent at:


Regular Mail			Overnight or Express Mail
Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund			Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund
c/o U.S. Bank Global Fund Services			c/o U.S. Bank Global Fund Services
P.O. Box 701			615 East Michigan Street, 3rd Floor
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0701			Milwaukee, WI 53202

Telephone Redemption. If you accepted telephone options (on the Account Application or by subsequent arrangement in writing), you may redeem shares in amounts of $100,000 or less by instructing the Fund by telephone at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free). A signature verification from a Signature Validation Program member or other acceptable form of authentication from a financial intermediary source may be required of all shareholders in order to qualify for or to change telephone redemption privileges on an existing account. Telephone redemptions cannot be made if you have notified the Transfer Agent of a change of address within 15 days before the redemption request. Once a telephone transaction has been placed, it may not be cancelled or modified after the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time). If an account has more than one owner or authorized person, the Fund will accept telephone instructions from any one owner or authorized person.

Wire Redemption. Wire transfers may be arranged to redeem shares. The Transfer Agent charges a fee, currently $15, per wire redemption against your account on dollar-specific trades and from proceeds on complete redemptions and share-specific trades. There is no such charge to have proceeds sent via ACH.

Systematic Withdrawal Plan (“SWP”). The Fund offers a SWP through which you or your representatives may request that a redemption in a specific dollar amount be sent to you each month, calendar quarter or year. You may choose to have a check sent to the address of record, or proceeds may be sent to a pre-designated bank account via the ACH network. To start this program, your account must have a value of at least $2,000. The minimum amount that may be withdrawn each month, quarter or year is $100. The SWP may be terminated or modified by a shareholder or the Fund at any time. You may terminate your participation in the SWP at any time in writing or by telephoning the Transfer Agent no later than five days before the next scheduled withdrawal. A withdrawal under the SWP involves a redemption of Fund shares and may result in a taxable capital gain or loss for federal income tax

purposes. In addition, if the amount withdrawn exceeds the amounts credited to your account, the account ultimately may be depleted. To establish the SWP, complete the SWP section of the Account Application. Please call 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free) for additional information regarding the SWP.

The Fund’s Right to Redeem an Account. The Fund reserves the right to redeem the shares of any shareholder whose account balance is less than $1,000, other than as a result of a decline in the NAV. The Fund will provide you with written notice at least 30 days prior to redeeming your account. Redemption of a shareholder’s account by the Fund may result in a taxable capital gain or loss for federal income tax purposes.

Converting Shares

Share class conversions are based on the relevant NAVs of the applicable share classes at the time of the conversion and no sales load or other charge is imposed. The Fund expects all share class conversions to be made on a tax-free basis. The Fund reserves the right to modify or eliminate the share class conversion feature. When a conversion occurs, reinvested dividends and capital gains convert with the shares that are converting.

Investors who hold Institutional Class shares of the Fund through a fee-based program, but who subsequently become ineligible to participate in the program or withdraw from the program, may be subject to conversion of their Institutional Class shares by their program provider to another class of shares of the Fund having expenses (including Rule 12b-1 fees) that may be higher than the expenses of the Institutional Class shares. Investors should contact their program provider to obtain information about their eligibility for the provider’s program and the class of shares they would receive upon such a conversion.

Tools to Combat Frequent Transactions

The Fund is intended for long-term investors. Short-term market timers who engage in frequent purchases and redemptions may disrupt the Fund’s investment program and create additional transaction costs that are borne by all of the Fund’s shareholders. The Board of Trustees has adopted policies and procedures that are designed to discourage excessive short-term trading and other abusive trading practices that may disrupt portfolio management strategies and harm performance. The Fund takes steps to reduce the frequency and effect of these activities in the Fund. These steps may include, among other things, monitoring trading activity and using fair value pricing, as determined by the Board of Trustees, when the Sub-Adviser determines that current market prices are not readily available. Although these efforts are designed to discourage abusive trading practices, they cannot eliminate the possibility that such activity will occur. The Fund seeks to exercise its judgment in implementing these tools to the best of its abilities and in a manner that it believes is consistent with shareholder interests. Except as noted herein, the Fund applies all restrictions uniformly in all applicable cases.

Monitoring Trading Practices. The Fund monitors selected trades in an effort to detect excessive short-term trading activities. If, as a result of this monitoring, the Fund believes that you have engaged in excessive short-term trading, it may, in its discretion, ask you to stop such activities or refuse to process purchases in your accounts. In making such judgments, the Fund seeks to act in a manner that it believes is consistent with the best interests of its shareholders. The Fund uses a variety of techniques to monitor for and detect abusive trading practices. These techniques may change from time to time as determined by the Fund in its sole discretion. To minimize harm to the Fund and its shareholders, the Fund reserves the right to reject any purchase order (but not a redemption request), in whole or in part, for any reason (including, without limitation, purchases by persons whose trading activity in Fund shares is believed by the Adviser to be harmful to the Fund) and without prior notice. The Fund may decide to restrict

purchase and sale activity in its shares based on various factors, including whether frequent purchase and sale activity will disrupt portfolio management strategies and adversely affect Fund performance or whether the shareholder has conducted four round trip transactions within a 12-month period.

Due to the complexity and subjectivity involved in identifying abusive trading activity and the volume of shareholder transactions that the Fund handles, there can be no assurance that the Fund’s efforts will identify all trades or trading practices that may be considered abusive. In particular, since the Fund receives purchase and sale orders through Authorized Intermediaries that use non-disclosed or omnibus accounts, the Fund may not always detect frequent trading. However, the Fund will work with Authorized Intermediaries as necessary to discourage shareholders from engaging in abusive trading practices and to impose restrictions on excessive trades. In this regard, the Fund has entered into information-sharing agreements with its Authorized Intermediaries pursuant to which the Authorized Intermediaries are required to provide to the Fund, at the Fund’s request, certain information relating to their customers investing in the Fund through non-disclosed or omnibus accounts. The Fund will use this information to attempt to identify abusive trading practices. Authorized Intermediaries are contractually required to follow any instructions from the Fund to restrict or prohibit future purchases from shareholders who are found to have engaged in abusive trading in violation of the Fund’s policies. However, the Fund cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided to it from Authorized Intermediaries and cannot ensure that it will always be able to detect abusive trading practices that occur through non-disclosed and omnibus accounts. As a result, the Fund’s ability to monitor and discourage abusive trading practices in non-disclosed and omnibus accounts may be limited.

Fair Value Pricing. The Fund employs fair value pricing selectively to ensure greater accuracy in its daily NAV and to prevent dilution by frequent traders or market timers who seek to take advantage of temporary market anomalies. The Adviser has developed procedures which utilize fair value pricing when reliable market quotations are not readily available or the Fund’s Pricing Service does not provide a valuation (or provides a valuation that, in the judgment of the Sub-Adviser, does not represent the security’s fair value), or when, in the judgment of the Sub-Adviser, events have rendered the market value unreliable. Valuing securities at fair value involves reliance on judgment. Fair value determinations are made in good faith in accordance with procedures adopted by the Adviser. There can be no assurance that the Fund will obtain the fair value assigned to a security if it were to sell the security at approximately the time at which a Fund determines its NAV per share. More detailed information regarding fair value pricing can be found in this Prospectus under the heading “Share Price.”

Other Fund Policies

Telephone Transactions. If you accepted telephone privileges on the Account Application or in a letter to the Fund, you may be responsible for any fraudulent telephone orders as long as the Fund has taken reasonable precautions to verify your identity. In addition, once you place a telephone transaction request, it may not be canceled or modified after the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time).

During periods of significant economic or market change, telephone transactions may be difficult to complete. If you are unable to contact the Fund by telephone, you may also mail your requests to the Fund at one of the addresses previously listed in “How to Purchase Shares – Purchase by Mail” or “How to Redeem Shares – Redemption by Mail” above. Neither the Fund nor the Transfer Agent are liable for any loss incurred due to failure to complete a telephone transaction prior to the close of the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time).

Telephone transactions must be received by or prior to the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time). During periods of high market activity, shareholders may encounter higher than usual call-waiting times. Please allow sufficient time to ensure that you will be able to complete your telephone transaction prior to the close of regular trading on the NYSE. The Fund is not responsible for delays due to communications or transmission outages, subject to applicable law.

Neither the Fund nor any of its service providers is liable for any loss or expense in acting upon instructions that are reasonably believed to be genuine, subject to applicable law. To confirm that all telephone instructions are genuine, the Fund uses reasonable procedures, such as requesting:

•that you correctly state your Fund account number;

•the name in which your account is registered; or

•the Social Security or taxpayer identification number under which the account is registered.

Policies of Authorized Intermediaries. An Authorized Intermediary or its designee may establish policies that differ from those of the Fund. For example, an Authorized Intermediary may charge transaction fees, set higher or lower minimum investments or impose certain limitations on buying or selling shares in addition to those identified in this Prospectus. Please contact your Authorized Intermediary for details.

Closure of the Fund. The Adviser retains the right to close the Fund (or partially close the Fund) to new purchases if it is determined to be in the best interest of shareholders. Based on market and Fund conditions, the Adviser may decide to close the Fund to new investors, all investors or certain classes of investors (such as fund supermarkets) at any time. If the Fund is closed to new purchases it will continue to honor redemption requests, unless the right to redeem shares has been temporarily suspended as permitted by federal law.

Householding. In an effort to decrease costs, the Fund intends to reduce the number of duplicate prospectuses, supplements and certain other shareholder documents you receive by sending only one copy of each to those addresses shared by two or more accounts and to shareholders the Fund reasonably believes are from the same family or household. If you would like to discontinue householding for your accounts, please call toll-free at 1-855-625-7333 to request individual copies of documents; if your shares are held through a Financial Intermediary, please contact them directly. Once the Fund receives notice to stop householding, the Fund will begin sending individual copies within 30 days after receiving your request. This policy does not apply to account statements.

Lost Shareholders, Inactive Accounts and Unclaimed Property. It is important that the Fund maintains a correct address for each shareholder. An incorrect address may cause a shareholder’s account statements and other mailings to be returned to the Fund. Based upon statutory requirements for returned mail, the Fund will attempt to locate the shareholder or rightful owner of the account. If the Fund is unable to locate the shareholder, then it will determine whether the shareholder’s account can legally be considered abandoned. Your mutual fund account may be transferred to the state government of your state of residence if no activity occurs within your account during the “inactivity period” specified in your state’s abandoned property laws. The Fund is legally obligated to escheat (or transfer) abandoned property to the appropriate state’s unclaimed property administrator in accordance with statutory requirements. The shareholder’s last known address of record determines which state has jurisdiction. Please proactively contact the Transfer Agent toll-free at 1-855-625-7333 at least annually to ensure your account remains in active status.

If you are a resident of the state of Texas, you may designate a representative to receive notifications that, due to inactivity, your mutual fund account assets may be delivered to the Texas Comptroller. Please contact the Transfer Agent if you wish to complete a Texas Designation of Representative form.

IRA Accounts. IRA accounts held by the Transfer Agent will be charged a $15 annual maintenance fee.


Distribution of Fund Shares

The Distributor

The Trust has entered into a Distribution Agreement (the “Distribution Agreement”) with Foreside Fund Services, LLC (the “Distributor”), located at Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100, Portland, Maine 04101, pursuant to which the Distributor acts as the Fund’s principal underwriter, provides certain administration services and promotes and arranges for the sale of Fund shares. The offering of the Fund shares is continuous, and the Distributor distributes shares on a best efforts basis. The Distributor is not obligated to sell any certain number of shares. The Distributor is a registered broker-dealer and member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

Distribution and Shareholder Service (Rule 12b-1) Plan

The Fund has adopted a Distribution and Shareholder Service Plan pursuant to Rule 12b-1 (the “Plan”) under the 1940 Act. Under the Plan, the Fund is authorized to pay the Distributor, or other such entities as approved by the Board of Trustees, Rule 12b-1 distribution fees for the sale and distribution of its shares and services provided to shareholders. The maximum amount of the Rule 12b-1 fee authorized is 0.25% of the Fund’s average daily net assets attributable to Investors Class shares, annually. The Distributor may pay any or all amounts received under the Plan to other persons, including the Adviser, for any distribution or service activity. Because these fees are paid out of the Fund’s assets attributable to Investor Class shares on an on-going basis, over time these fees will increase the cost of your investment in Fund shares and may cost you more than paying other types of sales charges.

Payments to Financial Intermediaries

The Fund may pay fees to intermediaries such as banks, broker-dealers, financial advisers or other financial institutions, including affiliates of the Adviser, for recordkeeping, sub-administration, sub-accounting, sub-transfer agency and other shareholder services (collectively, “sub-TA services”) associated with shareholders whose shares are held of record in omnibus and networked accounts, retirement plans, other group accounts or accounts traded through registered securities clearing agents in lieu of the transfer agent providing such services.

The Adviser, out of its own resources and legitimate profits and without additional cost to the Fund or its shareholders, may provide additional cash payments to certain intermediaries. These payments, sometimes referred to as revenue sharing, are in addition to sub-TA fees paid by the Fund, if any. Revenue sharing payments may be made to intermediaries for sub-TA services or distribution-related services, such as marketing support; access to third party platforms; access to sales meetings, sales representatives and management representatives of the intermediary; inclusion of the Fund on a sales list, including a preferred or select sales list, and in other sales programs. The Adviser may also pay cash compensation in the form of finder’s fees that vary depending on the dollar amount of the shares sold. From time to time, and in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, the Adviser may also provide non-cash compensation to representatives of various intermediaries who sell Fund shares or provide services to Fund shareholders.


Distributions and Taxes

Distributions

The Fund will make distributions of net investment income dividends at least annually, typically in December. These payments could be treated as returns of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund normally declares and pays out net realized capital gain distributions, if any, annually in December. The Fund may make additional distributions if it deems a distribution to be desirable at other times during the year. You may also change your elections any time by giving the Fund written notice at least 10 days before the scheduled payment date.

All distributions will be reinvested in additional Fund shares unless you choose one of the following options: (1) to receive distributions of net capital gain in cash, while reinvesting net investment income distributions in additional Fund shares; (2) to receive all distributions in cash; or (3) to reinvest net capital gain distributions in additional Fund shares while receiving distributions of net investment income in cash. Most investors have their dividends and distributions reinvested in additional shares, and the Fund will do this automatically unless you request otherwise. If you wish to change your distribution option, write to or call the Transfer Agent or your Financial Professional in advance of the payment date of the distribution. However, any such change will be effective only as to distributions for which the record date is five or more calendar days after the Transfer Agent receives the request.

If you elect to receive distributions in cash and the U.S. Postal Service is unable to deliver your check, or if the check remains uncashed for six months, the Fund reserves the right to reinvest the distribution check in your account at the Fund’s then current NAV per share and to reinvest all subsequent distributions.

Federal Income Tax Consequences

Changes in income tax laws, potentially with retroactive effect, could impact the Fund’s investments or the tax consequences to you of investing in the Fund. Some of the changes could affect the timing, amount and tax treatment of the Fund’s distributions made to shareholders. Please consult your tax advisor before investing.

The Fund intends to qualify and elect to be treated as a RIC under Subchapter M of the Code, provided that it complies with all applicable requirements regarding the source of its income, diversification of its assets and the timing and amount of its distributions. However, there can be no assurance that the Fund will satisfy all requirements to be taxed as a RIC.

Distributions of the Fund’s investment company taxable income (which includes, but is not limited to, interest, dividends, net short-term capital gain), if any, are generally taxable to the Fund’s shareholders as ordinary income. For a non-corporate shareholder, to the extent that the Fund’s distributions of investment company taxable income are attributable to and reported as “qualified dividend” income, such income may be subject to tax at the reduced federal income tax rates applicable to long-term capital gain, if certain holding period requirements have been satisfied by the shareholder. For a corporate shareholder, a portion of the Fund’s distributions of investment company taxable income may qualify for the intercorporate dividends-received deduction to the extent the Fund receives dividends directly or indirectly from U.S. corporations, reports the amount distributed as eligible for the deduction and the corporate shareholder meets certain holding period requirements with respect to its shares. To the extent

that the Fund’s distributions of investment company taxable income are attributable to net short-term capital gain, such distributions will be treated as ordinary income and generally cannot be offset by a shareholder’s capital losses from other investments.

Distributions of the Fund’s net capital gain (net long-term capital gain less net short-term capital loss) are generally taxable as a long-term capital gain regardless of the length of time that a shareholder has owned Fund shares. Distributions of net capital gain are not eligible for qualified dividend income treatment or the dividends-received deduction referred to in the previous paragraph.

You will be taxed in the same manner whether you receive your distributions (of investment company taxable income or net capital gain) in cash or reinvest them in additional Fund shares. Distributions are generally taxable when received. However, distributions declared in October, November or December to shareholders of record and paid the following January are taxable as if received on December 31.

In addition to the federal income tax, certain individuals, trusts and estates may be subject to a net investment income (“NII”) tax of 3.8%. The NII tax is imposed on the lesser of: (i) a taxpayer’s investment income, net of deductions properly allocable to such income, or (ii) the amount by which such taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds certain thresholds ($250,000 for married individuals filing jointly, $200,000 for unmarried individuals, and $125,000 for married individuals filing separately). The Fund’s distributions are includable in a shareholder’s investment income for purposes of this NII tax. In addition, any capital gain realized by a shareholder upon a sale or redemption of Fund shares is includable in such shareholder’s investment income for purposes of this NII tax.

Shareholders who sell or redeem shares generally will have a capital gain or loss from the sale or redemption. The amount of the gain or loss and the applicable rate of federal income tax will depend generally upon the amount paid for the shares, the amount received from the sale or redemption (including in-kind redemptions) and how long the shares were held by a shareholder. Gain or loss realized upon a sale or redemption of Fund shares will generally be treated as a long-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for more than one year and, if held for one year or less, as a short-term capital gain or loss. Any loss arising from the sale or redemption of shares held for six months or less, however, is treated as a long-term capital loss to the extent of any distributions of net capital gain received or deemed to be received with respect to such shares. In determining the holding period of such shares for this purpose, any period during which your risk of loss is offset by means of options, short sales or similar transactions is not counted. If you purchase Fund shares (through reinvestment of distributions or otherwise) within 30 days before or after selling or redeeming other Fund shares at a loss, all or part of that loss will not be deductible and will instead increase the basis of the new shares.

The Fund may elect to pass through to you your pro rata share of foreign income taxes paid by the Fund if more than 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets at the close of its taxable year consists of foreign stocks and securities. The Fund will notify you if it is eligible to and makes such an election.

The Fund is required to report to certain shareholders and the IRS the cost basis of Fund shares acquired on or after January 1, 2012, when those shareholders subsequently sell or redeem those shares. The Fund will determine cost basis using the average cost method unless you elect in writing any alternate IRS-approved cost basis method. Please see the SAI for more information regarding cost basis reporting.

The federal income tax status of all distributions made by the Fund for the preceding year will be annually reported to shareholders. Distributions made by the Fund may also be subject to state and local taxes. Additional tax information may be found in the SAI.

This section is not intended to be a full discussion of federal income tax laws and the effect of such laws on you. There may be other federal, state, foreign or local tax considerations applicable to a particular investor. You are urged to consult your own tax adviser.


Derivative Actions

Pursuant to the Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust (the “Declaration of Trust”), and subject to the limitations disclosed in the Declaration of Trust, a Fund shareholder may only bring a derivative action if (i) the complaining shareholder was a shareholder of the Trust or the affected series or class, as applicable, at the time of the action; (ii) the shareholder was a shareholder of the Trust or the affected series or class, as applicable, as of the time of the demand; and (iii) prior to the commencement of such derivative action, the complaining shareholders have made a written demand to the Board of Trustees requesting that they cause the Trust or affected series or class, as applicable, to file the action itself. The Declaration of Trust details information, certifications, undertakings, and acknowledgments that must be included in the demand. The Declaration of Trust also requires that, in order to bring a derivative action, the complaining shareholders must be joined in the action by shareholders representing no less than a majority of the then outstanding shares of the affected series or class to which such action relates if it does not relate to all series and classes. The Trustees shall be entitled to retain counsel or other advisors in considering the merits of the request and may require an undertaking by the shareholders making such request to reimburse the Trust for the expense of any such advisors in the event that the Trustees determine not to bring such action. The provision requiring at least a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Trust, applicable series or class to join in the request to bring the derivative action and the provision requiring an undertaking by the requesting shareholders to reimburse the Trust for the expense of any advisors retained by the Board in the event that the Trustees determine not to bring such action, do not apply to claims brought under federal securities laws.

If the demand for derivative action has been considered by the Trustees, and after considering the merits of the claim, the Trustees have determined that maintaining a suit would not be in the best interests of the Trust or the affected series or class, as applicable, the complaining shareholders will be barred from commencing the derivative action (this provision does not apply to claims arising under the federal securities laws). The Trust will inform the complaining shareholders of any decision reached within five business days of reaching its decision.


Financial Highlights

Financial information is not available because the Fund had not commenced operations prior to the date of this Prospectus.


PRIVACY NOTICE

The Fund collects non-public personal information about you from the following sources:

•information the Fund receives about you on applications or other forms;

•information you give the Fund orally; and/or

•information about your transactions with the Fund or others.

The Fund does not disclose any non-public personal information about its shareholders or former shareholders without the shareholder’s authorization, except as permitted by law or in response to inquiries from governmental authorities. The Fund may share information with affiliated parties and unaffiliated third parties with whom it has contracts for servicing the Fund. The Fund will provide unaffiliated third parties with only the information necessary to carry out its assigned responsibility. All shareholder records will be disposed of in accordance with applicable law. The Fund maintains physical, electronic and procedural safeguards to protect your non-public personal information and requires third parties to treat your non-public personal information with the same high degree of confidentiality.

In the event that you hold shares of the Fund through a financial intermediary, including, but not limited to, a broker-dealer, bank or trust company, the privacy policy of your financial intermediary governs how your non-public personal information is shared with unaffiliated third parties.

Investment Adviser

Cromwell Investment Advisors, LLC

810 Gleneagles Court, Suite 106

Baltimore, Maryland 21286

Sub-Adviser

Foresight Group LLP

The Shard, 32 London Bridge Street

London SE1 9SG, United Kingdom

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

BBD, LLP

1835 Market Street, 3rd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Legal Counsel

Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP

2005 Market Street, Suite 2600

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Custodian

U.S. Bank National Association

Custody Operations

1555 North River Center Drive, Suite 302

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53212

Transfer Agent, Fund Accountant and Fund Administrator

U.S. Bank Global Fund Services

615 East Michigan Street

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

Distributor

Foreside Fund Services, LLC

Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100

Portland, Maine 04101

CROMWELL FORESIGHT GLOBAL
SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND


FOR MORE INFORMATION

You may find more information about the Fund in the following documents:

Statement of Additional Information

The Fund’s SAI provides additional details about the investments and techniques of the Fund and certain other additional information. The current SAI on file with the SEC is incorporated into this Prospectus by reference. This means that the Fund’s SAI is legally considered a part of this Prospectus even though it is not physically within this Prospectus.

Annual and Semi-Annual Reports

The Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports provide the most recent financial reports and portfolio holdings. The Fund’s annual report contains a discussion of the market conditions and investment strategies that significantly affected the Fund’s performance during the Fund’s prior fiscal year.

You may obtain a free copy of these documents, request other information or make general inquiries about the Fund by calling the Fund at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free), by visiting www.thecromwellfunds.com or by writing to:

CROMWELL FORESIGHT GLOBAL
SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

c/o U.S. Bank Global Fund Services

P.O. Box 701

Milwaukee, WI 53201-0701

Shareholder reports and other information about the Fund are also available:

•free of charge from the SEC’s EDGAR database on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov; or

•for a fee, by electronic request at the following e-mail address: publicinfo@sec.gov.

_______________________________________________

(The Trust’s SEC Investment Company Act of 1940 file number is 811-23724.)

CROMWELL FORESIGHT GLOBAL
SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

Investor Class Shares (CFGVX)

Institutional Class Shares (CFGIX)

____________________________

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Dated January 31, 2023

___________________________________________________________________________________

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) provides general information about the Cromwell Foresight Global Sustainable Infrastructure Fund (the “Fund”), a series of Total Fund Solution (the “Trust”). This SAI is not a prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Fund’s current prospectus dated January 31, 2023 (the “Prospectus”), as supplemented and amended from time to time, which is incorporated herein by reference. To obtain a copy of the Prospectus and/or the Fund’s annual report to shareholders free of charge (when available), please call the Fund at 1-855-625-7333 toll free or by visit the Fund’s website at www.thecromwellfunds.com.

Table of Contents


			Page
THE TRUST			1
INVESTMENT POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND ASSOCIATED RISKS			1
INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS			12
FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS			12
NON-FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS			15
MANAGEMENT OF THE FUND			15
BOARD OF TRUSTEES			15
TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS			15
ROLE OF THE BOARD			17
BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE			17
BOARD OVERSIGHT OF RISK MANAGEMENT			17
TRUSTEE QUALIFICATIONS			17
TRUSTEE OWNERSHIP OF FUND SHARES			19
BOARD COMMITTEES			19
TRUSTEE COMPENSATION			20
CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS			20
INVESTMENT ADVISER			20
MANAGER-OF-MANAGERS ARRANGEMENTS			21
INVESTMENT SUB-ADVISER			22
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS			23
SERVICE PROVIDERS			24
FUND ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSFER AGENT AND FUND ACCOUNTANT			24
CUSTODIAN			24
LEGAL COUNSEL			25
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM			25
DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICING OF FUND SHARES			#
DISTRIBUTION AND SHAREHOLDER SERVICE (RULE 12b-1) PLAN			25
RULE 12b-1 DISTRIBUTION FEE			26
SUB-ACCOUNTING SERVICE FEES			26
PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS AND BROKERAGE			26
PORTFOLIO TURNOVER			28
CODE OF ETHICS			28
PROXY-VOTING PROCEDURES			28
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COMPLIANCE PROGRAM			29
PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS INFORMATION			29
DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE			30
ADDITIONAL PURCHASE AND REDEMPTION INFORMATION			31
FEDERAL INCOME TAX MATTERS			33
DISTRIBUTIONS			40
COST BASIS REPORTING			40
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS			41
APPENDIX A - PROXY VOTING POLICY			A-1


			-i-

The Trust

Total Fund Solution (the “Trust”) is a Delaware statutory trust organized on July 29, 2021 and is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as an open-end management investment company. The Fund is one series, or mutual fund, formed by the Trust. The Fund is a non-diversified series and has its own investment objective and policies. Shares of other series of the Trust are offered in separate prospectuses and SAIs. The Trust may register additional series and offer shares of a new fund or share class under the Trust at any time.

The Trust is authorized to issue an unlimited number of interests (or shares). Interests in the Fund are represented by shares of beneficial interest each with no par value. Each share of the Trust has equal voting rights and liquidation rights, and is voted in the aggregate and not by the series or class of shares except in matters where a separate vote is required by the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), or when the matters affect only the interests of a particular series or class of shares. When matters are submitted to shareholders for a vote, each shareholder is entitled to one vote for each full share owned and fractional votes for fractional shares owned. Shares of each series or class generally vote together, except when required under federal securities laws to vote separately on matters that only affect a particular class. The Trust does not normally hold annual meetings of shareholders. The Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board” or the “Board of Trustees”) shall promptly call and give notice of a meeting of shareholders for the purpose of voting upon removal of any trustee when requested to do so in writing by shareholders holding 10% or more of the Trust’s outstanding shares.

Each share of the Fund represents an equal proportionate interest in the assets and liabilities belonging to the Fund and is entitled to such distributions out of the income belonging to the Fund as are declared by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees has the authority from time to time to divide or combine the shares of any series into a greater or lesser number of shares of that series so long as the proportionate beneficial interests in the assets belonging to that series and the rights of shares of any other series are in no way affected. Additionally, in case of any liquidation of a series, the shareholders of the series being liquidated are entitled to receive a distribution out of the assets, net of the liabilities, belonging to that series. Expenses attributable to any series or class are borne by that series or class. Any general expenses of the Trust not readily identifiable as belonging to a particular series or class are allocated by, or under the direction of, the Board of Trustees on the basis of relative net assets, the number of shareholders or another equitable method. No shareholder is liable to further calls or to assessment by the Trust without his or her express consent.

With respect to the Fund, the Trust may offer more than one class of shares. The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has adopted a multiple class plan under Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act, detailing the attributes of each Fund’s share classes. Each share of a series or class represents an equal proportionate interest in that series or class with each other share of that series or class. Currently, the Fund offers the following classes of shares: Investor Class and Institutional Class.

The assets of the Fund received for the issue or sale of its shares, and all income, earnings, profits and proceeds thereof, subject only to the rights of creditors, shall constitute the underlying assets of the Fund. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of the Fund, the shareholders of the Fund are entitled to share pro rata in the net assets of the Fund available for distribution to shareholders.

Cromwell Investment Advisors, LLC (the “Adviser”) serves as the investment adviser to the Fund.

Investment Policies, Strategies and Associated Risks

The following is additional information regarding the investment policies used by the Fund in an attempt to achieve its investment objective as stated in its Prospectus. The Trust is an open-end management investment company, and the Fund is a non-diversified series of the Trust.

Investment Techniques and Associated Risks

The following are descriptions of the types of securities and instruments that may be purchased by the Fund to the extent such investments are permitted by applicable law. The information below does not describe every type of


			1

investment, technique or risk to which the Fund may be exposed. The Fund reserves the right, without notice, to make any investment, or use any investment technique, except to the extent that such activity would require a shareholder vote, as discussed below under “Fundamental Investment Restrictions.”

Borrowing

Under the 1940 Act, the Fund may borrow from any bank, provided that immediately after any such borrowing there is an asset coverage of at least 300% for all borrowings by the Fund and provided further, that in the event that such asset coverage shall at any time fall below 300%, the Fund shall, within three days (not including Sundays and holidays) thereafter or such longer period as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) may prescribe by rules and regulations, reduce the amount of its borrowings to such an extent that the asset coverage of such borrowings shall be at least 300%. The 1940 Act also permits an open-end investment company to borrow money from a bank or other person provided that such loan is for temporary purposes only and is in an amount not exceeding 5% of the value of the investment company’s total assets at the time when the loan is made. A loan is presumed to be for temporary purposes if it is repaid within sixty days and is not extended or renewed. Typically, the Fund may pledge up to 33 1/3% of its total assets to secure these borrowings. If the Fund’s asset coverage for borrowings falls below 300%, the Fund will take prompt action to reduce its borrowings even though it may be disadvantageous at that time from an investment point of view. The Fund will incur costs when it borrows, including payment of interest and any fee necessary to maintain a line of credit, and may be required to maintain a minimum average balance. If the Fund is permitted to borrow money to take advantage of investment opportunities, if the income and appreciation on assets acquired with such borrowed funds exceed their borrowing cost, the Fund’s investment performance will increase, whereas if the income and appreciation on assets acquired with borrowed funds are less than their borrowing costs, investment performance will decrease.

Cash Equivalents

The Fund may invest in cash equivalents to the extent that such investments are consistent with the Fund’s investment objective, policies and restrictions, and as discussed in the Fund’s Prospectus and this SAI. A description of the various types of cash equivalents that may be purchased by the Fund appears below.

Bankers Acceptances. Bankers acceptances are short-term credit instruments used to finance the import, export, transfer or storage of goods. These instruments become “accepted” when a bank guarantees their payment upon maturity. Eurodollar bankers acceptances are bankers acceptances denominated in U.S. dollars and are “accepted” by foreign branches of major U.S. commercial banks.

Certificates of Deposit. Certificates of deposit are issued against money deposited into a bank (including eligible foreign branches of U.S. banks) or a savings and loan association (“S&L”) for a definite period of time. They earn a specified rate of return and are normally negotiable.

Repurchase Agreements. In a repurchase agreement, the Fund buys a security from a bank or a broker-dealer that has agreed to repurchase the same security at a mutually agreed-upon date and price. The resale price normally reflects the purchase price plus a mutually agreed-upon interest rate. This interest rate is effective for the period of time the Fund is invested in the agreement and is not related to the coupon rate on the underlying security. Repurchase agreements are subject to certain risks that may adversely affect the Fund. If a seller defaults, the Fund may incur a loss if the value of the collateral securing the repurchase agreement declines and may incur disposition costs in connection with liquidating the collateral. In addition, if bankruptcy proceedings are commenced with respect to a seller of the security, the Fund’s ability to dispose of the collateral may be delayed or limited. Generally, the period of these repurchase agreements will be short, and at no time will the Fund enter into a repurchase agreement for a period of more than seven (7) days.

Short-Term Corporate Debt Securities. Short-term corporate debt securities include bills, notes, debentures, money market instruments and similar instruments and securities, and are generally used by corporations and other issuers to borrow money from investors for such purposes as working capital or capital expenditures. The issuer pays the investor a variable or fixed rate of interest and normally must repay the amount borrowed on or before maturity.


			2

The investment return of corporate debt securities reflects interest earnings and changes in the market value of the security. The market value of a corporate debt obligation may be expected to rise and fall inversely with interest rates generally. In addition to interest rate risk, corporate debt securities also involve the risk that the issuers of the securities may not be able to meet their obligations on interest or principal payments at the time called for by an instrument. The rate of return or return of principal on some debt obligations may be linked or indexed to the level of exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and a foreign currency or currencies.

Time Deposits. Time deposits in banks or S&Ls are generally similar to certificates of deposit, but are uncertificated.

Commercial Paper

Commercial paper refers to promissory notes that represent an unsecured debt of a corporation or finance company. They have a maturity of up to nine (9) months. Eurodollar commercial paper refers to promissory notes payable in U.S. dollars by European issuers.

Depositary Receipts

Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”) are negotiable certificates held in the bank of one country representing a specific number of shares of a stock traded on an exchange of another country. American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) are negotiable receipts issued by a United States bank or trust company, trade in U.S. markets and evidence ownership of securities in a foreign company which have been deposited with such bank or trust’s office or agent in a foreign country. Generally, ADRs, in registered form, are designed for use in the U.S. securities markets and GDRs are receipts that may trade in U.S. or non-U.S. markets. Positions in these securities are not necessarily denominated in the same currency as the common stocks into which they may be converted.

Investing in GDRs and ADRs presents risks not present to the same degree as investing in domestic securities even though the Fund will purchase, sell and be paid dividends on GDRs and ADRs in U.S. dollars. These risks include fluctuations in currency exchange rates, which are affected by international balances of payments and other economic and financial conditions; government intervention; speculation; and other factors. With respect to certain foreign countries, there is the possibility of expropriation or nationalization of assets, confiscatory taxation and political, social and economic instability. The Fund may be required to pay foreign withholding or other taxes on certain of its GDRs or ADRs. Shareholders generally will not be entitled separately to deduct their pro rata shares of the foreign taxes paid or withheld in computing their taxable income, or to take such shares as a credit against their U.S. federal income tax. If shareholders are not so eligible, the foreign taxes paid or withheld will nonetheless reduce the Fund’s taxable income. See “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Matters” below. Unsponsored GDRs and ADRs are offered by companies which are not prepared to meet either the reporting or accounting standards of the United States. While readily exchangeable with stock in local markets, unsponsored GDRs and ADRs may be less liquid than sponsored GDRs and ADRs. Additionally, there generally is less publicly available information with respect to unsponsored GDRs and ADRs.

Emerging Market Securities

The Fund may invest some of its assets in the securities of emerging market countries. Investments in securities in emerging market countries may be considered to be speculative and may have additional risks from those associated with investing in the securities of U.S. issuers. There may be limited information available to investors that is publicly available, and generally emerging market issuers are not subject to uniform accounting, auditing and financial standards and requirements like those required by U.S. issuers.

Investors should be aware that the value of the Fund’s investments in emerging markets securities may be adversely affected by changes in the political, economic or social conditions, embargoes, economic sanctions, expropriation, nationalization, limitation on the removal of funds or assets, controls, tax regulations and other restrictions in emerging market countries. These risks may be more severe than those experienced in non-emerging market countries. Emerging market securities trade with less frequency and volume than domestic securities and, therefore,


			3

may have greater price volatility and lack liquidity. Furthermore, there is often no legal structure governing private or foreign investment or private property in some emerging market countries. This may adversely affect the Fund’s operations and the ability to obtain a judgment against an issuer in an emerging market country.

Equity Securities

The Fund may invest in equity securities subject to any restrictions set forth in the Fund’s Prospectus and this SAI. These securities may include securities listed on any domestic or foreign securities exchange and securities traded in the OTC market. More information on the various types of equity investments in which the Fund may invest appears below.

Common Stock. Common stocks are securities that represent a unit of ownership in a corporation. The Fund’s transactions in common stock represent “long” transactions where the Fund owns the securities being sold, or will own the securities being purchased. Prices of common stocks will rise and fall due to a variety of factors, which include changing economic, political or market conditions that affect particular industries or companies.

Initial Public Offerings (“IPOs”). The Fund may purchase securities in IPOs. These securities are subject to many of the same risks as investing in companies with smaller market capitalizations. Securities issued in IPOs have no trading history, and information about the companies may be available for very limited periods. The prices of securities sold in IPOs may be highly volatile. At any particular time or from time to time, the Fund may not be able to invest in securities issued in IPOs, or invest to the extent desired, because, for example, only a small portion, if any, of the securities being offered in an IPO may be made available to the Fund. In addition, under certain market conditions, a relatively small number of companies may issue securities in IPOs. Similarly, as the number of funds to which IPO securities are allocated increases, the number of securities issued to any one fund may decrease. The investment performance of the Fund during periods when it is unable to invest significantly or at all in IPOs may be lower than during periods when the Fund is able to do so. In addition, as the Fund increases in size, the impact of IPOs on the Fund’s performance will generally decrease.

Preferred Stock. Preferred stock pays dividends at a specified rate and generally has preference over common stock in the payment of dividends and the liquidation of the issuer’s assets but is junior to the debt securities of the issuer in those same respects. Unlike interest payments on debt securities, dividends on preferred stock are generally payable at the discretion of the issuer’s board of directors, and shareholders may suffer a loss of value if dividends are not paid. Preferred shareholders generally have no legal recourse against the issuer if dividends are not paid. The market prices of preferred stocks are subject to changes in interest rates and are more sensitive to changes in the issuer’s creditworthiness than are the prices of debt securities. Under ordinary circumstances, preferred stock does not carry voting rights. Prices of preferred stocks may rise and fall rapidly and unpredictably due to a variety of factors, which include changing economic, political or market conditions that affect particular industries or companies. Preferred stocks of smaller companies may be more vulnerable to adverse developments than those of larger companies.

Secondary Offerings. The Fund may invest in secondary offerings. A secondary offering is a registered offering of a large block of a security that has been previously issued to the public. A secondary offering can occur when an investor sells to the public a large block of stock or other securities it has been holding in its portfolio. In a sale of this kind, all of the profits go to the seller rather than the issuer. Secondary offerings can also originate when the issuer issues new shares of its stock over and above those sold in its IPO, usually in order to raise additional capital. However, because an increase in the number of shares devalues those that have already been issued, many companies make a secondary offering only if their stock prices are high or they are in need of capital. Secondary offerings may have a magnified impact on the performance of the Fund with a small asset base. Secondary offering shares frequently are volatile in price. Therefore, the Fund may hold secondary offering shares for a very short period of time. This may increase the portfolio turnover rate of the Fund and may lead to increased expenses for the Fund, such as commissions and transaction costs. In addition, secondary offering shares can experience an immediate drop in value if the demand for the securities does not continue to support the offering price.


			4

Foreign Securities

The Fund may invest in foreign securities, subject to any restrictions set forth in the Fund’s Prospectus and this SAI. Investment in securities of foreign entities, whether directly or indirectly in the form of ADRs, GDRs or similar instruments, and securities denominated in foreign currencies involves risks typically not present to the same degree in domestic investments. Such risks include potential future adverse political and economic developments, possible embargoes or economic sanctions on a country, sector or issuer, possible imposition of withholding or other taxes on interest or other income, possible seizure, nationalization or expropriation of foreign deposits, possible establishment of exchange controls or taxation at the source, greater fluctuations in value due to changes in exchange rates, or the adoption of other foreign governmental restrictions which might adversely affect the payment of principal and interest on such obligations. In addition, there may be less publicly available information about foreign issuers or securities than about U.S. issuers or securities, foreign investments may be effected through structures that may be complex or obfuscatory, and foreign issuers are often subject to accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards and requirements and engage in business practices different from those of domestic issuers of similar securities or obligations. With respect to unsponsored ADRs, these programs cover securities of companies that are not required to meet either the reporting or accounting standards of the United States. Foreign issuers also are usually not subject to the same degree of regulation as domestic issuers, and many foreign financial markets, while generally growing in volume, continue to experience substantially less volume than domestic markets, and securities of many foreign companies are less liquid and their prices are more volatile than the securities of comparable U.S. companies. In addition, brokerage commissions, custodial services and other costs related to investment in foreign markets (particularly emerging markets) generally are more expensive than in the United States. Such foreign markets also may have longer settlement periods than markets in the United States as well as different settlement and clearance procedures. In certain markets, there have been times when settlements have been unable to keep pace with the volume of securities transactions, making it difficult to conduct such transactions. The inability of the Fund to make intended securities purchases due to settlement problems could cause the Fund to miss attractive investment opportunities. Inability to dispose of a portfolio security caused by settlement problems could result either in losses to the Fund due to subsequent declines in value of a portfolio security or, if the Fund had entered into a contract to sell the security, could result in possible liability to the purchaser. Settlement procedures in certain emerging markets also carry with them a heightened risk of loss due to the failure of the broker or other service provider to deliver cash or securities.

The value of the Fund’s portfolio securities computed in U.S. dollars will vary with increases and decreases in the exchange rate between the currencies in which the Fund has invested and the U.S. dollar. A decline in the value of any particular currency against the U.S. dollar will cause a decline in the U.S. dollar value of the Fund’s holdings of securities denominated in such currency and, therefore, will cause an overall decline in the Fund’s NAV and net investment income and capital gains, if any, to be distributed in U.S. dollars to shareholders by the Fund. The Fund may be required to liquidate other assets in order to make up the shortfall.

The rate of exchange between the U.S. dollar and other currencies is influenced by many factors, including the supply and demand for particular currencies, central bank efforts to support particular currencies, the movement of interest rates, the price of oil, the pace of activity in the industrial countries, including the United States, and other economic and financial conditions affecting the world economy.

The Fund will not invest in a foreign currency or in securities denominated in a foreign currency if such currency is not at the time of investment considered by the Sub-Adviser to be fully exchangeable into U.S. dollars without legal restriction. The Fund may purchase securities that are issued by the government, a corporation, or a financial institution of one nation but denominated in the currency of another nation. To the extent that the Fund invests in ADRs, the depositary bank generally pays cash dividends in U.S. dollars regardless of the currency in which such dividends originally are paid by the issuer of the underlying security.

Several of the countries in which the Fund may invest restrict, to varying degrees, foreign investments in their securities markets. Governmental and private restrictions take a variety of forms, including (i) limitation on the amount of funds that may be invested into or repatriated from the country (including limitations on repatriation of investment income and capital gains), (ii) prohibitions or substantial restrictions on foreign investment in certain


			5

industries or market sectors, such as defense, energy and transportation, (iii) restrictions (whether contained in the charter of an individual company or mandated by the government) on the percentage of securities of a single issuer which may be owned by a foreign investor, (iv) limitations on the types of securities which a foreign investor may purchase and (v) restrictions on a foreign investor’s right to invest in companies whose securities are not publicly traded. In some circumstances, these restrictions may limit or preclude investment in certain countries. Investments in such countries may only be permitted through foreign government approved or authorized investment vehicles, which may include other investment companies. Therefore, the Fund may invest in such countries through the purchase of shares of investment companies organized under the laws of such countries. In addition, it may be less expensive and more expedient for the Fund to invest in a foreign investment company in a country which permits direct foreign investment. Please see “Investment Company Securities” below for more information on the risks of investing in other investment companies.

The Fund’s interest and dividend income from, or proceeds from the sale or other disposition of the securities of, foreign issuers may be subject to non-U.S. withholding and other foreign taxes. The Fund also may be subject to taxes on trading profits in some countries. In addition, certain countries impose a transfer or stamp duties tax on certain securities transactions. The imposition of these taxes may decrease the net return on foreign investments as compared to dividends and interest paid to the Fund by domestic companies, and thus increase the cost to the Fund of investing in any country imposing such taxes. Shareholders generally will not be entitled separately to deduct their pro rata shares of such taxes in computing their taxable income, or to take such shares as a credit against their U.S. federal income tax. In such case, the foreign taxes paid or withheld will nonetheless reduce the Fund’s taxable income. See “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Matters” below.

Emerging Markets. The risks of foreign investing are of greater concern in the case of investments in emerging markets which may exhibit greater price volatility and risk of principal, have less liquidity and have settlement arrangements which are less efficient than in developed markets. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which regulates auditors of U.S. public companies, is unable to inspect audit work papers in certain foreign countries. Investors in foreign countries often have limited rights and few practical remedies to pursue shareholder claims, including class actions or fraud claims, and the ability of the SEC, the U.S. Department of Justice and other authorities to bring and enforce actions against foreign issuers or foreign persons is limited. Furthermore, the economies of emerging market countries generally are heavily dependent upon international trade and, accordingly, have been and may continue to be adversely affected by trade barriers, managed adjustments in relative currency values, and other protectionist measures imposed or negotiated by the countries with which they trade. These emerging market economies also have been and may continue to be adversely affected by economic conditions in the countries with which they trade. See “Emerging Market Securities” above.

Illiquid Investments, Private Placements and Certain Unregistered Securities

The Fund may invest in privately placed, restricted, Rule 144A or other unregistered securities. Rule 144A securities are securities that are eligible for resale without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), pursuant to Rule 144A under the 1933 Act. The Fund may not acquire illiquid holdings if, as a result, more than 15% of its net assets would be in illiquid investments. If the Fund determines at any time that it owns illiquid securities in excess of 15% of its net assets, it will cease to undertake new commitments to acquire illiquid securities until its holdings are no longer in excess of 15% of its NAV, and, depending on circumstances, may take additional steps to reduce its holdings of illiquid securities. Subject to these limitations, the Fund may acquire investments that are illiquid or have limited liquidity, such as private placements or investments that are not registered under the 1933 Act and cannot be offered for public sale in the United States without first being registered under the 1933 Act. An investment is considered “illiquid” if the Fund reasonably expects the investment cannot be sold or disposed of in current market conditions in seven (7) calendar days or less without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the investment. The price the Fund’s portfolio may pay for illiquid securities or receive upon resale may be lower than the price paid or received for similar securities with a more liquid market. Accordingly, the valuation of these securities will take into account any limitations on their liquidity.

The SEC has adopted a liquidity risk management rule (the “Liquidity Rule”) that requires the Fund to establish a liquidity risk management program (the “LRMP”). The Trustees, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, have designated the Sub-Adviser to administer the Fund’s LRMP and the Sub-Adviser has formed a Liquidity Risk


			6

Management Committee to which it has delegated responsibilities for the ongoing operation and management of the LRMP. Under the LRMP, the Sub-Adviser assesses, manages, and periodically reviews the Fund’s liquidity risk. The Liquidity Rule defines “liquidity risk” as the risk that the Fund could not meet requests to redeem shares issued by the Fund without significant dilution of remaining investors’ interests in the Fund. The liquidity of the Fund’s portfolio investments is determined based on relevant market, trading and investment-specific considerations under the LRMP. To the extent that an investment is deemed to be an illiquid investment or a less liquid investment, the Fund can expect to be exposed to greater liquidity risk.

Rule 144A securities may be determined to be liquid or illiquid in accordance with the guidelines established by the Adviser and approved by the Trustees. The Trustees will monitor compliance with these guidelines on a periodic basis.

Investment in these securities entails the risk to the Fund that there may not be a buyer for these securities at a price that the Fund believes represents the security’s value should the Fund wish to sell the security. If a security the Fund holds must be registered under the 1933 Act before it may be sold, the Fund may be obligated to pay all or part of the registration expenses. In addition, in these circumstances, a considerable time may elapse between the time of the decision to sell and the time the Fund may be permitted to sell a security under an effective registration statement. If, during such a period, adverse market conditions develop, the Fund may obtain a less favorable price than when it first decided to sell the security.

Investment Company Securities

The Fund may invest some portion of its assets in shares of other investment companies, including exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) and money market funds, to the extent that they may facilitate achieving the investment objective of the Fund or to the extent that they afford the principal or most practical means of access to a particular market or markets or they represent attractive investments in their own right. The Fund’s purchase of shares of investment companies may result in the payment by a shareholder of duplicative management fees. The Adviser and Sub-Adviser to the Fund will consider such fees in determining whether to invest in other investment companies. The Fund will invest only in investment companies, or classes thereof, that do not charge a sales load; however, the Fund may invest in such companies with distribution plans and fees, and may pay customary brokerage commissions to buy and sell shares of closed-end investment companies and ETFs.

The return on the Fund’s investments in investment companies will be reduced by the operating expenses, including investment advisory and administrative fees, of such companies. The Fund’s investments in a closed-end investment company may require the payment of a premium above the NAV of the investment company’s shares, and the market price of the investment company thereafter may decline without any change in the value of the investment company’s assets. The Fund, however, will not invest in any investment company or trust unless it is believed that the potential benefits of such investment are sufficient to warrant the payment of any such premium.

The provisions of the 1940 Act may impose certain limitations on the Fund’s investments in other investment companies. In particular, the Fund’s investment in investment companies is limited to, subject to certain exceptions, (i) 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of any one investment company, (ii) 5% of the Fund’s total assets with respect to any one investment company, and (iii) 10% of the Fund’s total assets with respect to investment companies in the aggregate (the “Limitation”). The Fund may be able to rely on an exemption from the Limitation if (i) the investment company in which the Fund would like to invest has received an order for exemptive relief from the Limitation from the SEC that is applicable to the Fund; and (ii) the investment company and the Fund take appropriate steps to comply with any terms and conditions in such order. In addition, pursuant to rules adopted by the SEC, the Fund may invest (1) in shares issued by money market funds, including certain unregistered money market funds, and (2) in shares issued by affiliated funds in excess of the Limitation.

As an exception to the above, the Fund has the authority to invest all of its assets in the securities of a single open-end investment company with substantially the same fundamental investment objectives, restrictions, and policies as that of the Fund. The Fund will notify its shareholders prior to initiating such an arrangement.


			7

The Fund may seek to invest in ETFs that have received an exemptive order from the SEC permitting investment by other funds in the ETFs in excess of the Limitation, provided that the Fund enters into and complies with the terms and conditions of an agreement with each ETF, and the Fund complies with the ETF’s exemptive order. ETFs that are linked to a specific index may not be able to replicate and maintain exactly the composition and relative weighting of investments underlying the applicable index and will incur certain expenses not incurred by their applicable index. Certain investments comprising the index tracked by an ETF may, at times, be temporarily unavailable, which may impede an ETF’s ability to track its index.

The market value of ETF shares may differ from their NAV per share. This difference in price may be due to the fact that the supply and demand in the market for ETF shares at any point in time is not always identical to the value of the underlying investments that the ETF holds. There may be times when an ETF share trades at a premium or discount to its NAV.

Rule 12d1-4 permits additional types of fund of fund arrangements without an exemptive order. The rule imposes certain conditions, including limits on control and voting of acquired funds’ shares, evaluations and findings by investment advisers, fund investment agreements, and limits on most three-tier fund structures.

Limited Partnerships and Master Limited Partnerships

The Fund may invest in publicly traded limited partnerships and Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”). MLPs are businesses organized as limited partnerships that trade their proportionate shares of the partnership (units) on a public exchange. MLPs are required to pay out most or all of their earnings in distributions. Generally speaking, MLP investment returns are enhanced during periods of declining or low interest rates and tend to be negatively influenced when interest rates are rising. As an income vehicle, the unit price may be influenced by general interest rate trends independent of specific underlying fundamentals. In addition, most MLPs are fairly leveraged and typically carry a portion of “floating” rate debt. As such, a significant upward swing in interest rates would drive interest expense higher. Furthermore, most MLPs grow by acquisitions partly financed by debt, and higher interest rates could make it more difficult to make acquisitions.

Rights and Warrants

Rights are short-term obligations issued in conjunction with new stock issues. Warrants give the holder the right to buy an issuer’s securities at a stated price for a stated time. The holder of a right or warrant has the right to purchase a given number of shares of a security of a particular issuer at a specified price until expiration of the right or warrant. Such investments provide greater potential for profit than a direct purchase of the same amount of the securities. Prices of warrants do not necessarily move in tandem with the prices of the underlying securities, and warrants are considered speculative investments. They pay no dividends and confer no rights other than a purchase option. If a warrant or right is not exercised by the date of its expiration, the Fund would lose its entire investment in such warrant or right.

It is the present intention of the Fund to limit its investments in warrants or rights, valued at the lower of cost or market, to no more than 5% of the value of its net assets. Warrants or rights acquired by the Fund in units or attached to securities will be deemed to be without value for purposes of this restriction.

Securities Lending

Although there is no present intent to do so, the Fund may lend its portfolio securities to realize additional income. This lending is subject to the Fund’s policies and restrictions. The Fund may lend its investment securities so long as (i) the loan is secured by collateral having a market value at all times not less than 102% (105% in the case of certain foreign securities) of the value of the securities loaned, (ii) such collateral is marked to market on a daily basis, (iii) the loan is subject to termination by the Fund at any time, and (iv) the Fund receives reasonable interest on the loan. When cash is received as collateral, the Fund will invest the cash received in short-term instruments to earn additional income. The Fund will bear the risk of any loss on any such investment; however, the Fund’s securities lending agent has agreed to indemnify the Fund against loss on the investment of the cash collateral. The


			8

Fund may pay reasonable finders, administrative and custodial fees to persons that are unaffiliated with the Fund for services in connection with loans of portfolio securities. While voting rights may pass with the loaned portfolio securities, to the extent possible, the loan will be recalled on a reasonable efforts basis and the securities voted by the Fund.

U.S. Treasury and Government Securities and Securities of International Organizations

The Fund may invest in direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury. These obligations include Treasury bills, notes and bonds, all of which have their principal and interest payments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

The Fund may invest in obligations issued by the agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. Government. These obligations may or may not be backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Securities which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States include obligations of the GNMA, the Farmers Home Administration and the Export-Import Bank. For those securities which are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, the Fund must principally look to the federal agency guaranteeing or issuing the obligation for ultimate repayment and therefore may not be able to assert a claim against the United States itself for repayment in the event that the issuer does not meet its commitments. The securities in which the Fund may invest that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States include, but are not limited to: (a) obligations of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the FHLMC, the Federal Home Loan Banks and the U.S. Postal Service, each of which has the right to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to meet its obligations; (b) securities issued by the FNMA, which are supported by the discretionary authority of the U.S. Government to purchase the agency’s obligations; and (c) obligations of the Federal Farm Credit System and the Student Loan Marketing Association, each of whose obligations may be satisfied only by the individual credits of the issuing agency. Such securities may involve increased risk, including loss of principal and interest, compared to government debt securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury.

Variable and Floating Rate Securities and Participation Interests

Variable rate securities provide for automatic establishment of a new interest rate at fixed intervals (i.e., daily, monthly, semi-annually, etc.). Floating rate securities provide for automatic adjustment of the interest rate whenever some specified interest rate index changes. The amount of interest to be paid to the holder is typically contingent on another rate (“contingent security”) such as the yield on 90-day Treasury bills. Variable rate securities may also include debt securities which have an interest rate which resets in the opposite direction of the rate of the contingent security.

The Fund may invest in participation interests purchased from banks in variable rate obligations owned by banks. A participation interest gives the Fund an undivided interest in the obligation in the proportion that the Fund’s participation interest bears to the total principal amount of the obligation, and provides a demand repayment feature.

Each participation is backed by an irrevocable letter of credit or guarantee of a bank (which may be the bank issuing the participation interest or another bank). The bank letter of credit or guarantee must meet the prescribed investment quality standards for the Fund. The Fund has the right to sell the participation instrument back to the issuing bank or draw on the letter of credit on demand for all or any part of the Fund’s participation interest in the underlying obligation, plus accrued interest.

Additional Risks

Market Disruption and Geopolitical Risk

The Fund is subject to the risk that geopolitical events will disrupt securities markets and adversely affect global economies and markets. War, terrorism, and related geopolitical events (and their aftermath) have led, and in the future may lead, to increased short-term market volatility and may have adverse long-term effects on U.S. and world economies and markets generally. Likewise, natural and environmental disasters, such as, for example, earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis and weather-related phenomena generally, as well as the spread of infectious


			9

illness or other public health issues, including widespread epidemics or pandemics such as the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, and systemic market dislocations can be highly disruptive to economies and markets. Those events as well as other changes in non-U.S. and domestic economic and political conditions also could adversely affect individual issuers or related groups of issuers, securities markets, interest rates, credit ratings, inflation, investor sentiment, and other factors affecting the value of the Fund’s investments.

The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in travel restrictions and disruptions, closed borders, enhanced health screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, disruption of and delays in healthcare service preparation and delivery, quarantines, event cancellations and restrictions, service cancellations or reductions, disruptions to business operations, supply chains and customer activity, lower consumer demand for goods and services, as well as general concern and uncertainty that has negatively affected the economic environment. The impact of this outbreak and any other epidemic or pandemic that may arise in the future could adversely affect the economies of many nations or the entire global economy, the financial performance of individual issuers, borrowers and sectors and the health of capital markets and other markets generally in potentially significant and unforeseen ways. This crisis or other public health crises may also exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and economic risks in certain countries or globally. The duration of the COVID-19 outbreak and its effects cannot be determined with certainty. The foregoing could lead to a significant economic downturn or recession, increased market volatility, a greater number of market closures, higher default rates and adverse effects on the values and liquidity of securities or other assets. Such impacts, which may vary across asset classes, may adversely affect the performance of the Fund’s investments, the Fund and your investment in the Fund.

Given the increasing interdependence between global economies and markets, conditions in one country, market, or region might adversely impact markets, issuers and/or foreign exchange rates in other countries, including the U.S. Continuing uncertainty as to the status of the Euro and the European Monetary Union (the “EMU”) has created significant volatility in currency and financial markets generally. Any partial or complete dissolution of the EMU, or any continued uncertainty as to its status, could have significant adverse effects on currency and financial markets, and on the values of the Fund’s investments. At a referendum in June 2016, the United Kingdom (the “UK”) voted to leave the EU thereby initiating the British exit from the EU (commonly known as “Brexit”). In March 2017, the UK formally notified the European Council of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This formal notification began a multi-year period of negotiations regarding the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU, which formally occurred on January 31, 2020. A transition period is taking place following the UK’s exit where the UK remains subject to EU rules but has no role in the EU law-making process. During this transition period, UK and EU representatives are negotiating the precise terms of their future relationship. There is still considerable uncertainty relating to the potential consequences associated with the exit, how the negotiations for the withdrawal and new trade agreements will be conducted, and whether the UK’s exit will increase the likelihood of other countries also departing the EU. Brexit may have a significant impact on the UK, Europe, and global economies, which may result in increased volatility and illiquidity, and potentially lower economic growth in markets in the UK, Europe and globally, which may adversely affect the value of the Fund’s investments.

Unexpected political, regulatory and diplomatic events within the United States and abroad, such as the U.S.-China “trade war” that intensified in 2018, may affect investor and consumer confidence and may adversely impact financial markets and the broader economy, perhaps suddenly and to a significant degree. The current political climate and the further escalation of a trade war between China and the United States may have an adverse effect on both the U.S. and Chinese economies, as each country has recently imposed tariffs on the other country’s products. In January 2020, the U.S. and China signed a “Phase 1” trade agreement that reduced some U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods while boosting Chinese purchases of American goods. However, this agreement left in place a number of existing tariffs, and it is unclear whether further trade agreements may be reached in the future. Events such as these and their impact on the Fund are difficult to predict and it is unclear whether further tariffs may be imposed or other escalating actions may be taken in the future.


			10

Cyber Security Risk

With the increased use of technologies such as the Internet and the dependence on computer systems to perform business and operational functions, investment companies (such as the Fund) and their service providers (including the Adviser) may be prone to operational and information security risks resulting from cyber-attacks and/or technological malfunctions. In general, cyber-attacks are deliberate, but unintentional events may have similar effects. Cyber-attacks include, among others, stealing or corrupting data maintained online or digitally, preventing legitimate users from accessing information or services on a website, releasing confidential information without authorization, and causing operational disruption. Successful cyber-attacks against, or security breakdowns of, the Fund, the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser, or a custodian, transfer agent, or other affiliated or third-party service provider may adversely affect the Fund or its shareholders. For instance, cyber-attacks may interfere with the processing of shareholder transactions, affect the Fund’s ability to calculate its NAV, cause the release of private shareholder information or confidential Fund information, impede trading, cause reputational damage, and subject the Fund to regulatory fines, penalties or financial losses, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and additional compliance costs. Cyber-attacks may render records of Fund assets and transactions, shareholder ownership of Fund shares, and other data integral to the functioning of the Fund inaccessible or inaccurate or incomplete. The Fund may also incur substantial costs for cyber security risk management in order to prevent cyber incidents in the future. The Fund and its shareholders could be negatively impacted as a result. While the Adviser has established business continuity plans and systems designed to prevent cyber-attacks, there are inherent limitations in such plans and systems including the possibility that certain risks have not been identified. The Fund relies on third-party service providers for many of its day-to-day operations, and is subject to the risk that the protections and protocols implemented by those service providers will be ineffective to protect the Fund from cyber-attack. The Adviser does not control the cyber security plans and systems put in place by third-party service providers and such third-party service providers may have limited indemnification obligations to the Adviser or the Fund. Similar types of cyber security risks also are present for issuers of securities in which the Fund invests, which could result in material adverse consequences for such issuers, and may cause the Fund’s investment in such securities to lose value.

Diversification Requirements for the Fund

The Fund does not intend to meet the diversification requirements of the 1940 Act as in effect from time to time. Currently under the 1940 Act, a “diversified” fund generally may not, with respect to 75% of its total assets, invest more than 5% of its total assets in the securities of any one issuer or own more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer (except, in each case, U.S. Government securities, cash, cash items and the securities of other investment companies). The remaining 25% of a fund’s total assets is not subject to this limitation. A fund that is non-diversified can invest a greater percentage of its assets in a single issuer or a group of issuers, and, as a result, may be subject to greater credit, market, and other risks than a diversified fund. The poor performance by a single issuer may have a greater impact on the performance of a non-diversified fund. A non-diversified fund’s shares tend to be more volatile than shares of a diversified fund and are more susceptible to the risks of focusing investments in a small number of issuers or industries, and the risks of a single economic, political or regulatory occurrence.

Industry Concentration

The 1940 Act requires the Fund to state the extent, if any, to which it intends to concentrate investments in a particular industry. While the 1940 Act does not define what constitutes “concentration” in an industry, the staff of the SEC takes the position that, in general, investments of more than 25% of a fund’s assets in an industry constitutes concentration. The SEC staff has also taken the position that a policy relating to industry concentration does not apply to investments in “government securities” (as defined in the 1940 Act) or in tax-exempt securities issued by U.S. federal, state and municipal governments or political subdivisions of U.S. federal, state and municipal governments.

Unless otherwise provided, for purposes of determining whether the Fund’s investments are concentrated in a particular industry or group of industries, the term “industry” shall be defined by reference to the Global Industry Classification Standard put forth by S&P and Morgan Stanley Capital International.


			11

Investment Restrictions

Fundamental Investment Restrictions

The following investment restrictions have been adopted by the Trust with respect to the Fund. Except as otherwise stated, these investment restrictions are “fundamental” policies. A “fundamental” policy is defined in the 1940 Act to mean that the restriction cannot be changed without the vote of a “majority of the outstanding voting securities” of the Fund. A majority of the outstanding voting securities is defined in the 1940 Act as the lesser of (a) 67% or more of the voting securities present at a meeting if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities are present or represented by proxy, or (b) more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities.

The Fund:

(1) May issue senior securities to the extent permitted by the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the rules or regulations thereunder, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended from time to time, or by regulatory guidance or interpretations of, or any exemptive order or other relief issued by the SEC or any successor organization or their staff under, such Act, rules or regulations.

(2) May borrow money to the extent permitted by the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the rules or regulations thereunder, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended from time to time, or by regulatory guidance or interpretations of, or any exemptive order or other relief issued by the SEC or any successor organization or their staff under, such Act, rules or regulations.

(3) May lend money to the extent permitted by the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the rules or regulations thereunder, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended from time to time, or by regulatory guidance or interpretations of, or any exemptive order or other relief issued by the SEC or any successor organization or their staff under, such Act, rules or regulations.

(4) May underwrite securities to the extent permitted by the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the rules or regulations thereunder, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended from time to time, or by regulatory guidance or interpretations of, or any exemptive order or other relief issued by the SEC or any successor organization or their staff under, such Act, rules or regulations.

(5) May purchase and sell commodities to the extent permitted by the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the rules or regulations thereunder, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended from time to time, or by regulatory guidance or interpretations of, or any exemptive order or other relief issued by the SEC or any successor organization or their staff under, such Act, rules or regulations.

(6) May purchase and sell real estate to the extent permitted by the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the rules or regulations thereunder, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended from time to time, or by regulatory guidance or interpretations of, or any exemptive order or other relief issued by the SEC or any successor organization or their staff under, such Act, rules or regulations.

(7) Will not invest 25% or more of the market value of its total assets in the securities of companies engaged in any one industry, except that the Fund will invest over 25% of its net assets in the securities issued by companies operating in the infrastructure industry. (Does not apply to investments in the securities of other investment companies or securities of the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities.)

With respect to the fundamental policy relating to issuing senior securities set forth above, “senior securities” are defined as fund obligations that have a priority over the fund’s shares with respect to the payment of dividends or the distribution of fund assets. The 1940 Act prohibits a fund from issuing senior securities, except that the fund may borrow money in amounts of up to one-third of the fund’s total assets from banks for any purpose. A fund also may borrow up to 5% of the fund’s total assets from banks or other lenders for temporary purposes, and these borrowings are not considered senior securities. The issuance of senior securities by a fund can increase the speculative character of the fund’s outstanding shares through leveraging. Leveraging of the Fund’s portfolio through the


			12

issuance of senior securities magnifies the potential for gain or loss on monies, because even though the Fund’s net assets remain the same, the total risk to investors is increased to the extent of the Fund’s gross assets. The policy above will be interpreted not to prevent collateral arrangements with respect to swaps, options, forward or futures contracts or other derivatives, or the posting of initial or variation margin.

With respect to the fundamental policy relating to borrowing money set forth above, the 1940 Act permits a fund to borrow money in amounts of up to one-third of the fund’s total assets from banks for any purpose, and to borrow up to 5% of the fund’s total assets from banks or other lenders for temporary purposes. (A fund’s total assets include the amounts being borrowed.) To limit the risks attendant to borrowing, the 1940 Act requires a fund to maintain an “asset coverage” of at least 300% of the amount of its borrowings, provided that in the event that the fund’s asset coverage falls below 300%, the fund is required to reduce the amount of its borrowings so that it meets the 300% asset coverage threshold within three days (not including Sundays and holidays). Asset coverage means the ratio that the value of a fund’s total assets (including amounts borrowed), minus liabilities other than borrowings, bears to the aggregate amount of all borrowings. Certain trading practices and investments, such as reverse repurchase agreements, may be considered to be borrowings, and thus subject to the 1940 Act restrictions. Borrowing money to increase portfolio holdings is known as “leveraging.” Borrowing, especially when used for leverage, may cause the value of the Fund’s shares to be more volatile than if the Fund did not borrow. This is because borrowing tends to magnify the effect of any increase or decrease in the value of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. Borrowed money thus creates an opportunity for greater gains, but also greater losses. To repay borrowings, the Fund may have to sell securities at a time and at a price that is unfavorable to the Fund. There also are costs associated with borrowing money, and these costs would offset and could eliminate the Fund’s net investment income in any given period. Currently, the Fund does not have any intention of borrowing money for leverage. The policy above will be interpreted to permit the Fund to engage in trading practices and investments that may be considered to be borrowing to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act. Short-term credits necessary for the settlement of securities transactions and arrangements with respect to securities lending will not be considered to be borrowings under the policy. Practices and investments that may involve leverage but are not considered to be borrowings are not subject to the policy.

With respect to the fundamental policy relating to lending set forth above, the 1940 Act does not prohibit a fund from making loans; however, SEC staff interpretations currently prohibit funds from lending more than one-third of their total assets, except through the purchase of debt obligations or the use of repurchase agreements. (A repurchase agreement is an agreement to purchase a security, coupled with an agreement to sell that security back to the original seller on an agreed-upon date at a price that reflects current interest rates. The SEC frequently treats repurchase agreements as loans.) While lending securities may be a source of income to the Fund, as with other extensions of credit, there are risks of delay in recovery or even loss of rights in the underlying securities should the borrower fail financially. However, loans would be made only when the Fund’s Sub-Adviser believes the income justifies the attendant risks. The Fund also will be permitted by this policy to make loans of money, including to other funds. The Fund would have to obtain exemptive relief from the SEC to make loans to other funds. The policy above will be interpreted not to prevent the Fund from purchasing or investing in debt obligations and loans. In addition, collateral arrangements with respect to options, forward currency and futures transactions and other derivative instruments, as well as delays in the settlement of securities transactions, will not be considered loans.

With respect to the fundamental policy relating to underwriting set forth above, the 1940 Act does not prohibit a fund from engaging in the underwriting business or from underwriting the securities of other issuers; in fact, the 1940 Act permits a fund to have underwriting commitments of up to 25% of its assets under certain circumstances. Those circumstances currently are that the amount of the fund’s underwriting commitments, when added to the value of the fund’s investments in issuers where the fund owns more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of those issuers, cannot exceed the 25% cap. A fund engaging in transactions involving the acquisition or disposition of portfolio securities may be considered to be an underwriter under the 1933 Act. Under the 1933 Act, an underwriter may be liable for material omissions or misstatements in an issuer’s registration statement or prospectus. Securities purchased from an issuer and not registered for sale under the 1933 Act are considered restricted securities. There may be a limited market for these securities. If these securities are registered under the 1933 Act, they may then be eligible for sale but participating in the sale may subject the seller to underwriter liability. These risks could apply to a fund investing in restricted securities. Although it is not believed that the application of the


			13

1933 Act provisions described above would cause the Fund to be engaged in the business of underwriting, the policy above will be interpreted not to prevent the Fund from engaging in transactions involving the acquisition or disposition of portfolio securities, regardless of whether the Fund may be considered to be an underwriter under the 1933 Act.

With respect to the fundamental policy relating to commodities set forth above, the 1940 Act does not prohibit a fund from owning commodities, whether physical commodities and contracts related to physical commodities (such as oil or grains and related futures contracts), or financial commodities and contracts related to financial commodities (such as currencies and, possibly, currency futures). However, a fund is limited in the amount of illiquid assets it may purchase. To the extent that investments in commodities are considered illiquid, an SEC rule limits a fund’s purchases of illiquid securities to 15% of net assets. If the Fund were to invest in a physical commodity or a physical commodity-related instrument, the Fund would be subject to the additional risks of the particular physical commodity and its related market. The value of commodities and commodity-related instruments may be extremely volatile and may be affected either directly or indirectly by a variety of factors. There also may be storage charges and risks of loss associated with physical commodities. The policy above will be interpreted to permit investments in exchange traded funds that invest in physical and/or financial commodities.

With respect to the fundamental policy relating to real estate set forth above, the 1940 Act does not prohibit a fund from owning real estate; however, a fund is limited in the amount of illiquid assets it may purchase. Investing in real estate may involve risks, including that real estate is generally considered illiquid and may be difficult to value and sell. Owners of real estate may be subject to various liabilities, including environmental liabilities. To the extent that investments in real estate are considered illiquid, an SEC rule limits a fund’s purchases of illiquid securities to 15% of net assets. The policy above will be interpreted not to prevent the Fund from investing in real estate-related companies, companies whose businesses consist in whole or in part of investing in real estate, instruments (like mortgages) that are secured by real estate or interests therein, or real estate investment trust securities.

With respect to the fundamental policy relating to concentration set forth above, the 1940 Act does not define what constitutes “concentration” in an industry. The SEC staff has taken the position that investment of 25% or more of a fund’s total assets in one or more issuers conducting their principal activities in the same industry or group of industries constitutes concentration. It is possible that interpretations of concentration could change in the future. A fund that invests a significant percentage of its total assets in a single industry may be particularly susceptible to adverse events affecting that industry and may be more risky than a fund that does not concentrate in an industry. The policy above will be interpreted to refer to concentration as that term may be interpreted from time to time. The policy also will be interpreted to permit investment without limit in the following: securities of the U.S. government and its agencies or instrumentalities; securities of state, territory, possession or municipal governments and their authorities, agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions; and repurchase agreements collateralized by any such obligations. Accordingly, issuers of the foregoing securities will not be considered to be members of any industry. There also will be no limit on investment in issuers domiciled in a single jurisdiction or country. The policy also will be interpreted to give broad authority to the Fund as to how to classify issuers within or among industries or groups of industries.

The Fund’s fundamental policies will be interpreted broadly. For example, the policies will be interpreted to refer to the 1940 Act and the related rules as they are in effect from time to time, and to interpretations and modifications of or relating to the 1940 Act by the SEC and others as they are given from time to time. When a policy provides that an investment practice may be conducted as permitted by the 1940 Act, the policy will be interpreted to mean either that the 1940 Act expressly permits the practice or that the 1940 Act does not prohibit the practice.

Any restriction on investments or use of assets, including, but not limited to, market capitalization, geographic, rating and/or any other percentage restrictions, set forth in this SAI or the Fund’s Prospectus shall be measured only at the time of investment, and any subsequent change, whether in the value, market capitalization, rating, percentage held or otherwise, will not constitute a violation of the restriction, other than with respect to investment restriction (2) above related to borrowings by the Fund.


			14

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions

The following restrictions are designated as non-fundamental with respect to the Fund and may be changed by the Trust’s Board of Trustees without shareholder approval.

The Fund may not (except as noted):

(1) Purchase securities on margin, provided that the Fund may obtain such short-term credits as may be necessary for the clearance of purchases and sales of securities, except that the Fund may make margin deposits in connection with futures contracts;

(2) Make short sales of securities or maintain a short position, except that the Fund may sell short “against the box.”

Management of the Fund

Board of Trustees

The management and affairs of the Fund are supervised by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees consists of four individuals. The Trustees are fiduciaries for the Fund’s shareholders and are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware in this regard. The Board of Trustees establishes policies for the operation of the Fund and appoints the officers who conduct the daily business of the Fund.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and the officers of the Trust are listed below with their addresses, present positions with the Trust and principal occupations over at least the last five years.

Name, Address and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held with the Trust

Term of Office and Length of Time Served

Number of Portfolios in Trust Overseen by Trustee

Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years

Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past Five Years

Independent Trustees

R. Alastair Short
615 E. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Year of Birth: 1953

Trustee and Lead Independent

Indefinite Term; Since September 2021

President, Apex Capital Corporation (personal investment vehicle).

Independent Director of Contingency Capital LLC (a global asset management firm) from 2021 to present; Trustee, VanEck Funds (mutual fund, 13 series) from 2004 to present; Trustee, VanEck Vectors ETF Trust (mutual fund, 98 series) from 2006 to present; Trustee, VanEck VIP Trust (mutual fund, 7 series) from 2004 to present; Chairman and Independent Director, EULAV Asset Management; Trustee, Kenyon Review; Trustee, Children's Village.


			15

Name, Address and Year of Birth

Position(s) Held with the Trust

Term of Office and Length of Time Served

Number of Portfolios in Trust Overseen by Trustee

Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years

Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past Five Years

Thomas F. Mann
615 E. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Year of Birth: 1950

Trustee

Indefinite Term; Since September 2021

Private Investor (2012 to present).

Director, Virtus Global Multi‑Sector Income Fund from 2011 to 2016; Director, Virtus Total Return Fund and Virtus Alternative Solutions Fund from 2012 to 2016; Trustee, Trust for Advisor Solutions/ Hatteras Alternative Mutual Funds Trust (mutual fund) from 2002 to 2019.

Julie T. Thomas, CPA
615 E. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Year of Birth: 1962

Trustee

Indefinite Term; Since September 2021

Chief Compliance Officer, Fund Evaluation Group, LLC (investment advisory firm) from 2015 to present.

None.

Interested Trustee and Officers

Michael Weckwerth
615 E. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Year of Birth: 1973

Trustee. Chairman, and President

Indefinite Term; Since September 2021

N/A

Senior Vice President, U.S. Bank Global Fund Services (1996 - present).

N/A

Elaine E. Richards
615 E. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Year of Birth: 1968

Secretary and Vice President

Indefinite Term; Since September 2021

N/A

Senior Vice President, U.S. Bank Global Fund Services (2007 - present).

N/A

Kyle L. Kroken
615 E. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Year of Birth: 1986

Treasurer and Vice President

Indefinite Term; Since November 2022

N/A

Vice President, U.S. Bank Global Fund Services (2009-present).

N/A

Michael L. Ceccato
615 E. Michigan St.
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Year of Birth: 1957

Chief Compliance Officer, Anti-Money Laundering Officer and Vice President

Indefinite Term; Since September 2021

N/A

Senior Vice President, U.S. Bank Global Fund Services and Senior Vice President, U.S. Bank N.A. (2008 to present).

N/A


			16

Role of the Board

The Board of Trustees provides oversight of the management and operations of the Trust. Like all mutual funds, the day-to-day responsibility for the management and operation of the Trust is the responsibility of various service providers to the Trust and its individual series, such as the Adviser, Sub-Adviser, and the Funds’ distributor, administrator, custodian, and transfer agent, each of whom are discussed in greater detail in this SAI. The Board approves all significant agreements with the Adviser, Sub-Adviser and the Funds’ distributor, administrator, custodian and transfer agent. The Board has appointed various individuals of certain of these service providers as officers of the Trust, with responsibility to monitor and report to the Board on the Trust’s day-to-day operations. In conducting this oversight, the Board receives regular reports from these officers and service providers regarding the Trust’s operations. The Board has appointed a CCO who reports directly to the Board and who administers the Trust’s compliance program and regularly reports to the Board as to compliance matters, including an annual compliance review. Some of these reports are provided as part of formal board meetings, which are generally held four times per year, and such other times as the Board determines is necessary, and involve the Board’s review of recent Trust operations. From time to time one or more members of the Board may also meet with Trust officers in less formal settings, between formal Board Meetings, to discuss various topics. In all cases, however, the role of the Board and of any individual Trustee is one of oversight and not of management of the day-to-day affairs of the Trust, and its oversight role does not make the Board a guarantor of the Trust’s investments, operations or activities.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board has structured itself in a manner that it believes allows it to perform its oversight function effectively. It has established three standing committees, a Nominating and Governance Committee, an Audit Committee, which also serves as the Qualified Legal Compliance Committee, and the Valuation Committee, which are discussed in greater detail below under “Trust Committees.” The Board is comprised of four Trustees, three of whom are Independent Trustees, which are Trustees that are not affiliated with the Adviser, the principal underwriter, or their affiliates. The Nominating and Governance Committee, Audit Committee and Qualified Legal Compliance Committee are comprised of all of the Independent Trustees. The Chairperson of the Board is an Interested Trustee. The Board has also appointed a Lead Independent Trustee. The Board has determined to combine the Chairperson position with the President/Principal Executive Officer position, who is also a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank Global Fund Services. The Board reviews its structure and the structure of its committees annually. The Board has determined that the structure and composition of the Board, and the function and composition of its various committees are appropriate means to address any potential conflicts of interest that may arise.

Board Oversight of Risk Management

As part of its oversight function, the Board receives and reviews various risk management reports and assessments and discusses these matters with appropriate management and other personnel, including personnel of the Trust’s service providers. Because risk management is a broad concept composed of many elements (such as, for example, investment risk, issuer and counterparty risk, compliance risk, operational risks, business continuity risks, etc.) the oversight of different types of risks is handled in different ways. For example, the CCO regularly reports to the Board during Board Meetings and meets in executive session with the Independent Trustees and their legal counsel to discuss compliance and operational risks. In addition, the Independent Trustee designated as the Audit Committee’s “audit committee financial expert” meets with the Treasurer and the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm to discuss, among other things, the internal control structure of the Trust’s financial reporting function. The full Board receives reports from the investment advisers to the underlying funds and the portfolio managers as to investment risks as well as other risks that may be discussed during Audit Committee meetings.

Trustee Qualifications

The Board believes that each of the Trustees has the qualifications, experience, attributes and skills appropriate to his continued service as a Trustee of the Trust in light of the Trust’s business and structure. The Trustees have substantial business and professional backgrounds that indicate they have the ability to critically review, evaluate and assess information provided to them. Certain of these business and professional experiences are set forth in detail in the table above. In addition, the Trustees have substantial board experience and, in their service to the Trust, have gained substantial insight as to the operation of the Trust. The Board annually conducts a “self-assessment” wherein the effectiveness of the Board and the individual Trustees is reviewed.


			17

In addition to the information provided in the table above, below is certain additional information concerning each individual Trustee. The information provided below, and in the table above, is not all-inclusive. Many of the Trustees’ qualifications to serve on the Board involve intangible elements, such as intelligence, integrity, work ethic, the ability to work together, the ability to communicate effectively, the ability to exercise judgment, the ability to ask incisive questions, and commitment to shareholder interests. In conducting its annual self-assessment, the Board has determined that the Trustees have the appropriate attributes and experience to continue to serve effectively as Trustees of the Trust.

R. Alastair Short. Mr. Short’s Trustee Attributes include his experience as an investor in structured, negotiated deals. He is a co-founder of two private equity investment firms and has financial, operational, and transactional experience with a legal background. He is an experienced director, executive and investor, with strong strategic, financial and analytical skills and substantial asset management and Board industry experience. He currently serves on the Board of Van Eck Global Fund and ETFs and on the Board Contingency Capital LLC, a global asset management firm. The Board believes Mr. Short’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees led to the conclusion that he possesses the requisite skills and attributes as a Trustee to carry out oversight responsibilities with respect to the Trust.

Thomas F. Mann. Mr. Mann’s Trustee Attributes include 45 years of experience in various senior strategic and operational management positions in large, global, financial institutions and small, entrepreneurial environments. He was the Founder of MannMaxx Management, LLC, providing Institutional Asset Solutions as a director and banker to a broad range of asset managers, global banks and Fintech companies. He is an experienced, independent director of diversified mutual fund complexes; chaired the valuation committee with for Hatteras Funds; chaired the nominating and governance committee for VIRTUS; and served on two audit committees qualifying as a “financial expert” under the SEC definition. He has also served as an advisory board member of a boutique asset management M&A advisory firm as well as Amundi North America, AnchorPath Financial Wavelength Capital Management. He has prior experience serving as a director of multiple, privately owned asset management and technology companies; trustee of a corporate pension and 401(k) plans and multiple non-profits organizations. The Board believes Mr. Mann’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees led to the conclusion that he possesses the requisite skills and attributes as a Trustee to carry out oversight responsibilities with respect to the Trust.

Julie T. Thomas, CPA. Ms. Thomas’ Trustee Attributes include has approximately 15 years of compliance experience, including Chief Compliance Officer experience for a registered fund and investment adviser. She is knowledgeable of regulatory requirements and securities laws, including the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. Her prior background consists of 15 years of accounting experience including, four years in the public accounting arena (specializing in insurance and retail) and nearly 20 years within the life insurance industry with a broad spectrum of responsibilities. Ms. Thomas has been determined to qualify as an Audit Committee financial expert for the Trust. The Board believes Ms. Thomas’ experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees led to the conclusion that she possesses the requisite skills and attributes as a Trustee to carry out oversight responsibilities with respect to the Trust.

Michael J. Weckwerth. Mr. Weckwerth’s Trustee Attributes include his 25 years of experience in servicing registered and private investment companies, including more than 15 years as a senior vice president of U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC (“Fund Services”). The Board believes Mr. Weckwerth’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees led to the conclusion that he possesses the requisite skills and attributes as a Trustee to carry out oversight responsibilities with respect to the Trust.


			18

Trustee Ownership of Fund Shares

The following table shows the amount of shares in the Fund and the amount of shares in other portfolios of the Trust owned by the Trustees as of the calendar year ended December 31, 2021.


Name	Dollar Range of Fund Shares	Aggregate Dollar Range of Fund and other portfolio Shares in the Trust
Independent Trustees
R. Alastair Short	None	None
Thomas F. Mann	None	None
Julie T. Thomas	None	None
Interested Trustee
Michael J. Weckwerth	None	None

As of the date of this SAI, no Trustee or officer of the Trust beneficially owned shares of the Fund or any other series of the Trust.

Furthermore, as of the date of this SAI, neither the Trustees who are not “interested” persons of the Fund, nor members of their immediate families, own securities beneficially, or of record, in the Adviser, the Distributor or any of their affiliates. Accordingly, neither the Trustees who are not “interested” persons of the Fund nor members of their immediate families, have a direct or indirect interest, the value of which exceeds $120,000, in the Adviser, the Distributor or any of their affiliates. In addition, during the two most recently completed years, neither the Independent Trustees nor members of their immediate families have had a direct or indirect interest, the value of which exceeds $120,000 in (i) the Adviser, the Distributor or any of their affiliates, or (ii) any transaction or relationship in which such entity, the Fund, any officer of the Trust, or any of their affiliates was a party.

Board Committees

Audit Committee. The Trust has an Audit Committee, which is composed of all of the Independent Trustees. The Audit Committee reviews financial statements and other audit-related matters for the Fund. The Audit Committee also holds discussions with management and with the Fund’s independent auditor concerning the scope of the audit and the auditor’s independence. Ms. Thomas is designated as the Audit Committee chairperson and serves as the Audit Committee’s “audit committee financial expert,” as stated in the annual reports relating to the series of the Trust.

Nominating and Governance Committee. The Trust has a Nominating and Governance Committee, which is composed of all of the Independent Trustees. Mr. Mann is designated as the Nominating and Governance Committee chairperson. The Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for seeking and reviewing candidates for consideration as nominees for the position of trustee and meets only as necessary. As part of this process, the Nominating and Governance Committee considers criteria for selecting candidates sufficient to identify a diverse group of qualified individuals to serve as trustees.

The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider nominees recommended by shareholders for vacancies on the Board of Trustees. Recommendations for consideration by the Nominating and Governance Committee should be sent to the President of the Trust in writing together with the appropriate biographical information concerning each such proposed nominee, and such recommendation must comply with the notice provisions set forth in the Trust’s Nominating and Governance Committee Charter. To comply with such procedures, such nominations, together with all required information, must be delivered to and received by the President of the Trust at the principal executive office of the Trust not later than 60 days prior to the shareholder meeting at which any such nominee would be voted on. Shareholder recommendations for nominations to the Board of Trustees will be


			19

accepted on an ongoing basis and such recommendations will be kept on file for consideration when there is a vacancy on the Board of Trustees.

Trustee Compensation

The Independent Trustees receive from the Trust a retainer fee of $40,000 per year, $1,500 for each regular Board meeting of the Trust attended and $500 for each special Board meeting attended telephonically, as well as reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board meetings. Members of the Audit Committee receive $1,500 for each meeting of the Audit Committee attended. The chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $2,500. Interested Trustees do not receive any compensation for their service as Trustee. Because the Fund has recently commenced operations, the following compensation figures represent estimates for the current fiscal year:

Name of Person/Position

Aggregate Compensation From the Fund(1)

Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Fund Expenses

Estimated Annual Benefits Upon Retirement

Total Compensation from the Fund and the Trust(2) Paid to Trustees

R. Alastair Short

Independent Trustee(3)

$12,150

None

$48,500

Thomas F. Mann

Independent Trustee(3)

$11,500

None

$46,000

Julie Thomas

Independent Trustee(3)(4)

$11,875

None

$47,500

Michael J. Weckwerth
Interested Trustee

None

(1)Trustees’ fees and expenses are allocated among the Fund and the other series comprising the Trust.

(2)There are currently three other series comprising the Trust.

(3)Audit Committee member.

(4)Audit Committee chairman.

Control Persons and Principal Shareholders

A principal shareholder is any person who owns of record or beneficially 5% or more of the outstanding shares of the Fund. A control person is one who owns beneficially or through controlled companies more than 25% of the voting securities of a company or acknowledges the existence of control. A controlling person possesses the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted for shareholder vote by the Fund.

Investment Adviser

As stated in the Prospectus, investment advisory services are provided to the Fund by Cromwell Investment Advisors, LLC, located at 810 Gleneagles Court, Suite 106, Baltimore, Maryland 21286, pursuant to an investment advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”). Brian Nelson is a control person of the Adviser. Subject to such policies as the Board of Trustees may determine, the Adviser is ultimately responsible for investment decisions for the Fund and performing oversight of the Fund’s sub-adviser as described below. Pursuant to the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser provides the Fund with such investment advice and supervision as it deems necessary for the proper supervision of the Fund’s investments.

After an initial two-year period, the Advisory Agreement continues in effect from year to year with respect to the Fund, only if such continuance is specifically approved at least annually by: (i) the Board of Trustees or the vote of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities; and (ii) the vote of a majority of the trustees who are not parties to the Advisory Agreement or interested persons of any such party, at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on the Advisory Agreement. The Advisory Agreement is terminable without penalty by the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, upon 60 days’ written notice to the Adviser when authorized by either: (i) a majority vote of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund; or (ii) by a vote of a majority of the Board of Trustees, or by the Adviser upon 60 days’ written notice to the Trust. The Advisory Agreement will automatically terminate in the event of its “assignment” under the 1940 Act. The Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser under such agreement shall not be liable for any error of judgment or mistake of law or for any loss arising out of any investment or for any act or omission in the execution of portfolio transactions for the Fund, except for willful misfeasance, bad faith or


			20

negligence in the performance of its duties, or by reason of reckless disregard of its obligations and duties thereunder.

In consideration of the services provided by the Adviser pursuant to the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser is entitled to receive from the Fund a management fee which is calculated daily and paid monthly. For its services, the Fund will pay the Adviser a management fee that is calculated at the annual rate of 0.85% of its average daily net assets, to be paid monthly.

The Adviser may voluntarily agree to waive a portion of the management fees payable to it.

Fund Expenses.

The Fund is responsible for its own operating expenses. Pursuant to an operating expense limitation agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive its management fees and/or reimburse Fund expenses to limit Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses (exclusive of contingent deferred loads, taxes, leverage, interest, brokerage commissions, expenses incurred in connection with any merger or reorganization, dividends or interest expenses on short positions, acquired fund fees and expenses, extraordinary expenses, shareholder servicing fees and any other class-specific expenses) to 1.30% and 1.05% of the Fund’s average daily net assets for Investor Class shares and Institutional Class shares, respectively, through at least January 31, 2025. The operating expense limitation agreement can be terminated only by, or with the consent of, the Board of Trustees. The Adviser may request recoupment of previously waived fees and paid expenses from the Fund for up to 36 months from the date such fees and expenses were waived or paid, subject to the operating expense limitation agreement, if such reimbursement will not cause the Fund’s expense ratio, after recoupment has been taken into account, to exceed the lesser of: (1) the expense limitation in place at the time of the waiver and/or expense payment; or (2) the expense limitation in place at the time of the recoupment.

Manager-of-Managers Arrangement

Section 15(a) of the 1940 Act requires that all contracts pursuant to which persons serve as investment advisers to investment companies be approved by shareholders. This requirement also applies to the appointment of sub-advisers to the Fund. The Trust and the Adviser intend to apply for exemptive relief from the SEC (the “Order”), which will permit the Adviser, on behalf of the Fund and subject to the approval of the Board, including a majority of the independent members of the Board, to hire, and to modify any existing or future sub-advisory agreement with, unaffiliated sub-advisers and affiliated sub-advisers, including sub-advisers that are wholly-owned subsidiaries (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Adviser or its parent company and sub-advisers that are partially-owned by, or otherwise affiliated with, the Adviser or its parent company (the “Manager-of-Managers Structure”). The Adviser has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the Fund’s sub-advisers and recommending their hiring, termination and replacement, subject to oversight by the Board. Assuming the Order is granted, it will also provide relief from certain disclosure obligations with regard to sub-advisory fees. With this relief, a Fund may elect to disclose the aggregate fees payable to the Adviser and wholly-owned sub-advisers and the aggregate fees payable to unaffiliated sub-advisers and sub-advisers affiliated with Adviser or its parent company, other than wholly-owned sub-advisers. The Order will be subject to various conditions, including that a Fund will notify shareholders and provide them with certain information required by the exemptive order within 90 days of hiring a new sub-adviser. The Fund may also rely on any other current or future laws, rules or regulatory guidance from the SEC or its staff applicable to the Manager-of-Managers Structure. The sole initial shareholder of the Fund has approved the operation of the Fund under a Manager-of-Managers Structure with respect to any affiliated or unaffiliated sub-adviser, including in the manner that is permitted by the Order.

The Manager-of-Managers Structure will enable the Trust to operate with greater efficiency by not incurring the expense and delays associated with obtaining shareholder approvals for matters relating sub-advisers or sub-advisory agreements. Operation of the Funds under the Manager-of-Managers Structure will not permit management fees paid by the Fund to the Adviser to be increased without shareholder approval. Shareholders will be notified of any changes made to sub-advisers or material changes to sub-advisory agreements within 90 days of the change. There is no assurance the Order will be granted.


			21

The Adviser and its affiliates may have other relationships, including significant financial relationships, with current or potential sub-advisers or their affiliates, which may create a conflict of interest. However, in making recommendations to the Board to appoint or to change a sub-adviser, or to change the terms of a sub-advisory agreement, the Adviser considers the sub-adviser’s investment process, risk management, and historical performance with the goal of retaining sub-advisers for the Fund that the Adviser believes are skilled and can deliver appropriate risk-adjusted returns over a full market cycle. The Adviser does not consider any other relationship it or its affiliates may have with a sub-adviser or its affiliates, and the Adviser discloses to the Board the nature of any material relationships it has with a sub-adviser or its affiliates when making recommendations to the Board to appoint or to change a sub-adviser, or to change the terms of a sub-advisory agreement.

Investment Sub-Adviser

Foresight Group LLP, The Shard, 32 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9SG, United Kingdom serves as the sub-adviser to the Fund (“Foresight” or the “Sub-Adviser”). Bernard W. Fairman, Executive Chairman, is a control person of Foresight owning more than 25% of the Sub-Adviser’s voting securities. Subject to such policies as the Board of Trustees may determine, the Sub-Adviser is ultimately responsible for investment decisions for the Fund. Pursuant to the terms of the Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Sub-Adviser provides the Fund with such investment advice and supervision as it deems necessary for the proper supervision of the Fund’s investments.

The Adviser provides investment management evaluation services by performing initial due diligence on the Sub-Adviser and thereafter monitoring the Sub-Adviser’s performance for compliance with the Fund’s investment objective and strategies, as well as adherence to its investment style. The Adviser also conducts performance evaluations through in-person, telephonic and written consultations. In evaluating the Sub-Adviser, the Adviser considers, among other factors: their level of expertise; relative performance and consistency of performance over a minimum period of time; level of adherence to investment discipline or philosophy; personnel, facilities and financial strength; and quality of service and client communications.

The Adviser has the responsibility for communicating performance expectations and evaluations to the Sub-Adviser and ultimately recommending to the Board of Trustees whether its sub-advisory agreement should be renewed, modified or terminated. The Adviser provides written reports to the Board of Trustees regarding the results of its evaluation and monitoring functions. The Trust will apply for an exemptive order with respect to the Fund that will permit the Adviser, subject to certain conditions, to hire new sub-advisers or to continue the employment of the existing Sub-Adviser after events that would otherwise cause an automatic termination of a sub-advisory agreement. This arrangement has been approved by the Board of Trustees and the Fund’s initial shareholder. Within 90 days of retaining a new sub-adviser, shareholders of the Fund will receive notification of the change.

The Adviser pays the Sub-Adviser out of the advisory fee paid by the Fund to the Adviser pursuant to the Advisory Agreement. The Sub-Adviser is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund in accordance with the Fund’s investment objective and policies. For its services, the Adviser will pay the Sub-Adviser a management fee. The management fee paid to the Sub-Adviser is paid by the Adviser and not the Fund. The Fund is not responsible for the payment of the sub-advisory fees.

The Adviser is also responsible for conducting all operations of the Fund, except those operations contracted to the Sub-Adviser, the Custodian, the Administrator or the Fund’s transfer agent. Although the Sub-Adviser’s activities are subject to oversight by the Board of Trustees and the officers of the Trust, the Board of Trustees, the officers and the Adviser do not evaluate the investment merits of the Sub-Adviser’s individual security selections. The Sub-Adviser has complete discretion to purchase, manage and sell portfolio securities for the portions of the Fund’s portfolios that it manages, subject to the Fund’s investment objective, policies and limitations. The Fund’s portfolio is managed by several portfolio managers (each, a “Portfolio Manager”) as discussed in the Fund’s prospectus.

The manager of managers exemptive order, if received by the Trust, will permit the Fund to disclose, in aggregate, the sub-advisory fees paid to the Sub-Adviser by the Adviser. The exemptive order will apply to Sub-Advisers that are affiliated persons of the Trust or the Adviser (“Affiliated Sub-Advisers”).


			22

Portfolio Managers

As disclosed in the Prospectus, Nick Scullion is the lead manager of the Fund, and Mark Brennan and Eric Bright, CFA® (the “Portfolio Managers”) are the co-portfolio managers for the Fund and are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio.

Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Managers

The table below identifies, for each Portfolio Manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to an advisory fee which is based on account performance, this information is reflected in a separate table below. Asset amounts have been rounded as of December 31, 2022:


Category of Account	Total Number of Accounts Managed*	Total Assets in Accounts Managed (in millions)	Number of Accounts for which Advisory Fee is Based on Performance	Assets in Accounts for which Advisory Fee is Based on Performance
Nick Scullion
Registered Investment Companies	6	$14.88 billion	0	$0
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	0	$0	0	$0
Other Accounts	0	$0	0	$0

Mark Brennan
Registered Investment Companies	6	$14.88 billion	0	$0
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	0	$0	0	$0
Other Accounts	0	$0	0	$0

Eric Bright
Registered Investment Companies	6	$14.88 billion	0	$0
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	0	$0	0	$0
Other Accounts	0	$0	0	$0

Portfolio Manager Compensation

Foresight’s compensation structure is comprised of base pay and annual incentive compensation. Individuals’ packages are designed with the appropriate component combinations to match specific positions.

Material Conflicts of Interest

From time to time, potential conflicts of interest may arise between a portfolio manager’s management of the investments of the Fund, on the one hand, and the management of other accounts, on the other. The portfolio managers oversee the investment of various types of accounts in the same strategy, such as mutual funds, pooled investment vehicles and separate accounts for individuals and institutions. Investment decisions generally are applied to all accounts utilizing that particular strategy, taking into consideration client restrictions, instructions and individual needs. A portfolio manager may manage an account whose fees may be higher or lower than the fee charged to the Fund to provide for varying client circumstances. Management of multiple funds and accounts may create potential conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities, and the aggregation and


			23

allocation of client trades. Additionally, the management of the Fund and other accounts may result in a portfolio manager devoting unequal time and attention to the management of the Fund or other accounts.

During the normal course of managing assets for multiple clients of varying types and asset levels, the portfolio managers may encounter conflicts of interest, that could, if not properly addressed, be harmful to one or more of our clients. Those of a material nature that are encountered most frequently involve security selection, employee personal securities trading, proxy voting and the allocation of securities. To mitigate these conflicts and ensure its clients are not impacted negatively by the adverse actions of the Sub-Adviser or its employees, the Sub-Adviser has implemented a series of policies including, but not limited to, its Code of Ethics, which addresses avoidance of conflicts of interest; policies included in the Code of Ethics including the Personal Security Trading Policies, which addresses personal security trading and requires the use of approved brokers; Trade Allocation/Aggregation Policy, which addresses fairness of trade allocation to client accounts, and the Proxy and Trade Error Policies, which are designed to prevent and detect conflicts when they occur. The Sub-Adviser reasonably believes that these and other policies combined with the periodic review and testing performed by its compliance professionals adequately protects the interest of its clients. A portfolio manager may also face other potential conflicts of interest in managing the Fund, and the description above is not a complete description of every conflict of interest that could be deemed to exist in managing both the Fund and the other accounts listed above.

Ownership of Securities in the Fund by the Portfolio Managers

As of the date of this SAI, the Portfolio Managers of the Funds did not beneficially own any shares of the Funds as they had not yet commenced operations.

Service Providers

Fund Administrator, Transfer Agent and Fund Accountant

Pursuant to a fund administration agreement (the “Administration Agreement”) between the Trust and Fund Services, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53202, Fund Services acts as the Fund’s administrator. Fund Services provides certain administrative services to the Fund, including, among other responsibilities, coordinating the negotiation of contracts and fees with, and the monitoring of performance and billing of, the Fund’s independent contractors and agents; preparation for signature by an officer of the Trust all of the documents required to be filed for compliance by the Trust and the Fund with applicable laws and regulations excluding those of the securities laws of various states; arranging for the computation of performance data, including NAV and yield; responding to shareholder inquiries; and arranging for the maintenance of books and records of the Fund, and providing, at its own expense, office facilities, equipment and personnel necessary to carry out its duties. In this capacity, Fund Services does not have any responsibility or authority for the management of the Fund, the determination of investment policy, or for any matter pertaining to the distribution of Fund shares.

Pursuant to the Administration Agreement, as compensation for its services, Fund Services receives from the Fund a combined fee for fund administration and fund accounting services based on the Fund’s current average daily net assets. Fund Services is also entitled to be reimbursed for certain out-of-pocket expenses. In addition to its role as administrator, Fund Services also acts as fund accountant, transfer agent (“Transfer Agent”) and dividend disbursing agent under separate agreements with the Trust.

Custodian

U.S. Bank National Association, an affiliate of Fund Services (the “Custodian”), serves as the custodian of the assets of the Fund pursuant to a custody agreement between the Custodian and the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, whereby the Custodian charges fees on a transactional basis plus out-of-pocket expenses. The Custodian has custody of all assets and securities of the Fund, delivers and receives payments for securities sold, receives and pays for securities purchased, collects income from investments and performs other duties, all as directed by the officers of the Trust. The Custodian’s address is 1555 North River Center Drive, Suite 302, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53212. The Custodian does not participate in decisions relating to the purchase and sale of securities by the Fund. The Custodian and its affiliates may participate in revenue sharing arrangements with the service providers of mutual funds in which the Fund may invest.


			24

Legal Counsel

Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, serves as the Funds’ legal counsel.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

BBD, LLP, 1835 Market Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, serves as the Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm.

Distribution and Shareholder Service (Rule 12b-1) Plan

The Trust has adopted a distribution plan pursuant to Rule 12b‑1 under the 1940 Act (the “Distribution Plan”) on behalf of the Fund. Under the Distribution Plan, the Fund pays a fee to the Fund’s Distributor for distribution and shareholder services (the “Distribution Fee”). The fee for Investor Class shares represents a 0.25% Rule 12b-1 distribution fee. The Rule 12b-1 distribution fee is discussed in greater detail below. The Distribution Plan provides that the Distributor may use all or any portion of such Distribution Fee to finance any activity that is principally intended to result in the sale of Fund shares, subject to the terms of the Distribution Plan, or to provide certain shareholder services. Institutional Class shares are not subject to a Distribution Fee.

The Distribution Fee is payable to the Distributor regardless of the distribution-related expenses actually incurred. Because the Distribution Fee is not directly tied to expenses, the amount of Distribution Fees paid by the Fund during any year may be more or less than actual expenses incurred pursuant to the Distribution Plan. For this reason, this type of distribution fee arrangement is characterized by the staff of the SEC as a “compensation” plan.

The Distribution Plan provides that it will continue from year to year upon approval by the majority vote of the Board of Trustees, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as defined in the 1940 Act, and who have no direct or indirect financial interest in the operations of the Distribution Plan or in any agreement related to such plan (the “Qualified Trustees”), as required by the 1940 Act, cast in person at a meeting called for that purpose. It is also required that the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, select and nominate all other Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund. The Distribution Plan and any related agreements may not be amended to materially increase the amounts to be spent for distribution expenses without approval of shareholders holding a majority of the Fund’s shares outstanding. All material amendments to the Distribution Plan or any related agreements must be approved by a vote of a majority of the Board of Trustees and the Qualified Trustees, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on any such amendment.

The Distribution Plan requires that the Distributor provide to the Board of Trustees, at least quarterly, a written report on the amounts and purpose of any payment made under the Distribution Plan. The Distributor is also required to furnish the Board of Trustees with such other information as may reasonably be requested in order to enable the Board of Trustees to make an informed determination of whether the Distribution Plan should be continued. With the exception of the Adviser and Sub-Adviser, no “interested person” of the Fund, as defined in the 1940 Act, and no Qualified Trustee of the Fund has or had a direct or indirect financial interest in the Distribution Plan or any related agreement.

As noted above, the Distribution Plan provides for the ability to use Fund assets to pay financial intermediaries (including those that sponsor mutual fund supermarkets), plan administrators and other service providers to finance any activity that is principally intended to result in the sale of Fund shares (distribution services). The payments made by the Fund to these financial intermediaries are based primarily on the dollar amount of assets invested in the Fund through the financial intermediaries. These financial intermediaries may pay a portion of the payments that they receive from the Fund to their investment professionals. In addition to the ongoing asset-based fees paid to these financial intermediaries under the Distribution Plan, the Fund may, from time to time, make payments under the Distribution Plan that help defray the expenses incurred by these intermediaries for conducting training and educational meetings about various aspects of the Fund for their employees. In addition, the Fund may make payments under the Distribution Plan for exhibition space and otherwise help defray the expenses these financial intermediaries incur in hosting client seminars where the Fund is discussed.


			25

To the extent these asset-based fees and other payments made under the Distribution Plan to these financial intermediaries for the distribution services they provide to the Fund’s shareholders exceed the Distribution Fees available, these payments are made by the Sub-Adviser from its own resources, which may include its profits from the advisory fee it receives from the Fund. In addition, the Fund may participate in various “fund supermarkets” in which a mutual fund supermarket sponsor (usually a broker-dealer) offers many mutual funds to the sponsor’s customers without charging the customers a sales charge. In connection with its participation in such platforms, the Sub-Adviser may use all or a portion of the Distribution Fee to pay one or more supermarket sponsors a negotiated fee for distributing the Fund’s shares. In addition, in its discretion, the Sub-Adviser may pay additional fees to such intermediaries from its own assets.

Rule 12b-1 Distribution Fee

The Distributor may use the Rule 12b-1 Distribution Fee to pay for services covered by the Distribution Plan including, but not limited to, advertising, compensating underwriters, dealers and selling personnel engaged in the distribution of Fund shares, the printing and mailing of prospectuses, statements of additional information and reports to other than current Fund shareholders, the printing and mailing of sales literature pertaining to the Fund, and obtaining whatever information, analyses and reports with respect to marketing and promotional activities that the Fund may, from time to time, deem advisable.

Sub-Accounting Service Fees

In addition to the fees that the Fund may pay to its Transfer Agent, the Board of Trustees has authorized the Fund to pay service fees to certain intermediaries such as banks, broker-dealers, financial advisers or other financial institutions for sub‑administration, sub-transfer agency, recordkeeping (collectively, “sub-accounting services”) and other shareholder services associated with shareholders whose shares are held of record in omnibus, networked, or other group accounts or accounts traded through registered securities clearing agents, up to the following annual limits:

•0.15% of applicable average net assets or $20 per account for Omnibus Non-Institutional Accounts

•0.10% of applicable average net assets or $10 per account for Omnibus Institutional Accounts

•0.10% of applicable average net assets or $7 per account for Networked Accounts

Unless the Fund has adopted a specific shareholder servicing plan which is broken out as a separate expense, a sub-accounting fee paid by the Fund is included in the total amount of “Other Expenses” listed in the Fund’s Fees and Expenses table in the Prospectus.

Portfolio Transactions and Brokerage

Pursuant to the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser, together with the Sub-Adviser determines which securities are to be purchased and sold by the Fund and which broker-dealers are eligible to execute the Fund’s portfolio transactions. Purchases and sales of securities in the OTC market will generally be executed directly with a “market-maker” unless, in the opinion of the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser, a better price and execution can otherwise be obtained by using a broker for the transaction.

Purchases of portfolio securities for the Fund will be effected through broker-dealers (including banks) that specialize in the types of securities that the Fund will be holding, unless the Adviser believes that better executions are available elsewhere. Dealers usually act as principal for their own accounts. Purchases from dealers will include a spread between the bid and the asked price. If the execution and price offered by more than one dealer are comparable, the order may be allocated to a dealer that has provided research or other services as discussed below.

In placing portfolio transactions, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser will use reasonable efforts to choose broker-dealers capable of providing the services necessary to obtain the most favorable price and execution available. The full range and quality of services available will be considered in making these determinations, such as the size of the order, the difficulty of execution, the operational facilities of the firm involved, the firm’s risk in positioning a block of securities and other factors. In those instances where it is reasonably determined that more than one broker-dealer


			26

can offer the services needed to obtain the most favorable price and execution available, consideration may be given to those broker-dealers that furnish or supply research and statistical information to the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser that it may lawfully and appropriately use in its investment advisory capacities, as well as provide other brokerage services in addition to execution services. The Adviser considers such information, which is in addition to and not in lieu of the services required to be performed by it under its Advisory Agreement with the Fund, to be useful in varying degrees, but of indeterminable value. Portfolio transactions may be placed with broker-dealers who sell shares of the Fund subject to rules adopted by FINRA and the SEC. Portfolio transactions may also be placed with broker-dealers in which the Adviser has invested on behalf of the Fund and/or client accounts.

While it is the Fund’s general policy to first seek to obtain the most favorable price and execution available in selecting a broker-dealer to execute portfolio transactions for the Fund, weight is also given to the ability of a broker-dealer to furnish brokerage and research services to the Fund or to the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser, even if the specific services are not directly useful to the Fund and may be useful to the Adviser in advising other clients. In negotiating commissions with a broker or evaluating the spread to be paid to a dealer, the Fund may therefore pay a higher commission or spread than would be the case if no weight were given to the furnishing of these supplemental services, provided that the amount of such commission or spread has been determined in good faith by the Adviser to be reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and/or research services provided by such broker-dealer. The standard of reasonableness is to be measured in light of the Adviser’s overall responsibilities to the Fund.

Investment decisions for the Fund are made independently from those of other client accounts. Nevertheless, it is possible that at times identical securities will be acceptable for the Fund and one or more of such client accounts. In such event, the position of the Fund and such client account(s) in the same issuer may vary and the length of time that each may choose to hold its investment in the same issuer may likewise vary. However, to the extent any of these client accounts seek to acquire the same security as the Fund at the same time, the Fund may not be able to acquire as large a portion of such security as it desires, or it may have to pay a higher price or obtain a lower yield for such security. Similarly, the Fund may not be able to obtain as high a price for, or as large an execution of, an order to sell any particular security at the same time. If one or more of such client accounts simultaneously purchases or sells the same security that the Fund is purchasing or selling, each day’s transactions in such security will be allocated between the Fund and all such client accounts in a manner deemed equitable by the Adviser, taking into account the respective sizes of the accounts and the amount being purchased or sold. It is recognized that in some cases this system could have a detrimental effect on the price or value of the security insofar as the Fund is concerned. In other cases, however, it is believed that the ability of the Fund to participate in volume transactions may produce better executions for the Fund. Notwithstanding the above, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser may execute buy and sell orders for accounts and take action in performance of its duties with respect to any of its accounts that may differ from actions taken with respect to another account, so long as the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser shall, to the extent practicable, allocate investment opportunities to accounts, including the Fund, over a period of time on a fair and equitable basis and in accordance with applicable law.

The Fund is required to identify any securities of its regular broker-dealers that the Fund has acquired during its most recent fiscal year.

The Fund is also required to identify any brokerage transactions during its most recent fiscal year that were directed to a broker-dealer because of research services provided, along with the amount of any such transactions and any related commissions paid by the Fund.

Brokerage Recapture Arrangements

The Fund has entered or may enter into arrangements with various brokers pursuant to which a portion of the commissions paid by the Fund may be directed by the Fund to pay expenses of the Fund. Consistent with its policy and principal objective of seeking best price and execution, the Sub-Adviser may consider these brokerage recapture arrangements in selecting brokers to execute transactions for the Fund. There is no specific amount of brokerage that is required to be placed through such brokers. In all cases, brokerage recapture arrangements relate solely to expenses of the Fund and not to expenses of the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser.


			27

Portfolio Turnover

Although the Fund generally will not invest for short-term trading purposes, portfolio securities may be sold without regard to the length of time they have been held when, in the opinion of the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser, investment considerations warrant such action. Portfolio turnover rate is calculated by dividing (1) the lesser of purchases or sales of portfolio securities for the fiscal year by (2) the monthly average of the value of portfolio securities owned during the fiscal year. A 100% turnover rate would occur if all the securities in the Fund’s portfolio, with the exception of securities whose maturities at the time of acquisition were one year or less, were sold and either repurchased or replaced within one year. A high rate of portfolio turnover (100% or more) generally leads to above-average transaction and brokerage commission costs and may generate capital gains, including short-term capital gains taxable to shareholders at ordinary income rates. To the extent that the Fund experiences an increase in brokerage commissions due to a higher portfolio turnover rate, the performance of the Fund could be negatively impacted by the increased expenses incurred by the Fund. Furthermore, a high portfolio turnover rate may result in a greater number of taxable transactions.

Code of Ethics

The Trust, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser have each adopted a Code of Ethics under Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act. The Adviser’s Code of Ethics permits, subject to certain conditions, personnel of the Adviser to invest in securities that may be purchased or held by the Fund. The Distributor relies on the principal underwriters exception under Rule 17j-1(c)(3) from the requirement to adopt a code of ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 because the Distributor is not affiliated with the Trust or the Adviser, and no officer, director, or general partner of the Distributor serves as an officer or director of the Trust or the Adviser.

Proxy-Voting Procedures

The Board of Trustees has adopted Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (the “Proxy Policies”) on behalf of the Trust which has delegated to the Sub-Adviser, subject to the Board of Trustee’s continuing oversight the responsibility for voting proxies. The Proxy Policies require that the Sub-Adviser vote proxies received in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. The Proxy Policies also require the Sub-Adviser to present to the Board of Trustees, at least annually, the Sub-Adviser’s Proxy Policies and a record of each proxy voted by the Sub-Adviser on behalf of the Fund, including a report on the resolution of all proxies identified by the Sub-Adviser as involving a conflict of interest.

The Sub-Adviser upholds its stewardship and fiduciary responsibilities by seeking to vote in line with the Fund’s sustainability criteria and the best interests of the underlying shareholders of the Fund. The Sub-Adviser’s primary aim with all voting decisions is the long-term interests of underlying investors which includes ensuring high standards of corporate governance and the adoption of sustainable investment practices which should limit negative externalities. The Sub-Adviser will vote procedurally using proprietary analysis derived from its company and sector due diligence and supported by third party research where appropriate. Third party research is also provided by a proxy advisor, and the Sub-Advisor considers the proxy advisor’s ESG policy to be the most appropriately aligned with the investment policies of the Fund. The proxy advisor’s ESG guidelines include an additional level of analysis for shareholders seeking to vote in a manner that is consistent with widely accepted environmental, social and governance practices. Use of a proxy advisor serves purely to inform the Sub-Advisor’s voting decisions rather than dictate them.

In the event of a conflict between the interests of the Sub-Adviser and the Fund, the Proxy Policies provide that the conflict may be disclosed to the Board of Trustees or its delegate, who shall provide direction on how to vote the proxy. The Board of Trustees has delegated this authority to the Independent Trustees, and the proxy voting direction in such a case shall be determined by a majority of the Independent Trustees.

The Fund’s actual voting records relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 will be available without charge, upon request, by calling toll-free, 1-855-625-7333 or by accessing the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.


			28

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program

The Trust has established an Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program (the “Program”) as required by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”) and related anti-money laundering laws and regulations. To ensure compliance with these laws, the Program provides for the development of internal practices, procedures and controls, designation of anti-money laundering compliance officers, an ongoing training program and an independent audit function to determine the effectiveness of the Program. Michael L. Ceccato has been designated as the Trust’s Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer.

Procedures to implement the Program include, but are not limited to: determining that the Distributor and the Transfer Agent have established proper anti-money laundering procedures; reporting suspicious and/or fraudulent activity; and a complete and thorough review of all new account applications. The Fund will not transact business with any person or legal entity whose identity and beneficial owners, if applicable, cannot be adequately verified under the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

As a result of the Program, the Fund may be required to “freeze” the account of a shareholder if the shareholder appears to be involved in suspicious activity or if certain account information matches information on government lists of known terrorists or other suspicious persons, or the Fund may be required to transfer the account or proceeds of the account to a governmental agency.

Portfolio Holdings Information

The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has adopted portfolio holdings disclosure policies (the “Disclosure Policies”) that govern the timing and circumstances of disclosure of portfolio holdings of the Fund. Information about the Fund’s portfolio holdings will not be distributed to any third party except in accordance with these Disclosure Policies. The Board of Trustees considered the circumstances under which the Fund’s portfolio holdings may be disclosed under the Disclosure Policies, considering actual and potential material conflicts that could arise in such circumstances between the interests of the Fund’s shareholders and the interests of the Adviser, Sub-Adviser, Distributor or any other affiliated person of the Fund. After due consideration, the Board determined that the Fund has a legitimate business purpose for disclosing portfolio holdings to persons described in these Disclosure Policies.

Information about the Fund’s portfolio holdings will not be distributed to any third party except as described below:

•the disclosure is required to respond to a regulatory request, court order or other legal proceeding;

•the disclosure is to a mutual fund rating or evaluation services organization (such as Morningstar, Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters), or statistical agency or person performing similar functions, or due diligence department of a broker-dealer or wirehouse, who has, if necessary, signed a confidentiality agreement, or is bound by applicable duties of confidentiality imposed by law, with the Fund;

•the disclosure is made to the Fund’s service providers who generally need access to such information in the performance of their contractual duties and responsibilities, and who are subject to duties of confidentiality imposed by law and/or contract, such as the Adviser, Sub-Adviser, the Board of Trustees, the Fund’s independent registered public accountants, regulatory authorities, counsel to the Fund or the Board of Trustees, proxy voting service providers, financial printers involved in the reporting process, the fund administrator, fund accountant, transfer agent, or custodian of the Fund;

•the disclosure is made by the Sub-Adviser’s trading desk to broker-dealers in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or requests for price quotations or bids on one or more securities or so that such brokers can provide the Sub-Adviser with natural order flow;

•the disclosure is made to institutional consultants evaluating the Fund on behalf of potential investors;

•the disclosure is (a) in connection with a quarterly, semi-annual or annual report that is available to the public or (b) relates to information that is otherwise available to the public; or

•the disclosure is made pursuant to prior written approval of the Trust’s CCO, or other person so authorized, is for a legitimate business purpose and is in the best interests of the Fund’s shareholders.


			29

For purposes of the Disclosure Policies, portfolio holdings information does not include descriptive information if that information does not present material risks of dilution, arbitrage, market timing, insider trading or other inappropriate trading for the Fund. Information excluded from the definition of portfolio holdings information generally includes, without limitation: (i) descriptions of allocations among asset classes, regions, countries or industries/sectors; (ii) aggregated data such as average or median ratios, or market capitalization, performance attributions by industry, sector or country; or (iii) aggregated risk statistics. It is the policy of the Trust to prohibit any person or entity from receiving any direct or indirect compensation or consideration of any kind in connection with the disclosure of information about the Fund’s portfolio holdings.

The Trust’s CCO must document any decisions regarding non-public disclosure of portfolio holdings and the rationale therefor. In connection with the oversight responsibilities by the Board of Trustees, any documentation regarding decisions involving the non-public disclosure of portfolio holdings of the Fund to third parties must be provided to the full Board of Trustees or its authorized committee.

The Fund may disclose its portfolio holdings on a fiscal quarterly basis on or about the 60th day following the quarter end by posting this information on the Fund’s website. The Trust’s CCO may designate an earlier or later date for public disclosure of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. In addition, the Fund (i) may disclose the top 10 portfolio holdings at any time following the disclosure of portfolio holdings and (ii) may disclose statistical information regarding the Fund’s portfolio allocation characteristics on or about 10 business days after each month-end, or may disclose such information if it is derived from publicly available portfolio holdings, in each case, by posting the information on the Fund’s website. Disclosure of the Fund’s complete holdings is required to be made quarterly within 60 days of the end of each fiscal quarter, in the annual and semi-annual reports to Fund shareholders, and in the quarterly holdings report on Part F of Form N-PORT. These reports will be made available, free of charge, on the EDGAR database on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Any suspected breach of this policy must be reported immediately to the Trust’s CCO, or to the chief compliance officer of the Adviser who is to report it to the Trust’s CCO. The Board of Trustees reserves the right to amend the Disclosure Policies at any time without prior notice in its sole discretion.

Determination of Net Asset Value

The NAV of the Fund’s shares will fluctuate and is determined as of the close of trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) each business day. The NYSE annually announces the days on which it will not be open for trading. The most recent announcement indicates that the NYSE will not be open on the following days: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Juneteenth National Independence Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. However, the NYSE may close on days not included in that announcement. If the NYSE closes early, the Fund will calculate the NAV as of the close of trading on the NYSE on that day. If an emergency exists as permitted by the SEC, the NAV may be calculated at a different time.

The NAV per share is computed by dividing the value of the securities held by the Fund plus any cash or other assets (including interest and dividends accrued but not yet received) minus all liabilities (including accrued expenses) by the total number of shares in the Fund outstanding at such time.


Net Assets	=	Net Asset Value Per Share
Shares Outstanding

Generally, the Fund’s investments are valued at market value or, in the absence of a market value, at fair value as determined in good faith by the Sub-Adviser and the Valuation Committee pursuant to procedures approved by or under the direction of the Board of Trustees.

Each equity security owned by the Fund, including depositary receipts, that is traded on a national securities exchange, except for securities listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”), is valued at its last sale price on the exchange on which such security is traded, as of the close of business on the day the security is being valued or, lacking any reported sales, at the mean between the most recent bid and asked price. All equity securities


			30

that are not traded on a listed exchange are valued at the last sales price at the close of the OTC market. If a non-exchange listed security does not trade on a particular day, then the mean between the last quoted bid and the asked prices will be used as long as it continues to reflect the value of the security.

Securities that are traded on more than one exchange are valued using the price of the exchange that the Fund generally considers to be the principal exchange on which the security is traded. Fund securities listed on NASDAQ will be valued using the NASDAQ Official Closing Price, which may not necessarily represent the last sales price. If there has been no sale on such exchange or on NASDAQ on such day, the security will be valued at the mean between the most recent quoted bid and asked prices at the close of the exchange on such day, or the security shall be valued at the latest sales price on the “composite market” for the day such security is being valued. The composite market is defined as a consolidation of the trade information provided by a national securities and foreign exchange and OTC markets as published by an approved pricing service (“Pricing Service”).

Money market funds, demand notes and repurchase agreements are valued at cost. If cost does not represent current market value the securities will be priced at fair value.

Debt securities, including short-term instruments having a maturity of 60 days or less, are valued at the mean in accordance with prices provided by a Pricing Service. Pricing Services may use various valuation methodologies such as the mean between the bid and ask prices, matrix pricing method or other analytical pricing models as well as market transactions and dealer quotations. If a price is not available from a Pricing Service, the most recent quotation obtained from one or more broker-dealers known to follow the issue will be obtained. Fixed income securities purchased on a delayed-delivery basis are typically marked to market daily until settlement at the forward settlement date. Quotations will be valued at the mean between the bid and the offer. Fixed income securities purchased on a delayed-delivery basis are typically marked to market daily until settlement at the forward settlement date. Any discount or premium is accrued or amortized using the constant yield method until maturity.

Exchange traded options are valued at the composite price, using the National Best Bid and Offer quotes (“NBBO”). NBBO consists of the highest bid price and lowest ask price across any of the exchanges on which an option is quoted, thus providing a view across the entire U.S. options marketplace. Specifically, composite pricing looks at the last trades on the exchanges where the options are traded. If there are no trades for the option on a given business day composite option pricing calculates the mean of the highest bid price and lowest ask price across the exchanges where the option is traded.

All other assets of the Fund are valued in such manner as the Board of Trustees in good faith deems appropriate to reflect their fair value.

Additional Purchase and Redemption Information

The information provided below supplements the information contained in the Prospectus regarding the purchase and redemption of Fund shares.

How to Purchase Shares

You may purchase shares of the Fund directly from the Fund, or from securities brokers, dealers or other financial intermediaries (collectively, “Financial Intermediaries”). Investors should contact their Financial Intermediary directly for appropriate instructions, as well as information pertaining to accounts and any service or transaction fees that may be charged. The Fund may enter into arrangements with certain Financial Intermediaries whereby such Financial Intermediaries (and their authorized designees) are authorized to accept your order on behalf of the Fund (each an “Authorized Intermediary”). If you transmit your purchase request to an Authorized Intermediary before the close of regular trading (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) on a day that the NYSE is open for business, shares will be purchased at the next calculated NAV, after the Financial Intermediary receives the request. Investors should check with their Financial Intermediary to determine if it is an Authorized Intermediary.

Investors wishing to purchase Fund shares should contact the Fund toll free at 1-855-625-7333. If you are purchasing shares through a Financial Intermediary, you must follow the procedures established by your Financial Intermediary. Your Financial Intermediary is responsible for sending your purchase order and wiring payment to the


			31

Transfer Agent. Your Financial Intermediary holds the shares in your name and receives all confirmations of purchases and sales.

Shares are purchased at the next calculated NAV, after the Transfer Agent or Authorized Intermediary receives your purchase request in good order. In most cases, in order to receive that day’s NAV, the Transfer Agent must receive your order in good order before the close of regular trading on the NYSE (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time).

The Trust reserves the right in its sole discretion: (i) to suspend the continued offering of the Fund’s shares; (ii) to reject purchase orders in whole or in part when in the judgment of the Adviser or the Distributor such rejection is in the best interest of the Fund; and (iii) to reduce or waive the minimum for initial and subsequent investments for certain fiduciary accounts or under circumstances where certain economies can be achieved in sales of the Fund’s shares.

The Adviser reserves the right to reject any initial or additional investments.

How to Redeem Shares and Delivery of Redemption Proceeds

You may redeem your Fund shares any day the NYSE is open for regular trading, either directly with the Fund or through your Financial Intermediary.

Payments to shareholders for shares of the Fund redeemed directly from the Fund will be made as promptly as possible, but no later than seven days after receipt by the Transfer Agent of the written request in proper form, with the appropriate documentation as stated in the Prospectus, except that the Fund may suspend the right of redemption or postpone the date of payment during any period when: (a) trading on the NYSE is restricted as determined by the SEC or the NYSE is closed for other than weekends and holidays; (b) an emergency exists as determined by the SEC making disposal of portfolio securities or valuation of net assets of the Fund not reasonably practicable; or (c) for such other period as the SEC may permit for the protection of the Fund’s shareholders.

The value of shares on redemption or repurchase may be more or less than the investor’s cost, depending upon the market value of the Fund’s portfolio securities at the time of redemption or repurchase.

Telephone Redemptions

Shareholders with telephone transaction privileges established on their account may redeem Fund shares by telephone. Upon receipt of any instructions or inquiries by telephone from the shareholder, the Fund or its authorized agents may carry out the instructions and/or respond to the inquiry consistent with the shareholder’s previously established account service options. For joint accounts, instructions or inquiries from either party will be carried out without prior notice to the other account owners. In acting upon telephone instructions, the Fund and its agents use procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that such instructions are genuine. These include recording all telephone calls, requiring pertinent information about the account and sending written confirmation of each transaction to the registered owner.

The Transfer Agent will employ reasonable procedures to confirm that instructions communicated by telephone are genuine. If the Transfer Agent fails to employ reasonable procedures, the Fund and the Transfer Agent may be liable for any losses due to unauthorized or fraudulent instructions. If these procedures are followed, however, to the extent permitted by applicable law, neither the Fund nor its agents will be liable for any loss, liability, cost or expense arising out of any redemption request, including any fraudulent or unauthorized request. For additional information, contact the Transfer Agent.

Redemption in Kind

The Fund does not intend to redeem shares in any form except cash. The Trust, however, has filed a notice of election under Rule 18f-1 of the 1940 Act that allows the Fund to redeem in-kind redemption requests of a certain amount. Specifically, if the amount you are redeeming during any 90-day period is in excess of the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of the net assets of the Fund, valued at the beginning of such period, the Fund has the right to redeem your shares by giving you the amount that exceeds $250,000 or 1% of the net assets of the Fund in securities instead of cash. If the Fund pays your redemption proceeds by a distribution of securities, you could incur brokerage


			32

or other charges in converting the securities to cash, and you will bear any market risks associated with such securities until they are converted into cash. For federal income tax purposes, redemptions made in-kind are taxed in the same manner to a redeeming shareholder as redemptions made in cash. In addition, sales of securities received in kind may generate taxable gains.

Federal Income Tax Matters

This section is not intended to be a full discussion of federal income tax laws and the effect of such laws on you.

This section is based on the Code, Treasury Regulations, judicial decisions, and IRS guidance on the date hereof, all of which are subject to change, and possibly with retroactive effect. These changes could impact the Fund’s investments or the tax consequences to you of investing in the Fund. Some of the changes could affect the timing, amount and tax treatment of Fund distributions made to shareholders. There may be other federal, state, foreign or local tax considerations to a particular shareholder. No assurance can be given that legislative, judicial, or administrative changes will not be forthcoming which could affect the accuracy of any statements made in this section. Please consult your tax advisor before investing.

Each series of the Trust is treated as a separate entity for federal income tax purposes. The Fund, as a series of the Trust, intends to qualify and elect to be treated as a RIC under Subchapter M of the Code, provided it complies with all applicable requirements regarding the source of its income, diversification of its assets and timing and amount of its distributions. The Fund’s policy is to distribute to its shareholders all of its investment company taxable income and any net capital gain for each taxable year in a manner that complies with the distribution requirements of the Code, so that the Fund will not be subject to any federal income or excise taxes on amounts distributed. However, the Fund can give no assurances that its anticipated distributions will be sufficient to eliminate all Fund level taxes. If the Fund does not qualify as a RIC and is unable to obtain relief from such failure, it would be taxed as a regular corporation and, in such case, it would be more beneficial for a shareholder to directly own the Fund’s underlying investments rather than indirectly owning them through the Fund.

To qualify as a RIC, the Fund must derive at least 90% of its gross income from “good income,” which includes: (1) dividends, interest, certain payments with respect to securities loans and gains from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities or foreign currencies; (2) other income (including but not limited to gains from options, futures or forward contracts) derived with respect to the Fund’s business of investing in such stock, securities or foreign currencies; and (3) net income derived from an interest in a qualified publicly traded partnership. Although Code Section 851(b) authorizes the U.S. Treasury Department to issue Treasury Regulations excluding “foreign currency gains” that are not directly related to a RIC’s principal business of investing in stock or securities from qualifying income, Treasury Regulations currently provide that gains from the sale or other disposition of foreign currencies is qualifying income. Nevertheless, there can be no assurance that future Treasury Regulations will not come to a different conclusion or that the Fund will satisfy all requirements to be taxed as a RIC.

Furthermore, the Fund must diversify its holdings such that at the end of each fiscal quarter, (i) at least 50% of the value of the Fund’s assets consists of cash, cash equivalents, U.S. government securities, securities of other RICs, and other acceptable securities, with such other securities limited, in respect to any one issuer, to an amount not greater in value than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and to not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer; and (ii) no more than 25% of the value of the Fund’s assets may be invested in the securities of any one issuer (other than U.S. government securities or securities of other RICs), or of any two or more issuers that are controlled, as determined under applicable Code rules, by the Fund and that are engaged in the same, similar or related trades or businesses, or of certain qualified publicly traded partnerships.

The Fund will be subject to a nondeductible 4% federal excise tax on certain undistributed income if it does not distribute to its shareholders in each calendar year an amount at least equal to 98% of its ordinary income for the calendar year plus 98.2% of its capital gain net income for either the one-year period ending on October 31 of that year, or, if the Fund makes an election under Section 4982(e)(4) of the Code, the Fund’s fiscal year end, subject to an increase for any shortfall in the prior year’s distribution. The Fund has a Section 4982(e)(4) election currently in effect. The Fund intends to declare and distribute dividends and distributions in the amounts and at the times


			33

necessary to avoid the application of the excise tax, but can make no assurances that all such tax liability will be eliminated.

Investment company taxable income generally consists of interest, dividends, net short-term capital gain, and net gain from foreign currency transactions, less expenses. Net capital gain is the excess of the net long-term gain from the Fund’s sales or exchanges of capital assets over the net short-term loss from such sales or exchanges, taking into account any capital loss carryforward of the Fund. Net capital losses not used during any year may be carried forward indefinitely until used, and will retain their character as short-term or long-term. The Fund may also elect to defer certain losses for tax purposes.

Distributions of investment company taxable income are taxable to shareholders as ordinary income. For a non-corporate shareholder, a portion of the Fund’s distributions of investment company taxable income may consist of “qualified dividend income” eligible for taxation at the reduced federal income tax rates applicable to long-term capital gains to the extent that the amount distributed is attributable to and reported as “qualified dividend income” and the shareholder meets certain holding period requirements with respect to its Fund shares. For a corporate shareholder, a portion of the Fund’s distributions of investment company taxable income may qualify for the intercorporate dividends received deduction to the extent the Fund receives dividends directly or indirectly from U.S. corporations, reports the amount distributed as eligible for deduction and the shareholder meets certain holding period requirements with respect to its shares. The aggregate amount so reported to either non-corporate or corporate shareholders as applicable, cannot, however, exceed the aggregate amount of such dividends received by the Fund for its taxable year.

Distributions of net capital gain are taxable to shareholders as long-term capital gain regardless of the length of time that a shareholder has owned Fund shares. Distributions of net capital gain are not eligible for “qualified dividend income” treatment or the dividends-received deduction referred to in the previous paragraph.

Distributions of investment company taxable income and net capital gain will be taxable as described above whether received in additional Fund shares or in cash. Shareholders who choose to receive distributions in the form of additional Fund shares will have a cost basis for federal income tax purposes in each share so received equal to the NAV of a share on the reinvestment date. Distributions are generally taxable when received. However, distributions declared in October, November or December to shareholders of record and paid the following January are taxable as if received on December 31. Distributions are generally includable in alternative minimum taxable income in computing a non-corporate shareholder’s liability for the alternative minimum tax.

Certain individuals, trusts and estates may be subject to a Net Investment Income (“NII”) tax of 3.8% (in addition to the regular income tax). The NII tax is imposed on the lesser of: (i) a taxpayer’s investment income, net of deductions properly allocable to such income; or (ii) the amount by which such taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds certain thresholds ($250,000 for married individuals filing jointly, $200,000 for unmarried individuals and $125,000 for married individuals filing separately). The Fund’s distributions are includable in a shareholder’s investment income for purposes of this NII tax. In addition, any capital gain realized by a shareholder upon the sale or redemption of Fund shares is includable in such shareholder’s investment income for purposes of this NII tax.

A sale or redemption of Fund shares, whether for cash or in kind proceeds, may result in recognition of a taxable capital gain or loss. Gain or loss realized upon a sale or redemption of Fund shares will generally be treated as a long-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for more than one year, and, if held for one year or less, as a short-term capital gain or loss. However, any loss realized upon a sale or redemption of shares held for six months or less will be treated as a long-term capital loss to the extent of any distributions of net capital gain received or deemed to be received with respect to such shares. In determining the holding period of such shares for this purpose, any period during which your risk of loss is offset by means of options, short sales, or similar transactions is not counted. Any loss realized upon a sale or redemption of Fund shares may be disallowed under certain wash sale rules to the extent shares of the Fund are purchased (through reinvestment of distributions or otherwise) within 30 days before or after the sale or redemption. If a shareholder’s loss is disallowed under the wash sale rules, the basis of the new shares will be increased to preserve the loss until a future sale or redemption of the shares.


			34

If more than 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets at the close of its taxable year consists of stock and securities in foreign corporations, the Fund will be eligible to, and may, file an election with the IRS that would enable the Fund’s shareholders, in effect, to receive the benefit of the foreign tax credit with respect to any income taxes paid by the Fund to foreign countries and U.S. possessions. Pursuant to the election, the Fund would treat those foreign taxes as distributions paid to its shareholders, and each shareholder would be required to (i) include in gross income, and treat as paid by him, his proportionate share of those taxes, (ii) treat his share of those taxes and of any distribution paid by the Fund that represents income from foreign countries or U.S. possessions as his own income from those sources, and (iii) either deduct the taxes deemed paid by him in computing his taxable income or, alternatively, claim the foreign tax credit against his federal income tax. If the Fund makes this election, it will report to its shareholders shortly after each taxable year their respective share of income from sources within, and taxes paid to, foreign countries and U.S. possessions. The Code may limit a shareholder’s ability to claim a foreign tax credit. Shareholders who elect to deduct their portion of the Fund’s foreign taxes rather than take the foreign tax credit must itemize deductions on their income tax returns.

Under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”), the Fund may be required to withhold a generally nonrefundable 30% tax on (i) distributions of investment company taxable income, and (ii) distributions of net capital gain and the gross proceeds of a sale or redemption of Fund shares paid to (A) certain “foreign financial institutions” unless such foreign financial institution agrees to verify, monitor, and report to the IRS the identity of certain of its accountholders, among other items (unless such entity is otherwise deemed compliant under the terms of an intergovernmental agreement with the United States), and (B) certain “non-financial foreign entities” unless such entity certifies to the Fund that it does not have any substantial U.S. owners or provides the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of each substantial U.S. owner, among other items. In December 2018, the IRS and Treasury Department released proposed Treasury Regulations that would eliminate FATCA withholding on Fund distributions of net capital gain and the gross proceeds from a sale or redemption of Fund shares. Although taxpayers are entitled to rely on these proposed Treasury Regulations until final Treasury Regulations are issued, these proposed Treasury Regulations have not been finalized, may not be finalized in their proposed form, and are potentially subject to change. This FATCA withholding tax could also affect the Fund’s return on its investments in foreign securities or affect a shareholder’s return if the shareholder holds its Fund shares through a foreign intermediary. You are urged to consult your tax adviser regarding the application of this FATCA withholding tax to your investment in the Fund and the potential certification, compliance, due diligence, reporting, and withholding obligations to which you may become subject in order to avoid this withholding tax.

The Fund’s transactions, if any, in forward contracts, options, futures contracts, swaps and other investments may be subject to special provisions of the Code that, among other things, may accelerate recognition of income to the Fund, defer the Fund’s losses, and affect whether capital gain and loss is characterized as long-term or short-term. These provisions could therefore affect the character, amount and timing of distributions to shareholders. These provisions also may require the Fund to “mark-to-market” certain positions (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out). This “mark-to-market” requirement may cause the Fund to recognize income without receiving cash, and the Fund may have difficulty making distributions to its shareholders in the amounts necessary to satisfy the distribution requirements for maintaining the Fund’s status as a RIC and avoiding any income and excise taxes at the Fund level. Accordingly, the Fund may have to dispose of its investments under disadvantageous circumstances in order to generate sufficient cash to satisfy the distribution requirements of the Code.

Except in the case of certain exempt shareholders, if a shareholder does not furnish the Fund with its correct Social Security Number or other taxpayer identification number and certain certifications or the Fund receives notification from the IRS requiring backup withholding, the Fund is required by federal law to withhold federal income tax from the shareholder’s distributions and redemption proceeds at a rate set under Section 3406 of the Code for U.S. residents.

Foreign taxpayers (including nonresident aliens) are generally subject to a tax withholding at a flat rate of 30% on U.S.-source income that is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States. This withholding rate may be lower under the terms of a tax treaty or convention.


			35

Foreign Income Tax. Investment income received, and gains realized, by the Fund from sources within foreign countries may be subject to foreign income tax withholding at the source, and the amount of tax withheld generally will be treated as an expense of the Fund. The United States has entered into tax treaties with many foreign countries that entitle the Fund to a reduced rate of, or exemption from, tax on such income. Some countries require the filing of a tax reclaim or other form(s) to receive the benefit of the reduced tax rate; whether or when the Fund will receive a tax reclaim is within the control of the individual country. Information required on those forms may not be available, such as certain shareholder information; therefore, the Fund may not receive one or more reduced treaty rates or potential reclaims. Other countries have conflicting and changing instructions and restrictive timing requirements that also may cause the Fund to not receive one or more reduced treaty rates or potential reclaims. Other countries may subject capital gains realized by the Fund on the sale or other disposition of securities of that country to taxation. It is impossible to determine the effective rate of foreign tax in advance, since the amount of the Fund’s assets to be invested in various countries is not known.

Taxation of the Fund’s Investments

Certain Debt Obligations; Original Issue Discount; Market Discount. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, some debt obligations with a fixed maturity date of more than one year from the date of issuance (and zero-coupon debt obligations with a fixed maturity date of more than one year from the date of issuance) will be treated as having original issue discount (“OID”). OID is, very generally, the excess of the stated redemption price at maturity of a debt obligation over the issue price. OID is treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as interest income earned by the Fund, which will comprise a part of the Fund’s investment company taxable income or net tax-exempt income, if any, required to be distributed to shareholders as described above, whether or not cash on the debt obligation is actually received. Generally, the amount of OID accrued each year is determined on the basis of a constant yield to maturity which takes into account the compounding of interest (as potentially reduced by any amortizable bond premium—see below).

Some debt obligations with a fixed maturity date of more than one year from the date of issuance that are acquired by the Fund in the secondary market may be treated as having “market discount.” Very generally, market discount is the excess of the stated redemption price of a debt obligation (or in the case of an obligation issued with OID, its “revised issue price”) over the purchase price of such obligation. Generally, any gain recognized on the disposition of, and any partial payment of principal on, a debt obligation having market discount is treated as ordinary income to the extent the gain, or principal payment, does not exceed the “accrued market discount” on such debt obligation. Alternatively, the Fund may elect to accrue market discount currently, in which case the Fund will be required to include the accrued market discount in the Fund’s income (as ordinary income) and thus distribute it over the term of the debt obligation, even though payment of that amount is not received until a later time, upon partial or full repayment or disposition of the debt obligation. The rate at which the market discount accrues, and thus is included in the Fund’s income, will depend upon which of the permitted accrual methods the Fund elects.

Some debt obligations with a fixed maturity date of one year or less from the date of issuance may be treated as having OID or, in certain cases, “acquisition discount” (very generally, the excess of the stated redemption price over the purchase price). Generally, the Fund will be required to include the acquisition discount or OID in income (as ordinary income) and thus distribute it over the term of the debt obligation, even though payment of that amount is not received until a later time, upon partial or full repayment or disposition of the debt obligation. The Fund may make one or more of the elections applicable to debt obligations having acquisition discount or OID, which could affect the character and timing of recognition of income.

Pay-in-kind bonds also will give rise to income which is required to be distributed and is taxable even though the Fund holding the obligation receives no interest payment in cash on the obligation during the year.

If the Fund holds the foregoing kinds of obligations, or other obligations subject to special rules under the Code, it may be required to pay out as an income distribution each year an amount which is greater than the total amount of


			36

cash interest the Fund actually received. Such distributions may be made from the cash assets of the Fund or, if necessary, by selling of portfolio obligations including at a time when it may not be advantageous to do so. These dispositions may cause the Fund to realize higher amounts of short-term capital gains (generally taxed to shareholders at ordinary income tax rates) and, in the event the Fund realizes net capital gains from such transactions, its shareholders may receive a larger Capital Gain Dividend (see “Federal Income Taxation of Shareholders,” below) than if the Fund had not held such obligations.

Securities Issued or Purchased at a Premium. Very generally, where the Fund purchases a bond at a price that exceeds the stated principal amount (or revised issue price)—that is, at a premium—the premium is amortizable over the remaining term of the bond. In the case of a taxable bond, if the Fund makes an election applicable to all such bonds it purchases, which election is irrevocable without the consent of the IRS, the Fund reduces the current taxable income from the bond by the amortizable premium and reduces its tax basis in the bond (or the upward basis adjustment attributable to any OID) by the amount of such offset; upon the disposition or maturity of such bonds acquired on or after January 4, 2013, the Fund is permitted to deduct, against stated interest from other bonds, any remaining premium allocable to a prior period. In the case of a tax-exempt bond, tax rules require the Fund to reduce its tax basis by the amount of amortizable premium.

Junk Bonds. To the extent such investments are permissible, the Fund may invest in debt obligations that are in the lowest rating categories or are unrated, including debt obligations of issuers not currently paying interest or who are in default. If the Fund invests in high-yield OID obligations issued by corporations (including tax-exempt obligations), a portion of the OID accruing on the obligation may be treated as taxable dividend income. In such cases, if the issuer of the high-yield discount obligation is a domestic corporation, dividend payments by the Fund attributable to such portion of accrued OID may be eligible for the dividends-received deduction for corporate shareholders.

Investments in debt obligations that are at risk of or in default present special tax issues for the Fund. Tax rules are not entirely clear about issues such as whether or to what extent the Fund should recognize market discount on a debt obligation, when the Fund may cease to accrue interest, OID or market discount, when and to what extent the Fund may take deductions for bad debts or worthless securities and how the Fund should allocate payments received on obligations in default between principal and income. These and other related issues will be addressed by the Fund when, as and if it invests in such securities, in order to seek to ensure that it distributes sufficient income to preserve its eligibility for treatment as a regulated investment company and does not become subject to U.S. federal income or excise tax.

REITs. Any investment by the Fund in equity securities of REITs qualifying as real estate investment trusts under Subchapter M of the Code may result in the Fund’s receipt of cash in excess of the REIT’s earnings; if the Fund distributes these amounts, these distributions could constitute a return of capital to Fund shareholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Dividends received by the Fund from a REIT will not qualify for the corporate dividends-received deduction and generally will not constitute qualified dividend income (see “Federal Income Taxation of Shareholders,” below).

Distributions by the Fund to its shareholders that the Fund properly reports as “section 199A dividends,” as defined and subject to certain conditions described below, are treated as qualified REIT dividends in the hands of non-corporate shareholders. Non-corporate shareholders are permitted a federal income tax deduction equal to 20% of qualified REIT dividends received by them, subject to certain limitations. Very generally, a “section 199A dividend” is any dividend or portion thereof that is attributable to certain dividends received by a regulated investment company from REITs, to the extent such dividends are properly reported as such by the regulated investment company in a written notice to its shareholders. A section 199A dividend is treated as a qualified REIT dividend only if the shareholder receiving such dividend holds the dividend-paying regulated investment company shares for at least 46 days of the 91-day period beginning 45 days before the shares become ex-dividend, and is not under an obligation to make related payments with respect to a position in substantially similar or related property. The Fund is permitted to report such part of its dividends as section 199A dividends as are eligible, but is not required to do so.


			37

Issuer Deductibility of Interest. A portion of the interest paid or accrued on certain high-yield discount obligations owned by the Fund may not be deductible to (and thus, may affect the cash flow of) the issuer and will instead be treated as a dividend paid by the issuer for purposes of the dividends-received deduction (described below). In such cases, if the issuer of the high-yield discount obligations is a domestic corporation, dividend payments by the Fund may be eligible for the corporate dividends-received deduction (described below) to the extent attributable to the deemed dividend portion of such accrued interest.

Mortgage-Related Securities. The Fund may invest directly or indirectly (e.g., through REITs) in residual interests in real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”), including by investing in residual interests in CMOs with respect to which an election to be treated as a REMIC is in effect or equity interests in taxable mortgage pools (“TMPs”). Under a notice issued by the IRS in October 2006 and Treasury regulations that have yet to be issued but may apply retroactively, a portion of the Fund’s income (including income allocated to the Fund from a REIT or other pass-through entity) that is attributable to a residual interest in a REMIC or an equity interest in a TMP (referred to in the Code as an “excess inclusion”) will be subject to U.S. federal income tax in all events. This notice also provides, and the regulations are expected to provide, that excess inclusion income of a regulated investment company, such as the Fund, will be allocated to shareholders of the regulated investment company in proportion to the dividends received by such shareholders, with the same consequences as if the shareholders held the related interest directly. As a result, the Fund, if investing in such interests, may not be a suitable investment for charitable remainder trusts (see “Tax-Exempt Shareholders” below).

In general, excess inclusion income allocated to shareholders (i) cannot be offset by net operating losses (subject to a limited exception for certain thrift institutions), (ii) will constitute unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”) to entities (including a qualified pension plan, an individual retirement account, a 401(k) plan, a Keogh plan or other tax-exempt entity) subject to tax on UBTI, thereby potentially requiring such an entity that is allocated excess inclusion income, and otherwise might not be required to file a tax return, to file a tax return and pay tax on such income and (iii) in the case of a non-U.S. shareholder, will not qualify for any reduction in U.S. federal withholding tax. A shareholder will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on such inclusions notwithstanding any exemption from such income tax otherwise available under the Code.

Repurchase Agreements and Securities Loans. Any distribution of income that is attributable to (i) income received by the Fund in lieu of dividends with respect to securities on loan pursuant to a securities lending transaction or (ii) dividend income received by the Fund on securities it temporarily purchased from a counterparty pursuant to a repurchase agreement that is treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a loan by the Fund, will not constitute qualified dividend income to individual shareholders and will not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction for corporate shareholders, in each case as described below. In addition, withholding taxes accrued on dividends during the period that such security was not directly held by the Fund will not qualify as a foreign tax paid by the Fund and therefore cannot be passed through to shareholders even if the Fund were otherwise to meet the requirements described in “Foreign Taxes,” below.

Passive Foreign Investment Companies. Under the Code, investments in certain foreign investment companies that qualify as “passive foreign investment companies” (“PFICs”) are subject to special tax rules. A PFIC is any foreign corporation in which (i) 75% or more of the gross income for the taxable year is passive income, or (ii) the average percentage of the assets (generally by value, but by adjusted tax basis in certain cases) that produce or are held for the production of passive income is at least 50%. Generally, “passive income” for this purpose means dividends, interest (including income equivalent to interest), royalties, rents, annuities, the excess of gains over losses from certain property transactions and commodities transactions, and foreign currency gains. Passive income for this purpose does not include rents and royalties received by the foreign corporation from active business and certain income received from related persons.

Equity investments by the Fund in certain PFICs could subject the Fund to a U.S. federal income tax or other charge (including interest charges) on distributions received from the PFIC or on proceeds received from the disposition of shares in the PFIC, which tax cannot be eliminated by making distributions to the Fund’s shareholders. However, in certain circumstances, the Fund may avoid this tax treatment by electing to treat the PFIC as a “qualified electing fund” (i.e., make a “QEF” election), in which case the Fund will be required to include its share of the PFIC’s


			38

income and net capital gains annually, regardless of whether it receives any distribution from the PFIC. Alternatively, the Fund may elect to mark the gains (and to a limited extent losses) in its PFIC holdings “to the market” as though it had sold (and repurchased) its holdings in those PFICs on the last day of the Fund’s taxable year. Such gains and losses are treated as ordinary income and loss. The QEF and mark-to-market elections may have the effect of accelerating the recognition of income (without the receipt of cash) and increasing the amount required to be distributed for the Fund to avoid taxation. Making either of these elections therefore may require the Fund to sell other investments (including when it is not advantageous to do so) to meet its distribution requirement, which also may accelerate the recognition of gain and affect the Fund’s total return. If the Fund indirectly invests in PFICs by virtue of the Fund’s investment in underlying U.S. funds, it may not make such elections; rather, the underlying U.S. funds directly investing in PFICs would decide whether to make such elections.

Because it is not always possible to identify a foreign corporation as a PFIC, the Fund may incur the tax and interest charges described above in some instances. Dividends paid by PFICs will not be eligible to be treated as “qualified dividend income.” See “Federal Income Taxation of Shareholders,” below.

Investments in Other RICs. The Fund’s investments in shares of other mutual funds, ETFs or other companies that are treated as regulated investment companies (each, an “underlying RIC”), can cause the Fund to be required to distribute greater amounts of net investment income or net capital gain than the Fund would have distributed had it invested directly in the securities held by the underlying RIC, rather than in shares of the underlying RIC. Further, the amount or timing of distributions from the Fund qualifying for treatment as a particular character (e.g., long-term capital gain, exempt interest, eligibility for dividends-received deduction, etc.) will not necessarily be the same as it would have been had the Fund invested directly in the securities held by the underlying RIC. If the Fund receives dividends from an underlying RIC, and the underlying RIC reports such dividends as “qualified dividend income,” then the Fund is permitted in turn to report a portion of its distributions as qualified dividend income, provided the Fund meets holding period and other requirements with respect to shares of the underlying RIC.

If the Fund receives dividends from an underlying RIC and the underlying RIC reports such dividends as eligible for the “dividends-received deduction,” then the Fund is permitted in turn to report its distributions derived from those dividends as eligible for the dividends-received deduction as well, provided the Fund meets holding period and other requirements with respect to shares of the underlying RIC. (Qualified dividend income and the dividends-received deduction are described below.)

Taxation of Certain Investments. Including as described above, certain of the Fund’s investments will create taxable income in excess of the cash they generate. In such cases, the Fund may be required to sell assets (including when it is not advantageous to do so) to generate the cash necessary to distribute to its shareholders all of its income and gains and therefore to eliminate any tax liability at the Fund level. These dispositions may cause the Fund to realize higher amounts of short-term capital gains (generally taxed to shareholders at ordinary income tax rates) and, in the event the Fund realizes net capital gains from such transactions, its shareholders may receive a larger Capital Gain Dividend (as defined below) than if the Fund had not held such investments. The character of the Fund’s taxable income will, in many cases, be determined on the basis of reports made to the Fund by the issuers of the securities in which they invest. The tax treatment of certain securities in which the Fund may invest is not free from doubt and it is possible that an IRS examination of the issuers of such securities could result in adjustments to the income of the Fund.

Foreign Taxes. Income, proceeds and gains received by the Fund from sources within foreign countries may be subject to withholding and other taxes imposed by such countries. This will decrease the Fund’s return on securities subject to such taxes. Tax treaties between certain countries and the U.S. may reduce or eliminate such taxes. It is impossible to determine the effective rate of foreign tax in advance because the amount of the Fund’s assets to be invested within various countries is not known. Shareholders generally will not be entitled separately to claim a credit or deduction with respect to foreign taxes incurred by the Fund. If shareholders are not so entitled, the Fund’s taxable income will be reduced by the foreign taxes paid or withheld. Shareholders are advised to consult their own tax advisors with respect to the treatment of foreign source income and foreign taxes under the U.S. federal income tax laws.


			39

Distributions

The Fund will receive income primarily in the form of dividends and interest earned on the Fund’s investments in securities. This income, less the expenses incurred in its operations, is the Fund’s net investment income, substantially all of which will be distributed to the Fund’s shareholders.

The amount of the Fund’s distributions is dependent upon the amount of net investment income received by the Fund from its portfolio holdings, is not guaranteed and is subject to the discretion of the Board of Trustees. The Fund does not pay “interest” or guarantee any fixed rate of return on an investment in its shares.

The Fund may realize capital gains or losses in connection with sales or other dispositions of its portfolio securities. Any net gain that the Fund may realize from transactions involving investments held less than the period required for long‑term capital gain or loss recognition or otherwise producing short‑term capital gains and losses (taking into account any capital loss carryforward), will comprise part of net investment income. If during any year the Fund realizes a net gain on transactions involving investments held for the period required for long‑term capital gain or loss recognition or otherwise producing long-term capital gains and losses, the Fund will generally have a net long‑term capital gain. After deduction of the amount of any net short-term capital loss, the balance (to the extent not offset by any capital loss carryforward) will be distributed and treated as long-term capital gains in the hands of the shareholders regardless of the length of time that the Fund shares may have been held by the shareholder. Net capital losses realized by the Fund may be carried forward indefinitely, and will generally retain their character as short-term or long-term capital losses. For more information concerning applicable capital gains tax rates, please consult your tax adviser.

Any distribution paid by the Fund reduces the Fund’s NAV per share on the date paid by the amount of the distribution per share. Accordingly, a distribution paid shortly after a purchase of shares by a shareholder would represent, in substance, a partial return of capital (to the extent it is paid on the shares so purchased), even though it would be subject to federal income taxes.

Distributions will be reinvested in additional Fund shares unless the shareholder has otherwise indicated. Shareholders have the right to change their elections with respect to the reinvestment of distributions by notifying the Transfer Agent in writing, by telephone at 1-855-625-7333 (toll-free) or by contacting an Authorized Intermediary. However, any such change will be effective only as to distributions for which the record date is five or more calendar days after the Transfer Agent has received the written request.

Cost Basis Reporting

The Fund is required to report to certain shareholders and the IRS the cost basis of Fund shares acquired on or after January 1, 2012, by such shareholders (“covered shares”) when the shareholder sells or redeems such shares. This reporting requirement does not apply to shares acquired prior to January 1, 2012 or to shares held through a tax-deferred arrangement, such as a 401(k) plan or an IRA, or to shares held by tax-exempt organizations, financial institutions, corporations (other than S corporations), banks, credit unions and certain other entities and governmental bodies (“non-covered shares”). The Fund is not required to determine or report a shareholder’s cost basis in non-covered shares and is not responsible for the accuracy or reliability of any information provided for non-covered shares.

The cost basis of a share is generally its purchase price adjusted for distributions, returns of capital, and other corporate actions. Cost basis is used to determine whether the sale or redemption of a share results in a capital gain or loss. If you sell or redeem covered shares during any year, then the Fund will report the gain or loss, cost basis, and holding period of such covered shares to the IRS and you on Form 1099.

A cost basis method is the method by which the Fund determines which specific covered shares are deemed to be sold or redeemed when a shareholder sells or redeems less than its entire holding of covered shares and has made multiple purchases of covered shares on different dates at differing NAVs. If a shareholder does not affirmatively elect a cost basis method, the Fund will use the average cost method, which averages the basis of all Fund shares in an account regardless of holding period, and shares sold or redeemed are deemed to be those with the longest


			40

holding period first. Each shareholder may elect in writing (and not over the telephone) any alternate IRS-approved cost basis method to calculate the cost basis in its covered shares. The default cost basis method applied by the Fund or the alternate method elected by a shareholder may not be changed after the settlement date of a sale or redemption of Fund shares.

If you hold Fund shares through a broker (or another nominee), please contact that broker or nominee with respect to the reporting of cost basis and available elections for your account.

You are encouraged to consult your tax adviser regarding the application of these cost basis reporting rules and, in particular, which cost basis calculation method you should elect.

Financial Statements

As the Fund has recently commenced operations, there are no financial statements available as of the date of this SAI. Shareholders will be informed of the Fund’s progress through periodic reports when those reports become available. Financial statements audited by the independent registered public accounting firm will be submitted to shareholders at least annually.


			41

APPENDIX A

Glass Lewis Proxy Voting Guidelines


			A-1

United States

2023 Policy Guidelines

www.glasslewis.com

Table of Contents

About Glass Lewis 6

Guidelines Introduction 7

Summary of Changes for 2023 7

A Board of Directors that Serves Shareholder Interest 1 2

Election of Directors 1 2

Independence 1 2

Committee Independence 1 5

Independent Chair 16

Performance 1 7

Board Responsiveness 1 8

The Role of a Committee Chair 19

Audit Committees and Performance 2 0

Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee 2 0

Compensation Committee Performance 2 3

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance 25

Board-level Risk Management Oversight 28

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues 29

Cyber Risk Oversight 30

Board Accountability for Environmental and Social Performance 30

Director Commitments 3 1

Other Considerations 3 2

Controlled Companies 3 3

Significant Shareholders 3 5

Governance Following an IPO, Spin-off, or Direct Listing 3 5

Governance Following a Business Combination with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company 3 6

Dual-Listed or Foreign-Incorporated Companies 3 7

OTC-listed Companies 3 7

Mutual Fund Boards 3 8


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						2

Declassified Boards 3 9

Board Composition and Refreshment 40

Board Diversity 4 1

State Laws on Gender Diversity 4 1

Board Underrepresented Community Diversity 41

State Laws on Diversity 42

Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills 4 2

Stock Exchange Diversity Disclosure Requirements 4 3

Proxy Access 4 3

Majority Vote for Election of Directors 4 4

The Plurality Vote Standard 4 4

Advantages of a Majority Vote Standard 4 4

Conflicting and Excluded Proposals 4 4

Transparency and Integrity in Financial Reporting 4 7

Auditor Ratification 4 7

Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification 4 8

Pension Accounting Issues 4 9

The Link Between Compensation and Performance 50

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) 50

S ay-on-Pay Voting Recommendations 5 1

Company Responsiveness 5 2

Pay for Performance 5 3

Short-Term Incentives 5 4

Long-Term Incentives 5 5

Grants of Front-Loaded Awards 5 6

Linking Executive Pay to Environmental and Social Criteria 5 7

One-Time Awards 5 8

Contractual Payments and Arrangements 5 9

Sign-on Awards and Severance Benefits 5 9

Change in Control 58

Excise Tax Gross-ups 60


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						3

Amended Employment Agreements 60

Recoupment Provisions (Clawbacks) 60

Hedging of Stock 60

Pledging of Stock 61

C ompensation Consultant Independence 6 1

CEO Pay Ratio 6 2

Frequency of Say-on-Pay 63

Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements 6 3

Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals 6 3

Option Exchanges and Repricing 6 5

Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging 6 5

Director Compensation Plans 6 7

Employee Stock Purchase Plans 6 7

Executive Compensation Tax Deduct i bility — Amendment to IRC 162(M) 6 7

Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise 6 9

Anti-Takeover Measures 6 9

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans) 6 9

NOL Poison Pills 6 9

Fair Price Provisions 70

Quorum Requirements 71

Director and Officer Indemnification 71

Officer Exculpation 71

Reincorporation 7 2

Exclusive Forum and Fee-Shifting Bylaw Provisions 7 3

Authorized Shares 7 3

Advance Notice Requirements 7 4

Virtual Shareholder Meetings 7 5

Voting Structure 7 6

Multi-Class Share Structures 7 6

Cumulative Voting 7 6

Supermajority Vote Requirements 7 7


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						4

Transaction of Other Business 7 7

Anti-Greenmail Proposals 7 8

Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements 7 8

Real Estate Investment Trusts 7 8

Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs 7 9

Business Development Companies 7 9

Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price Below Net Asset Value 7 9

Auditor Ratification and Below-NAV Issuances 80

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies 80

Extension of Business Combination Deadline 8 0

SPAC Board Independence 81

Director Commitments of SPAC Executives 81

Shareholder Proposals 81

Overall Approach to Environmental, Social & Governance Issues 8 2

Connect with Glass Lewis 8 4


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						5

About Glass Lewis

Glass Lewis is the world’s choice for governance solutions. We enable institutional investors and publicly listed companies to make sustainable decisions based on research and data. We cover 30,000+ meetings each year, across approximately 100 global markets. Our team has been providing in-depth analysis of companies since 2003, relying solely on publicly available information to inform its policies, research, and voting recommendations.

Our customers include the majority of the world’s largest pension plans, mutual funds, and asset

managers, collectively managing over $40 trillion in assets. We have teams located across the United States,

Europe, and Asia-Pacific giving us global reach with a local perspective on the important governance issues.

Investors around the world depend on Glass Lewis’ Viewpoint platform to manage their proxy voting, policy implementation, recordkeeping, and reporting. Our industry leading Proxy Paper product provides comprehensive environmental, social, and governance research and voting recommendations weeks ahead of voting deadlines. Public companies can also use our innovative Report Feedback Statement to deliver their opinion on our proxy research directly to the voting decision makers at every investor client in time for voting decisions to be made or changed.

The research team engages extensively with public companies, investors, regulators, and other industry stakeholders to gain relevant context into the realities surrounding companies, sectors, and the market in general. This enables us to provide the most comprehensive and pragmatic insights to our customers.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						6

Guidelines Introduction

Summary of Changes for 2023

Glass Lewis evaluates these guidelines on an ongoing basis and formally updates them on an annual basis. This year we’ve made noteworthy revisions in the following areas, which are summarized below but discussed in greater detail in the relevant section of this document:

Update: 15 December 2022. We have clarified on pages 8 and 42 that we will generally recommend against a nominating and governance committee chair at companies in the Russell 1000 index if the company has not provided any disclosure of director diversity and skills in any of our tracked categories, rather than any disclosure in each category.

Board Diversity

Gender Diversity

We are transitioning from a fixed numerical approach to a percentage-based approach for board gender diversity, as announced in 2022.

Beginning with shareholder meetings held after January 1, 2023, we will generally recommend against the chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside the Russell 3000 index, our existing policy requiring a minimum of one gender diverse director will remain in place.

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline to appoint additional gender diverse directors (generally by the next annual meeting).

Underrepresented Community Diversity

We have expanded our policy on measures of diversity beyond gender. Beginning in 2023, we will generally recommend against the chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

We define “underrepresented community” as an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, North African, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaskan Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. For the purposes of this evaluation, we will rely solely on self-identified demographic information as disclosed in company proxy statements.

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations, and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						7

timeline to appoint additional directors from an underrepresented community (generally by the next annual meeting).

State Laws on Diversity

We have revised our discussion regarding state laws on diversity following recent changes to the status of certain state laws. Over the past several years, some U.S. states have encouraged board diversity through legislation. Most notably, companies headquartered in California were subject to mandatory board composition requirements during early 2022.

Subsequently, California’s Senate Bill 826 and Assembly Bill 979 regarding board gender and “underrepresented community” diversity, respectively, were both deemed to violate the equal protection clause of the California state constitution. These laws are currently in the appeals process.

Accordingly, where we previously recommended in accordance with mandatory board composition requirements set forth in California’s SB 826 and AB 979, we will refrain from providing recommendations pursuant to these state board composition requirements until further notice while we continue to monitor the appeals process. However, we will continue to monitor compliance with these requirements.

Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills

We have revised our discussion on disclosure of director diversity and skills in company proxy statements. At companies in the Russell 1000 index that have not provided any disclosure in any of our tracked categories, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee.

Additionally, beginning in 2023, when companies in the Russell 1000 index have not provided any disclosure of individual or aggregate racial/ethnic minority demographic information, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues

We have updated our guidelines with respect to board-level oversight of environmental and social (E&S) issues. For shareholder meetings held after January 1, 2023, we will generally recommend voting against the governance committee chair of a company in the Russell 1000 index that fails to provide explicit disclosure concerning the board’s role in overseeing environmental and social issues. While we believe that it is important that these issues are overseen at the board level and that shareholders are afforded meaningful disclosure of these oversight responsibilities, we believe that companies should determine the best structure for this oversight. In our view, this oversight can be effectively conducted by specific directors, the entire board, a separate committee, or combined with the responsibilities of a key committee. Furthermore, beginning in 2023 we will expand our tracking of board-level oversight of environmental and social issues to all companies within the Russell 3000 index.

When evaluating a board’s role in overseeing environmental and social issues, we will examine a company’s proxy statement and governing documents (such as committee charters) to determine if directors maintain a meaningful level of oversight and accountability for a company’s material environmental and social risks.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						8

Director Commitments

We have revised our discussion of director commitments. We have clarified that we will generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves as an executive officer (other than executive chair) of any public company while serving on more than one external public company board, a director who serves as an executive chair of any public company while serving on more than two external public company boards, and any other director who serves on more than five public company boards.

Cyber Risk Oversight

We have included a new discussion on our approach to cyber risk oversight. Given current regulatory focus on and the potential adverse outcomes from cyber-related issues, it is our view that cyber risk is material for all companies. We, therefore, believe that it is critical that companies evaluate and mitigate these risks to the greatest extent possible. With that view, we encourage all issuers to provide clear disclosure concerning the role of the board in overseeing issues related to cybersecurity. We also believe that disclosure concerning how companies are ensuring directors are fully versed on this rapidly evolving and dynamic issue can help shareholders understand the seriousness with which companies take this issue.

We will generally not make recommendations on the basis of a company’s oversight or disclosure concerning cyber-related issues. However, we will closely evaluate a company’s disclosure in this regard in instances where cyber-attacks have caused significant harm to shareholders and may recommend against appropriate directors should we find such disclosure or oversight to be insufficient.

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues

We have included a new discussion on director accountability for climate-related issues. In particular, we believe that clear and comprehensive disclosure regarding climate risks, including how they are being mitigated and overseen, should be provided by those companies whose own GHG emissions represent a financially material risk, such as those companies identified by groups including Climate Action 100+.

Accordingly, for companies with material exposure to climate risk stemming from their own operations, we believe they should provide thorough climate-related disclosures in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”). We also believe the boards of these companies should have explicit and clearly defined oversight responsibilities for climate-related issues. As such, in instances where we find either of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against responsible directors.

Officer Exculpation

We have included a new section regarding officer exculpation. In August 2022, the Delaware General Assembly amended Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to authorize corporations to adopt a provision in their certificate of incorporation to eliminate or limit monetary liability of certain corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duty of care. The amendment authorizes corporations to provide for exculpation of the following officers: (i) the corporation’s president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief legal officer, controller, treasurer or chief accounting officer, (ii) “named executive


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						9

officers” identified in the corporation’s SEC filings, and (iii) individuals who have agreed to be identified as officers of the corporation.

Corporate exculpation provisions under the DGCL apply only to claims for breach of the duty of care, and not to breaches of the duty of loyalty. Exculpation provisions also do not apply to acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct, knowing violations of the law, or transactions involving the receipt of any improper personal benefits. Furthermore, officers may not be exculpated from claims brought against them by, or in the right of, the corporation (i.e., derivative actions).

Under Section 102(b)(7), a corporation must affirmatively elect to include an exculpation provision in its certificate of incorporation. We will closely evaluate proposals to adopt officer exculpation provisions on a case-by-case basis. We will generally recommend voting against such proposals eliminating monetary liability for breaches of the duty of care for certain corporate officers, unless compelling rationale for the adoption is provided by the board, and the provisions are reasonable.

Long-Term Incentives

We revised our threshold for the minimum percentage of the long-term incentive grant that should be performance-based from 33% to 50%, in line with market trends. Beginning in 2023, Glass Lewis will raise concerns in our analysis with executive pay programs that provide less than half of an executive’s long-term incentive awards that are subject to performance-based vesting conditions. As with past year, we may refrain from a negative recommendation in the absence of other significant issues with the program’s design or operation, but a negative trajectory in the allocation amount may lead to an unfavorable recommendation.

Clarifying Amendments

The following clarifications of our existing policies are included this year:

Board Responsiveness

We have clarified our discussion of board responsiveness. Specifically, we have clarified that when 20% or more of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness. When a majority or more of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns. Furthermore, we have clarified our approach at controlled companies and companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, where we will carefully examine the level of disapproval attributable to unaffiliated shareholders and will generally evaluate vote results on a “one share, one vote” basis.

Compensation Committee Performance

We have clarified our approach when certain outsized awards (so called “mega-grants”) have been granted and the awards present concerns such as excessive quantum, lack of sufficient performance conditions, and/or are


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						10

excessively dilutive, among others. We will generally recommend against the chair of the compensation committee when such outsized awards have been granted and include any of the aforementioned concerns.

Company Responsiveness (for Say-on-Pay Analysis)

With regard to our discussion of company responsiveness, we have clarified that we will also scrutinize high levels of disapproval from disinterested shareholders when assessing the support levels for previous years' say-on-pay votes. When evaluating a company's response to low support levels, we also expanded our discussion of what we consider robust disclosure, including discussion of rationale for not implementing change to pay decisions that drove low support and intentions going forward.

One-Time Awards

We have expanded our discussion regarding what we consider reasonable disclosure in terms of one-time awards. Specifically, we have included that we expect discussion surrounding the determination of quantum and structure for such awards.

Grants of Front-Loaded Awards

Adding to our discussion relating to front-loaded awards, we have included language touching on the topic of the rise in the use of "mega-grants". Furthermore, we expanded on our concerns regarding the increased restraint placed upon the board to respond to unforeseen factors when front-loaded awards are used. Finally, we provided clarification surrounding situations where front-loaded awards are intended to cover only the time-based or performance-based portion of an executive's long-term incentive awards.

Pay for Performance

We included mention of the new pay versus performance disclosure requirements announced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August of 2022. In our revised discussion of our Pay-for-Performance methodology, we have made clear that the methodology is not impacted by new rules. There is no change to the methodology for the 2023 Proxy Season. However, we note that the disclosure requirements from the new rule may be reviewed in our evaluation of executive pay programs on a qualitative basis.

Short- and Long-Term Incentives

We have added new discussion to codify our views on certain exercise of compensation committee discretion on incentive payouts. Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						11

Recoupment Provisions

We have revised our discussion on clawback policies to reflect new regulatory developments for exchange-listed companies. On October 26, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved final rules regarding clawback policies based on which the national exchanges are to create new listing requirements. During period between the announcement of the final rules and the effective date of listing requirements, Glass Lewis will continue to raise concerns for companies that maintain clawback policies that only meet the requirements set forth by Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, disclosure from such companies of early effort to meet the standards of the final rules may help to mitigate concerns.

A Board of Directors that Serves

Shareholder Interest

Election of Directors

The purpose of Glass Lewis’ proxy research and advice is to facilitate shareholder voting in favor of governance structures that will drive performance, create shareholder value and maintain a proper tone at the top. Glass Lewis looks for talented boards with a record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. We believe that a board can best protect and enhance the interests of shareholders if it is sufficiently independent, has a record of positive performance, and consists of individuals with diverse backgrounds and a breadth and depth of relevant experience.

Independence

The independence of directors, or lack thereof, is ultimately demonstrated through the decisions they make. In assessing the independence of directors, we will take into consideration, when appropriate, whether a director has a track record indicative of making objective decisions. Likewise, when assessing the independence of directors we will also examine when a director’s track record on multiple boards indicates a lack of objective decision-making. Ultimately, we believe the determination of whether a director is independent or not must take into consideration both compliance with the applicable independence listing requirements as well as judgments made by the director.

We look at each director nominee to examine the director’s relationships with the company, the company’s executives, and other directors. We do this to evaluate whether personal, familial, or financial relationships (not including director compensation) may impact the director’s decisions. We believe that such relationships make it difficult for a director to put shareholders’ interests above the director’s or the related party’s interests. We also believe that a director who owns more than 20% of a company can exert disproportionate influence on the board, and therefore believe such a director’s independence may be hampered, in particular when serving on the audit committee.

Thus, we put directors into three categories based on an examination of the type of relationship they have with the company:


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						12

Independent Director — An independent director has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives, or other board members, except for board service and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that existed within three to five years1 before the inquiry are usually considered “current” for purposes of this test. For material financial relationships with the company, we apply a three-year look back, and for former employment relationships with the company, we apply a five-year look back.

Affiliated Director — An affiliated director has, (or within the past three years, had) a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company.2 This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the company.3 In addition, we view a director who either owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock, or is an employee or affiliate of an entity that controls such amount, as an affiliate.4

We view 20% shareholders as affiliates because they typically have access to and involvement with the management of a company that is fundamentally different from that of ordinary shareholders. More importantly, 20% holders may have interests that diverge from those of ordinary holders, for reasons such as the liquidity (or lack thereof) of their holdings, personal tax issues, etc.

Glass Lewis applies a three-year look back period to all directors who have an affiliation with the company other than former employment, for which we apply a five-year look back.

Definition of “Material”: A material relationship is one in which the dollar value exceeds:

•$50,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for directors who are paid for a service they have agreed to perform for the company, outside of their service as a director, including professional or other services. This threshold also applies to directors who are the majority or principal owner of a firm that receives such payments; or

•$120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm and the company pays the firm, not the

1 NASDAQ originally proposed a five-year look-back period but both it and the NYSE ultimately settled on a three-year look- back prior to finalizing their rules. A five-year standard for former employment relationships is more appropriate, in our view, because we believe that the unwinding of conflicting relationships between former management and board members is more likely to be complete and final after five years. However, Glass Lewis does not apply the five-year look-back period to directors who have previously served as executives of the company on an interim basis for less than one year.

2 If a company does not consider a non-employee director to be independent, Glass Lewis will classify that director as an affiliate.

3 We allow a five-year grace period for former executives of the company or merged companies who have consulting agreements with the surviving company. (We do not automatically recommend voting against directors in such cases for the first five years.) If the consulting agreement persists after this five-year grace period, we apply the materiality thresholds outlined in the definition of “material.”

4 This includes a director who serves on a board as a representative (as part of his or her basic responsibilities) of an investment firm with greater than 20% ownership. However, while we will generally consider him/her to be affiliated, we will not recommend voting against unless (i) the investment firm has disproportionate board representation or (ii) the director serves on the audit committee.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						13

individual, for services.5 This dollar limit would also apply to charitable contributions to schools where a board member is a professor; or charities where a director serves on the board or is an executive;6 and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or

•1% of either company’s consolidated gross revenue for other business relationships (e.g., where the director is an executive officer of a company that provides services or products to or receives services or products from the company).7

Definition of “Familial” — Familial relationships include a person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person’s home. A director is an affiliate if: i) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and receives more than $120,000 in annual compensation; or, ii) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and the company does not disclose this individual’s compensation.

Definition of “Company” — A company includes any parent or subsidiary in a group with the company or any entity that merged with, was acquired by, or acquired the company.

Inside Director — An inside director simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a board chair who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company. In our view, an inside director who derives a greater amount of income as a result of affiliated transactions with the company rather than through compensation paid by the company (i.e., salary, bonus, etc. as a company employee) faces a conflict between making decisions that are in the best interests of the company versus those in the director’s own best interests.

Therefore, we will recommend voting against such a director.

Additionally, we believe a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of the director’s resignation or departure from the interim management position.

5 We may deem such a transaction to be immaterial where the amount represents less than 1% of the firm’s annual revenues and the board provides a compelling rationale as to why the director’s independence is not affected by the relationship.

6 We will generally take into consideration the size and nature of such charitable entities in relation to the company’s size and industry along with any other relevant factors such as the director’s role at the charity. However, unlike for other types of related party transactions, Glass Lewis generally does not apply a look-back period to affiliated relationships involving charitable contributions; if the relationship between the director and the school or charity ceases, or if the company discontinues its donations to the entity, we will consider the director to be independent.

7 This includes cases where a director is employed by, or closely affiliated with, a private equity firm that profits from an acquisition made by the company. Unless disclosure suggests otherwise, we presume the director is affiliated.

8 Pursuant to SEC rule Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act, compensation exceeding $120,000 is the minimum threshold deemed material for disclosure of transactions involving family members of directors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						14

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically8 recommend voting against some of the inside and/or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

In the case of a less than two-thirds independent board, Glass Lewis strongly supports the existence of a presiding or lead director with authority to set the meeting agendas and to lead sessions outside the insider chair’s presence.

In addition, we scrutinize avowedly “independent” chairs and lead directors. We believe that they should be unquestionably independent or the company should not tout them as such.

Committee Independence

We believe that only independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating, and governance committees.9 We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating, or governance committee, or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

Pursuant to Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require that boards apply enhanced standards of independence when making an affirmative determination of the independence of compensation committee members. Specifically, when making this determination, in addition to the factors considered when assessing general director independence, the board’s considerations must include: (i) the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the listed company to the director (the “Fees Factor”); and (ii) whether the director is affiliated with the listing company, its subsidiaries, or affiliates of its subsidiaries (the “Affiliation Factor”).

Glass Lewis believes it is important for boards to consider these enhanced independence factors when assessing compensation committee members. However, as discussed above in the section titled Independence, we apply our own standards when assessing the independence of directors, and these standards also take into account consulting and advisory fees paid to the director, as well as the director’s affiliations with the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. We may recommend voting against compensation committee members who are not independent based on our standards.

8 With a staggered board, if the affiliates or insiders that we believe should not be on the board are not up for election, we will express our concern regarding those directors, but we will not recommend voting against the other affiliates or insiders who are up for election just to achieve two-thirds independence. However, we will consider recommending voting against the directors subject to our concern at their next election if the issue giving rise to the concern is not resolved.

9 We will recommend voting against an audit committee member who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock, and we believe that there should be a maximum of one director (or no directors if the committee is composed of less than three directors) who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock on the compensation, nominating, and governance committees.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						15

Independent Chair

Glass Lewis believes that separating the roles of CEO (or, more rarely, another executive position) and chair creates a better governance structure than a combined CEO/chair position. An executive manages the business according to a course the board charts. Executives should report to the board regarding their performance in achieving goals set by the board. This is needlessly complicated when a CEO chairs the board, since a CEO/chair presumably will have a significant influence over the board.

While many companies have an independent lead or presiding director who performs many of the same functions of an independent chair (e.g., setting the board meeting agenda), we do not believe this alternate form of independent board leadership provides as robust protection for shareholders as an independent chair.

It can become difficult for a board to fulfill its role of overseer and policy setter when a CEO/chair controls the agenda and the boardroom discussion. Such control can allow a CEO to have an entrenched position, leading to longer-than-optimal terms, fewer checks on management, less scrutiny of the business operation, and limitations on independent, shareholder-focused goal-setting by the board.

A CEO should set the strategic course for the company, with the board’s approval, and the board should enable the CEO to carry out the CEO’s vision for accomplishing the board’s objectives. Failure to achieve the board’s objectives should lead the board to replace that CEO with someone in whom the board has confidence.

Likewise, an independent chair can better oversee executives and set a pro-shareholder agenda without the management conflicts that a CEO and other executive insiders often face. Such oversight and concern for shareholders allows for a more proactive and effective board of directors that is better able to look out for the interests of shareholders.

Further, it is the board’s responsibility to select a chief executive who can best serve a company and its shareholders and to replace this person when his or her duties have not been appropriately fulfilled. Such a replacement becomes more difficult and happens less frequently when the chief executive is also in the position of overseeing the board.

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chair is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chair fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction — one study indicates that only 10 percent of incoming CEOs in 2014 were awarded the chair title, versus 48 percent in 2002.10 Another study finds that 53 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chair roles, up from 37 percent in 2009, although the same study found that only 34 percent of S&P 500 boards have truly independent chairs.11

We do not recommend that shareholders vote against CEOs who chair the board. However, we typically recommend that our clients support separating the roles of chair and CEO whenever that question is posed in a

10 Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Nelson. “The $112 Billion CEO Succession Problem.” (Strategy+Business, Issue 79, Summer 2015).

11 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 6.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						16

proxy (typically in the form of a shareholder proposal), as we believe that it is in the long-term best interests of the company and its shareholders.

Further, where the company has neither an independent chair nor independent lead director, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.

Performance

The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and its shareholders lies in the actions of the board and its members. We look at the performance of these individuals as directors and executives of the company and of other companies where they have served.

We find that a director’s past conduct is often indicative of future conduct and performance. We often find directors with a history of overpaying executives or of serving on boards where avoidable disasters have occurred serving on the boards of companies with similar problems. Glass Lewis has a proprietary database of directors serving at over 8,000 of the most widely held U.S. companies. We use this database to track the performance of directors across companies.

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, audit- or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders. We will reevaluate such directors based on, among other factors, the length of time passed since the incident giving rise to the concern, shareholder support for the director, the severity of the issue, the director’s role (e.g., committee membership), director tenure at the subject company, whether ethical lapses accompanied the oversight lapse, and evidence of strong oversight at other companies.

Likewise, we examine the backgrounds of those who serve on key board committees to ensure that they have the required skills and diverse backgrounds to make informed judgments about the subject matter for which the committee is responsible.

We believe shareholders should avoid electing directors who have a record of not fulfilling their responsibilities to shareholders at any company where they have held a board or executive position. We typically recommend voting against:

1.A director who fails to attend a minimum of 75% of board and applicable committee meetings,

calculated in the aggregate.12

2.A director who belatedly filed a significant form(s) 4 or 5, or who has a pattern of late filings if the late

filing was the director’s fault (we look at these late filing situations on a case-by-case basis).

3.A director who is also the CEO of a company where a serious and material restatement has occurred after the CEO had previously certified the pre-restatement financial statements.

12 However, where a director has served for less than one full year, we will typically not recommend voting against for failure to attend 75% of meetings. Rather, we will note the poor attendance with a recommendation to track this issue going forward. We will also refrain from recommending to vote against directors when the proxy discloses that the director missed the meetings due to serious illness or other extenuating circumstances.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						17

4.A director who has received two against recommendations from Glass Lewis for identical reasons within the prior year at different companies (the same situation must also apply at the company being analyzed).

Furthermore, with consideration given to the company’s overall corporate governance, pay-for-performance alignment and board responsiveness to shareholders, we may recommend voting against directors who served throughout a period in which the company performed significantly worse than peers and the directors have not taken reasonable steps to address the poor performance.

Board Responsiveness

Glass Lewis believes that boards should be responsive to shareholders when a significant percentage of shareholders vote contrary to the recommendation of management, depending on the issue.

When 20% of more of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders on the issue and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness. These include instances when 20% or more of shareholders:

(i) withhold votes from (or vote against) a director nominee;

(ii) vote against a management-sponsored proposal; or

(iii) vote for a shareholder proposal.

In our view, a 20% threshold is significant enough to warrant a close examination of the underlying issues and an evaluation of whether the board responded appropriately following the vote, particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal. While the 20% threshold alone will not automatically generate a negative vote recommendation from Glass Lewis on a future proposal (e.g., to recommend against a director nominee, against a say-on-pay proposal, etc.), it may be a contributing factor to our recommendation to vote against management’s recommendation in the event we determine that the board did not respond appropriately.

When a majority of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders on the issue and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns. These include instances when a majority or more of shareholders:

(i) withhold votes from (or vote against) a director nominee;

(ii) vote against a management-sponsored proposal; or

(iii) vote for a shareholder proposal.

In the case of shareholder proposals, we believe clear action is warranted when such proposals receive support from a majority of votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes). In our view, this may include fully implementing the request of the shareholder proposal and/or engaging with shareholders on the issue and providing sufficient disclosures to address shareholder concerns.

At controlled companies and companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. In the case of companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						18

to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to address shareholder concerns.

As a general framework, our evaluation of board responsiveness involves a review of publicly available disclosures (e.g., the proxy statement, annual report, 8-Ks, company website, etc.) released following the date of the company’s last annual meeting up through the publication date of our most current Proxy Paper. Depending on the specific issue, our focus typically includes, but is not limited to, the following:

•At the board level, any changes in directorships, committee memberships, disclosure of related party transactions, meeting attendance, or other responsibilities;

•Any revisions made to the company’s articles of incorporation, bylaws or other governance documents;

•Any press or news releases indicating changes in, or the adoption of, new company policies, business practices or special reports; and

•Any modifications made to the design and structure of the company’s compensation program, as well as an assessment of the company’s engagement with shareholders on compensation issues as discussed in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A), particularly following a material vote against a company’s say-on-pay.

•Proxy statement disclosure discussing the board’s efforts to engage with shareholders and the actions taken to address shareholder concerns.

Our Proxy Paper analysis will include a case-by-case assessment of the specific elements of board responsiveness that we examined along with an explanation of how that assessment impacts our current voting recommendations.

The Role of a Committee Chair

Glass Lewis believes that a designated committee chair maintains primary responsibility for the actions of his or her respective committee. As such, many of our committee-specific voting recommendations are against the applicable committee chair rather than the entire committee (depending on the seriousness of the issue). In cases where the committee chair is not up for election due to a staggered board, and where we have identified multiple concerns, we will generally recommend voting against other members of the committee who are up for election, on a case-by-case basis.

In cases where we would ordinarily recommend voting against a committee chair but the chair is not specified, we apply the following general rules, which apply throughout our guidelines:

•If there is no committee chair, we recommend voting against the longest-serving committee member or, if the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, the longest-serving board member serving on the committee (i.e., in either case, the “senior director”); and

•If there is no committee chair, but multiple senior directors serving on the committee, we recommend voting against both (or all) such senior directors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						19

In our view, companies should provide clear disclosure of which director is charged with overseeing each committee. In cases where that simple framework is ignored and a reasonable analysis cannot determine which committee member is the designated leader, we believe shareholder action against the longest serving committee member(s) is warranted. Again, this only applies if we would ordinarily recommend voting against the committee chair but there is either no such position or no designated director in such role.

Audit Committees and Performance

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because stable capital markets depend on reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. Audit committees play a vital role in providing this disclosure to shareholders.

When assessing an audit committee’s performance, we are aware that an audit committee does not prepare financial statements, is not responsible for making the key judgments and assumptions that affect the financial statements, and does not audit the numbers or the disclosures provided to investors. Rather, an audit committee member monitors and oversees the process and procedures that management and auditors perform. The 1999 Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees stated it best:

A proper and well-functioning system exists, therefore, when the three main groups responsible for financial reporting — the full board including the audit committee, financial management including the internal auditors, and the outside auditors — form a ‘three legged stool’ that supports responsible financial disclosure and active participatory oversight. However, in the view of the Committee, the audit committee must be ‘first among equals’ in this process, since the audit committee is an extension of the full board and hence the ultimate monitor of the process.

Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.”13

We are skeptical of audit committees where there are members that lack expertise as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or corporate controller, or similar experience. While we will not necessarily recommend voting against members of an audit committee when such expertise is lacking, we are more likely to recommend voting against committee members when a problem such as a restatement occurs and such expertise is lacking.

Glass Lewis generally assesses audit committees against the decisions they make with respect to their oversight and monitoring role. The quality and integrity of the financial statements and earnings reports, the completeness of disclosures necessary for investors to make informed decisions, and the effectiveness of the internal controls should provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are materially free from

13 Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise. The Conference Board. 2003.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						20

errors. The independence of the external auditors and the results of their work all provide useful information by which to assess the audit committee.

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and generally recommend voting in favor of its members. However, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

1.All members of the audit committee when options were backdated, there is a lack of adequate controls in place, there was a resulting restatement, and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation with respect to the option grants.

2.The audit committee chair, if the audit committee does not have a financial expert or the committee’s financial expert does not have a demonstrable financial background sufficient to understand the financial issues unique to public companies.

3.The audit committee chair, if the audit committee did not meet at least four times during the year.

4.The audit committee chair, if the committee has less than three members.

5.Any audit committee member who sits on more than three public company audit committees, unless the audit committee member is a retired CPA, CFO, controller or has similar experience, in which case the limit shall be four committees, taking time and availability into consideration including a review of the audit committee member’s attendance at all board and committee meetings.14

6.All members of an audit committee who are up for election and who served on the committee at the time of the audit, if audit and audit-related fees total one-third or less of the total fees billed by the auditor.

7.The audit committee chair when tax and/or other fees are greater than audit and audit-related fees paid to the auditor for more than one year in a row (in which case we also recommend against ratification of the auditor).

8.The audit committee chair when fees paid to the auditor are not disclosed.

9.All members of an audit committee where non-audit fees include fees for tax services (including, but not limited to, such things as tax avoidance or shelter schemes) for senior executives of the company. Such services are prohibited by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).

10.All members of an audit committee that reappointed an auditor that we no longer consider to be independent for reasons unrelated to fee proportions.

11.All members of an audit committee when audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

12.The audit committee chair if the committee failed to put auditor ratification on the ballot for shareholder approval. However, if the non-audit fees or tax fees exceed audit plus audit-related fees in either the current or the prior year, then Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

14 Glass Lewis may exempt certain audit committee members from the above threshold if, upon further analysis of relevant factors such as the director’s experience, the size, industry-mix and location of the companies involved and the director’s attendance at all the companies, we can reasonably determine that the audit committee member is likely not hindered by multiple audit committee commitments.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						21

13.All members of an audit committee where the auditor has resigned and reported that a section 10A15

letter has been issued.

14.All members of an audit committee at a time when material accounting fraud occurred at the

company.16

15.All members of an audit committee at a time when annual and/or multiple quarterly financial statements had to be restated, and any of the following factors apply:17

a.The restatement involves fraud or manipulation by insiders;

b.The restatement is accompanied by an SEC inquiry or investigation;

c.The restatement involves revenue recognition;

d.The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to costs of goods sold, operating expense, or operating cash flows; or

e.The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to net income, 10% adjustment to assets or shareholders equity, or cash flows from financing or investing activities.

16.All members of an audit committee if the company repeatedly fails to file its financial reports in a timely fashion. For example, the company has filed two or more quarterly or annual financial statements late within the last five quarters.

17.All members of an audit committee when it has been disclosed that a law enforcement agency has charged the company and/or its employees with a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

18.All members of an audit committee when the company has aggressive accounting policies and/or poor

disclosure or lack of sufficient transparency in its financial statements.

19.All members of the audit committee when there is a disagreement with the auditor and the auditor resigns or is dismissed (e.g., the company receives an adverse opinion on its financial statements from the auditor).

20.All members of the audit committee if the contract with the auditor specifically limits the auditor’s liability to the company for damages.18

21.All members of the audit committee who served since the date of the company’s last annual meeting, and when, since the last annual meeting, the company has reported a material weakness that has not

15 Auditors are required to report all potential illegal acts to management and the audit committee unless they are clearly inconsequential in nature. If the audit committee or the board fails to take appropriate action on an act that has been determined to be a violation of the law, the independent auditor is required to send a section 10A letter to the SEC. Such letters are rare and therefore we believe should be taken seriously.

16 Research indicates that revenue fraud now accounts for over 60% of SEC fraud cases, and that companies that engage in fraud experience significant negative abnormal stock price declines—facing bankruptcy, delisting, and material asset sales at much higher rates than do non-fraud firms (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. “Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1998-2007.” May 2010).

17 The SEC issued guidance in March 2021 related to classification of warrants as liabilities at special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). We will generally refrain from recommending against audit committee members when the restatement in question is solely as a result of the aforementioned SEC guidance.

18 The Council of Institutional Investors. “Corporate Governance Policies,” p. 4, April 5, 2006; and “Letter from Council of Institutional Investors to the AICPA,” November 8, 2006.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						22

yet been corrected, or, when the company has an ongoing material weakness from a prior year that has not yet been corrected.

We also take a dim view of audit committee reports that are boilerplate, and which provide little or no information or transparency to investors. When a problem such as a material weakness, restatement or late filings occurs, we take into consideration, in forming our judgment with respect to the audit committee, the transparency of the audit committee report.

Compensation Committee Performance

Compensation committees have a critical role in determining the compensation of executives. This includes deciding the basis on which compensation is determined, as well as the amounts and types of compensation to be paid. This process begins with the hiring and initial establishment of employment agreements, including the terms for such items as pay, pensions and severance arrangements. It is important in establishing compensation arrangements that compensation be consistent with, and based on the long-term economic performance of, the business’s long-term shareholders returns.

Compensation committees are also responsible for the oversight of the transparency of compensation. This oversight includes disclosure of compensation arrangements, the matrix used in assessing pay for performance, and the use of compensation consultants. In order to ensure the independence of the board’s compensation consultant, we believe the compensation committee should only engage a compensation consultant that is not also providing any services to the company or management apart from their contract with the compensation committee. It is important to investors that they have clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements in order to make informed decisions with respect to the oversight and decisions of the compensation committee.

Finally, compensation committees are responsible for oversight of internal controls over the executive compensation process. This includes controls over gathering information used to determine compensation, establishment of equity award plans, and granting of equity awards. For example, the use of a compensation consultant who maintains a business relationship with company management may cause the committee to make decisions based on information that is compromised by the consultant’s conflict of interests. Lax controls can also contribute to improper awards of compensation such as through granting of backdated or spring- loaded options, or granting of bonuses when triggers for bonus payments have not been met.

Central to understanding the actions of compensation committee is a careful review of the CD&A report included in each company’s proxy. We review the CD&A in our evaluation of the overall compensation practices of a company, as overseen by the compensation committee. The CD&A is also integral to the evaluation of compensation proposals at companies, such as advisory votes on executive compensation, which allow shareholders to vote on the compensation paid to a company’s top executives.

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will consider recommending that

shareholders vote against the following:

1.All members of a compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to address shareholder concerns following majority shareholder rejection of the say-on-pay proposal in the previous year. Where the proposal was approved but there was a significant shareholder vote (i.e.,


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						23

greater than 20% of votes cast) against the say-on-pay proposal in the prior year, if the board did not respond sufficiently to the vote including actively engaging shareholders on this issue, we will also consider recommending voting against the chair of the compensation committee or all members of the compensation committee, depending on the severity and history of the compensation problems and the level of shareholder opposition.

2.All members of the compensation committee who are up for election and served when the company failed to align pay with performance if shareholders are not provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation at the annual meeting.19

3.Any member of the compensation committee who has served on the compensation committee of at least two other public companies that have consistently failed to align pay with performance and whose oversight of compensation at the company in question is suspect.

4.All members of the compensation committee (during the relevant time period) if the company entered into excessive employment agreements and/or severance agreements.

5.All members of the compensation committee when performance goals were changed (i.e., lowered) when employees failed or were unlikely to meet original goals, or performance-based compensation was paid despite goals not being attained.

6.All members of the compensation committee if excessive employee perquisites and benefits

were allowed.

7.The compensation committee chair if the compensation committee did not meet during the year.

8.All members of the compensation committee when the company repriced options or completed a “self tender offer” without shareholder approval within the past two years.

9.All members of the compensation committee when vesting of in-the-money options is accelerated.

10.All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were backdated. Glass Lewis will recommend voting against an executive director who played a role in and participated in option backdating.

11.All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were spring-loaded or otherwise timed around the release of material information.

12.All members of the compensation committee when a new employment contract is given to an executive that does not include a clawback provision and the company had a material restatement, especially if the restatement was due to fraud.

13.The chair of the compensation committee where the CD&A provides insufficient or unclear information about performance metrics and goals, where the CD&A indicates that pay is not tied to performance, or where the compensation committee or management has excessive discretion to alter performance terms or increase amounts of awards in contravention of previously defined targets.

14.All members of the compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to implement a shareholder proposal regarding a compensation-related issue, where the proposal received the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares at a shareholder meeting, and when a reasonable

19 If a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal, we will initially only recommend voting against the company's say-on-pay proposal and will not recommend voting against the members of the compensation committee unless there is a pattern of failing to align pay and performance and/or the company exhibits egregious compensation practices. For cases in which the disconnect between pay and performance is marginal and the company has outperformed its peers, we will consider not recommending against compensation committee members.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						24

analysis suggests that the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) should have taken steps to implement the request.20

15.All members of the compensation committee when the board has materially decreased proxy statement disclosure regarding executive compensation policies and procedures in a manner which substantially impacts shareholders’ ability to make an informed assessment of the company’s executive pay practices.

16.All members of the compensation committee when new excise tax gross-up provisions are adopted in employment agreements with executives, particularly in cases where the company previously committed not to provide any such entitlements in the future.

17.All members of the compensation committee when the board adopts a frequency for future advisory votes on executive compensation that differs from the frequency approved by shareholders.

18.The chair of the compensation committee when” mega-grants” have been granted and the awards present concerns such as excessive quantum, lack of sufficient performance conditions, and/or are excessively dilutive, among others.

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance

The nominating and governance committee is responsible for the governance by the board of the company and its executives. In performing this role, the committee is responsible and accountable for selection of objective and competent board members. It is also responsible for providing leadership on governance policies adopted by the company, such as decisions to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority vote. At most companies, a single committee is charged with these oversight functions; at others, the governance and nominating responsibilities are apportioned among two separate committees.

Consistent with Glass Lewis’ philosophy that boards should have diverse backgrounds and members with a breadth and depth of relevant experience, we believe that nominating and governance committees should consider diversity when making director nominations within the context of each specific company and its industry. In our view, shareholders are best served when boards make an effort to ensure a constituency that is not only reasonably diverse on the basis of age, race, gender and ethnicity, but also on the basis of geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure and culture.

Regarding the committee responsible for governance, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

1.All members of the governance committee21 during whose tenure a shareholder proposal relating to important shareholder rights received support from a majority of the votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes) and the board has not begun to implement or enact the proposal’s subject

20 In all other instances (i.e., a non-compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented) we recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the governance committee.

21 If the board does not have a committee responsible for governance oversight and the board did not implement a shareholder proposal that received the requisite support, we will recommend voting against the entire board. If the shareholder proposal at issue requested that the board adopt a declassified structure, we will recommend voting against all director nominees up for election.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						25

matter.22 Examples of such shareholder proposals include those seeking a declassified board structure, a majority vote standard for director elections, or a right to call a special meeting. In determining whether a board has sufficiently implemented such a proposal, we will examine the quality of the right enacted or proffered by the board for any conditions that may unreasonably interfere with the shareholders’ ability to exercise the right (e.g., overly restrictive procedural requirements for calling a special meeting).

2.All members of the governance committee when a shareholder resolution is excluded from the meeting agenda but the SEC has declined to state a view on whether such resolution should be excluded, or when the SEC has verbally permitted a company to exclude a shareholder proposal but there is no written record provided by the SEC about such determination and the company has not provided any disclosure concerning this no-action relief.

3.The governance committee chair when the chair is not independent and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.23

4.The governance committee chair at companies with a multi-class share structure and unequal voting rights when the company does not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class share structure (generally seven years or less).

5.In the absence of a nominating committee, the governance committee chair when there are fewer than five, or the whole governance committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.

6.The governance committee chair when the committee fails to meet at all during the year.

7.The governance committee chair, when for two consecutive years the company provides what we consider to be “inadequate” related party transaction disclosure (i.e., the nature of such transactions and/or the monetary amounts involved are unclear or excessively vague, thereby preventing a share-holder from being able to reasonably interpret the independence status of multiple directors above and beyond what the company maintains is compliant with SEC or applicable stock exchange listing requirements).

8.The governance committee chair, when during the past year the board adopted a forum selection clause (i.e., an exclusive forum provision)24 designating either a state's courts for intra-corporate disputes, and/or federal courts for matters arising under the Securities Act of 1933 without shareholder

22 Where a compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the members of the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) bear the responsibility for failing to implement the request, we recommend that shareholders only vote against members of the compensation committee.

23 We believe that one independent individual should be appointed to serve as the lead or presiding director. When such a position is rotated among directors from meeting to meeting, we will recommend voting against the governance committee chair as we believe the lack of fixed lead or presiding director means that, effectively, the board does not have an independent board leader.

24 A forum selection clause is a bylaw provision stipulating that a certain state or federal jurisdiction is the exclusive forum for specified legal matters. Such a clause effectively limits a shareholder's legal remedy regarding appropriate choice of venue and related relief.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						26

approval,25 or if the board is currently seeking shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal.

9.All members of the governance committee during whose tenure the board adopted, without shareholder approval, provisions in its charter or bylaws that, through rules on director compensation, may inhibit the ability of shareholders to nominate directors.

10.The governance committee chair when the board takes actions to limit shareholders’ ability to vote on matters material to shareholder rights (e.g., through the practice of excluding a shareholder proposal by means of ratifying a management proposal that is materially different from the shareholder proposal).

11.The governance committee chair when directors’ records for board and committee meeting attendance are not disclosed, or when it is indicated that a director attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings but disclosure is sufficiently vague that it is not possible to determine which specific director’s attendance was lacking.

12.The governance committee chair when a detailed record of proxy voting results from the prior annual meeting has not been disclosed.

13.The governance committee chair when a company does not clearly disclose the identity of a shareholder proponent (or lead proponent when there are multiple filers) in their proxy statement. For a detailed explanation of this policy, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.

In addition, we may recommend that shareholders vote against the chair of the governance committee, or the entire committee, where the board has amended the company’s governing documents to reduce or remove important shareholder rights, or to otherwise impede the ability of shareholders to exercise such right, and has done so without seeking shareholder approval. Examples of board actions that may cause such a recommendation include: the elimination of the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting or to act by written consent; an increase to the ownership threshold required for shareholders to call a special meeting; an increase to vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments; the adoption of provisions that limit the ability of shareholders to pursue full legal recourse — such as bylaws that require arbitration of shareholder claims

or that require shareholder plaintiffs to pay the company’s legal expenses in the absence of a court victory (i.e., “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws); the adoption of a classified board structure; and the elimination of the ability of shareholders to remove a director without cause.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the

following:

1.All members of the nominating committee, when the committee nominated or renominated

an individual who had a significant conflict of interest or whose past actions demonstrated a lack of integrity or inability to represent shareholder interests.

2.The nominating committee chair, if the nominating committee did not meet during the year.

3.In the absence of a governance committee, the nominating committee chair when the chair is not independent, and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.

25 Glass Lewis will evaluate the circumstances surrounding the adoption of any forum selection clause as well as the general provisions contained therein. Where it can be reasonably determined that a forum selection clause is narrowly crafted to suit the particular circumstances facing the company and/or a reasonable sunset provision is included, we may make an exception to this policy.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						27

4.The nominating committee chair, when there are fewer than five, or the whole nominating committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.

5.The nominating committee chair, when a director received a greater than 50% against vote the prior year and not only was the director not removed, but the issues that raised shareholder concern were not corrected.26

6.The chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse,27 or all members of the nominating committee of a board with no gender diverse directors, at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside of the Russell 3000 index, we will recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee if there are no gender diverse directors.

7.The chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board, at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

8.The nominating committee chair when, alongside other governance or board performance concerns, the average tenure of non-executive directors is 10 years or more and no new independent directors have joined the board in the past five years. We will not be making voting recommendations solely on this basis; rather, insufficient board refreshment may be a contributing factor in our recommendations when additional board-related concerns have been identified.

In addition, we may consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance. Where these issues warrant an against vote in the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the board chair, unless the chair also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the longest-serving director.

Board-level Risk Management Oversight

Glass Lewis evaluates the risk management function of a public company board on a strictly case-by-case basis. Sound risk management, while necessary at all companies, is particularly important at financial firms which inherently maintain significant exposure to financial risk. We believe such financial firms should have a chief risk officer reporting directly to the board and a dedicated risk committee or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight. Moreover, many non-financial firms maintain strategies which involve a high level of exposure to financial risk. Similarly, since many non-financial firms have complex hedging or trading strategies, those firms should also have a chief risk officer and a risk committee.

Our views on risk oversight are consistent with those expressed by various regulatory bodies. In its December 2009 Final Rule release on Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, the SEC noted that risk oversight is a key competence of the board and that additional disclosures would improve investor and shareholder understanding of the role of the board in the organization’s risk management practices. The final rules, which

26 Considering that shareholder disapproval clearly relates to the director who received a greater than 50% against vote rather than the nominating chair, we review the severity of the issue(s) that initially raised shareholder concern as well as company responsiveness to such matters, and will only recommend voting against the nominating chair if a reasonable analysis suggests that it would be most appropriate. In rare cases, we will consider recommending against the nominating chair when a director receives a substantial (i.e., 20% or more) vote against based on the same analysis.

27 Women and directors that identify with a gender other than male or female.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						28

became effective on February 28, 2010, now explicitly require companies and mutual funds to describe (while allowing for some degree of flexibility) the board’s role in the oversight of risk.

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee’s poor oversight contributed to the loss, we will recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise),28 we will consider recommending to vote against the board chair on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chair/CEO, except in egregious cases.

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring the sustainability of companies’ operations. We believe that insufficient oversight of material environmental and social issues can present direct legal, financial, regulatory and reputational risks that could serve to harm shareholder interests. Therefore, we believe that these issues should be carefully monitored and managed by companies, and that all companies should have an appropriate oversight structure in place to ensure that they are mitigating attendant risks and capitalizing on related opportunities to the best extent possible.

To that end, Glass Lewis believes that companies should ensure that boards maintain clear oversight of material risks to their operations, including those that are environmental and social in nature. These risks could include, but are not limited to, matters related to climate change, human capital management, diversity, stakeholder relations, and health, safety & environment.

For companies in the Russell 3000 index and in instances where we identify material oversight concerns, Glass Lewis will review a company’s overall governance practices and identify which directors or board-level committees have been charged with oversight of environmental and/or social issues. Furthermore, given the importance of the board’s role in overseeing environmental and social risks, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the governance committee chair of a company in the Russell 3000 index that fails to provide explicit disclosure concerning the board’s role in overseeing these issues.

While we believe that it is important that these issues are overseen at the board level and that shareholders are afforded meaningful disclosure of these oversight responsibilities, we believe that companies should determine the best structure for this oversight. In our view, this oversight can be effectively conducted by specific directors, the entire board, a separate committee, or combined with the responsibilities of a key committee.

When evaluating the board’s role in overseeing environmental and/or social issues, we will examine a company’s proxy statement and governing documents (such as committee charters) to determine if directors

28 A committee responsible for risk management could be a dedicated risk committee, the audit committee, or the finance committee, depending on a given company’s board structure and method of disclosure. At some companies, the entire board is charged with risk management.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						29

maintain a meaningful level of oversight of and accountability for a company’s material environmental and social impacts.

Cyber Risk Oversight

Companies and consumers are exposed to a growing risk of cyber-attacks. These attacks can result in customer or employee data breaches, harm to a company’s reputation, significant fines or penalties, and interruption to a company’s operations. Further, in some instances, cyber breaches can result in national security concerns, such as those impacting companies operating as utilities, defense contractors, and energy companies.

In response to these issues, regulators have increasingly been focused on ensuring companies are providing appropriate and timely disclosures and protections to stakeholders that could have been adversely impacted by a breach in a company’s cyber infrastructure.

Given the regulatory focus on, and the potential adverse outcomes from, cyber-related issues, it is our view that cyber risk is material for all companies. We therefore believe that it is critical that companies evaluate and mitigate these risks to the greatest extent possible. With that view, we encourage all issuers to provide clear disclosure concerning the role of the board in overseeing issues related to cybersecurity.

We also believe that disclosure concerning how companies are ensuring directors are fully versed on this rapidly evolving and dynamic issue can help shareholders understand the seriousness with which companies take this issue.

We will generally not make voting recommendations on the basis of a company’s oversight or disclosure concerning cyber-related issues. However, we will closely evaluate a company’s disclosure in this regard in instances where cyber-attacks have caused significant harm to shareholders and may recommend against appropriate directors should we find such disclosure or oversight to be insufficient.

Board Accountability for Environmental and Social Performance

Glass Lewis carefully monitors companies’ performance with respect to environmental and social issues, including those related to climate and human capital management. In situations where we believe that a company has not properly managed or mitigated material environmental or social risks to the detriment of shareholder value, or when such mismanagement has threatened shareholder value, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the board who are responsible for oversight of environmental and social risks. In the absence of explicit board oversight of environmental and social issues, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote against members of the audit committee. In making these determinations, Glass Lewis will carefully review the situation, its effect on shareholder value, as well as any corrective action or other response made by the company.

For more information on how Glass Lewis evaluates environmental and social issues, please see Glass Lewis’ Overall Approach to ESG as well as our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						30

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues

Given the exceptionally broad impacts of a changing climate on companies, the economy, and society in general, we view climate risk as a material risk for all companies. We therefore believe that boards should be considering and evaluating their operational resilience under lower-carbon scenarios. While all companies maintain exposure to climate-related risks, we believe that additional consideration should be given to, and that disclosure should be provided by those companies whose GHG emissions represent a financially material risk.

We believe that companies with this increased risk exposure, such as those companies identified by groups including Climate Action 100+, should provide clear and comprehensive disclosure regarding these risks, including how they are being mitigated and overseen. We believe such information is crucial to allow investors to understand the company’s management of this issue, as well as the impact of a lower carbon future on the company’s operations.

Accordingly, for such companies with material exposure to climate risk stemming from their own operations, we believe thorough climate-related disclosures in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) should be provided to shareholders. We also believe the boards of these companies should have explicit and clearly defined oversight responsibilities for climate-related issues. As such, in instances where we find either (or both) of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against the chair of the committee (or board) charged with oversight of climate-related issues, or if no committee has been charged with such oversight, the chair of the governance committee. Further, we may extend our recommendation on this basis to additional members of the responsible committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry and its overall governance profile.

Director Commitments

We believe that directors should have the necessary time to fulfill their duties to shareholders. In our view, an overcommitted director can pose a material risk to a company’s shareholders, particularly during periods of crisis. In addition, recent research indicates that the time commitment associated with being a director has been on a significant upward trend in the past decade.29 As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves as an executive officer (other than executive chair) of any public company30 while serving on more than one external public company board, a director who serves as an executive chair of any public company while serving on more than two external public company boards, and any other director who serves on more than five public company boards.

29 For example, the 2015-2016 NACD Public Company Governance Survey states that, on average, directors spent a total of hours annual on board-related matters during the past year, which it describes as a “historically high level” that is significantly above the average hours recorded in 2006. Additionally, the 2020 Spencer Stuart Board Index indicates that, while 39% of S&P 500 CEOs serve on one additional public board, just 2% of S&P 500 CEOs serve on two additional public boards and only one CEO serves on three.

30 When the executive officer in question serves only as an executive at a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) we will generally apply the higher threshold of five public company directorships.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						31

Because we believe that executives will primarily devote their attention to executive duties, we generally will not recommend that shareholders vote against overcommitted directors at the companies where they serve as an executive.

When determining whether a director’s service on an excessive number of boards may limit the ability of the director to devote sufficient time to board duties, we may consider relevant factors such as the size and location of the other companies where the director serves on the board, the director’s board roles at the companies in question, whether the director serves on the board of any large privately-held companies, the director’s tenure on the boards in question, and the director’s attendance record at all companies. In the case of directors who serve in executive roles other than CEO (e.g., executive chair), we will evaluate the specific duties and responsibilities of that role in determining whether an exception is warranted.

We may also refrain from recommending against certain directors if the company provides sufficient rationale for their continued board service. The rationale should allow shareholders to evaluate the scope of the directors’ other commitments, as well as their contributions to the board including specialized knowledge of the company’s industry, strategy or key markets, the diversity of skills, perspective and background they provide, and other relevant factors. We will also generally refrain from recommending to vote against a director who serves on an excessive number of boards within a consolidated group of companies in related industries, or a director that represents a firm whose sole purpose is to manage a portfolio of investments which include the company.

Other Considerations

In addition to the three key characteristics — independence, performance, experience — that we use to evaluate board members, we consider conflict-of-interest issues as well as the size of the board of directors when making voting recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

We believe board members should be wholly free of identifiable and substantial conflicts of interest, regardless of the overall level of independent directors on the board. Accordingly, we recommend that shareholders vote against the following types of directors:

1.A CFO who is on the board: In our view, the CFO holds a unique position relative to financial reporting and disclosure to shareholders. Due to the critical importance of financial disclosure and reporting, we believe the CFO should report to the board and not be a member of it.

2.A director who provides — or a director who has an immediate family member who provides — material consulting or other material professional services to the company. These services may include legal, consulting,31 or financial services. We question the need for the company to have consulting relationships with its directors. We view such relationships as creating conflicts for directors, since they may be forced to weigh their own interests against shareholder interests when making board decisions. In addition, a company’s decisions regarding where to turn for the best professional

31 We will generally refrain from recommending against a director who provides consulting services for the company if the director is excluded from membership on the board’s key committees and we have not identified significant governance concerns with the board.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						32

services may be compromised when doing business with the professional services firm of one of the company’s directors.

3.A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, engaging in airplane, real estate, or similar deals, including perquisite-type grants from the company, amounting to more than $50,000. Directors who receive these sorts of payments from the company will have to make unnecessarily complicated decisions that may pit their interests against shareholder interests.

4.Interlocking directorships: CEOs or other top executives who serve on each other’s boards create an interlock that poses conflicts that should be avoided to ensure the promotion of shareholder interests above all else.32

5.All board members who served at a time when a poison pill with a term of longer than one year was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months.33 In the event a board is classified and shareholders are therefore unable to vote against all directors, we will recommend voting against the remaining directors the next year they are up for a shareholder vote. If a poison pill with a term of one year or less was adopted without shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against all members of the governance committee. If the board has, without seeking shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, extended the term of a poison pill by one year or less in two consecutive years, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the entire board.

Size of the Board of Directors

While we do not believe there is a universally applicable optimal board size, we do believe boards should have at least five directors to ensure sufficient diversity in decision-making and to enable the formation of key board committees with independent directors. Conversely, we believe that boards with more than 20 members will typically suffer under the weight of “too many cooks in the kitchen” and have difficulty reaching consensus and making timely decisions. Sometimes the presence of too many voices can make it difficult to draw on the wisdom and experience in the room by virtue of the need to limit the discussion so that each voice may be heard.

To that end, we typically recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee) at a board with fewer than five directors or more than 20 directors.

Controlled Companies

We believe controlled companies warrant certain exceptions to our independence standards. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual, entity (or group of shareholders party to a formal agreement) owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders

32 We do not apply a look-back period for this situation. The interlock policy applies to both public and private companies. We will also evaluate multiple board interlocks among non-insiders (i.e., multiple directors serving on the same boards at other companies), for evidence of a pattern of poor oversight.

33 Refer to the “Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise” section for further discussion of our policies regarding anti-takeover measures, including poison pills.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						33

are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds board independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

Independence Exceptions

The independence exceptions that we make for controlled companies are as follows:

1.We do not require that controlled companies have boards that are at least two-thirds independent. So long as the insiders and/or affiliates are connected with the controlling entity, we accept the presence of non-independent board members.

2.The compensation committee and nominating and governance committees do not need to consist solely of independent directors.

a.We believe that standing nominating and corporate governance committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although having a committee charged with the duties of searching for, selecting, and nominating independent directors can be beneficial, the unique composition of a controlled company’s shareholder base makes such committees weak and irrelevant.

b.Likewise, we believe that independent compensation committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although independent directors are the best choice for approving and monitoring senior executives’ pay, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests. As such, we believe that having affiliated directors on a controlled company’s compensation committee is acceptable. However, given that a controlled company has certain obligations to minority shareholders we feel that an insider should not serve on the compensation committee. Therefore, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against any insider (the CEO or otherwise) serving on the compensation committee.

3.Controlled companies do not need an independent chair or an independent lead or presiding director. Although an independent director in a position of authority on the board — such as chair or presiding director — can best carry out the board’s duties, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests.

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

Despite a controlled company’s status, unlike for the other key committees, we nevertheless believe that audit committees should consist solely of independent directors. Regardless of a company’s controlled status, the interests of all shareholders must be protected by ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the company’s financial statements. Allowing affiliated directors to oversee the preparation of financial reports could create an insurmountable conflict of interest.

Board Responsiveness at Multi-Class Companies


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						34

structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns.

Significant Shareholders

Where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

Governance Following an IPO, Spin-off, or Direct Listing

We believe companies that have recently completed an initial public offering (IPO), spin-off, or direct listing should be allowed adequate time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements and meet basic corporate governance standards. Generally speaking, we refrain from making recommendations on the basis of governance standards (e.g., board independence, committee membership and structure, meeting attendance, etc.) during the one-year period following an IPO.

However, some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year. When evaluating companies that have recently gone public, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents in order to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely. We believe boards that approve highly restrictive governing documents have demonstrated that they may subvert shareholder interests following the IPO. In conducting this evaluation, Glass Lewis will consider:

1.The adoption of anti-takeover provisions such as a poison pill or classified board

2.Supermajority vote requirements to amend governing documents

3.The presence of exclusive forum or fee-shifting provisions

4.Whether shareholders can call special meetings or act by written consent

5.The voting standard provided for the election of directors

6.The ability of shareholders to remove directors without cause

7.The presence of evergreen provisions in the company’s equity compensation arrangements

8.The presence of a multi-class share structure which does not afford common shareholders voting power that is aligned with their economic interest

In cases where Glass Lewis determines that the board has approved overly restrictive governing documents, we will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee. If there is no governance committee, or if a portion of such committee members are not standing for election due to a classified board structure, we will expand our recommendations to additional director nominees, based on who is standing for election.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						35

In cases where, preceding an IPO, the board adopts a multi-class share structure where voting rights are not aligned with economic interest, or an anti-takeover provision, such as a poison pill or classified board, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the IPO if the board: (i) did not also commit to submitting these provisions to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of these provisions (generally three to five years in the case of a classified board or poison pill; or seven years or less in the case of a multi-class share structure). In the case of a multi-class share structure, if these provisions are put to a shareholder vote, we will examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining the vote outcome.

In our view, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest. This notion is strengthened when a board adopts a classified board with an infinite duration or a poison pill with a five- to ten-year term immediately prior to going public, thereby insulating management for a substantial amount of time.

In addition, shareholders should also be wary of companies that adopt supermajority voting requirements before their IPO. Absent explicit provisions in the articles or bylaws stipulating that certain policies will be phased out over a certain period of time, long-term shareholders could find themselves in the predicament of having to attain a supermajority vote to approve future proposals seeking to eliminate such policies.

Governance Following a Business Combination with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company

The business combination of a private company with a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) facilitates the private entity becoming a publicly traded corporation. Thus, the business combination represents the private company’s de-facto IPO. We believe that some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed a business combination with a SPAC within the past year.

At meetings where shareholders vote on the business combination of a SPAC with a private company, shareholders are generally voting on a new corporate charter for the post-combination company as a condition to approval of the business combination. In many cases, shareholders are faced with the dilemma of having to approve corporate charters that severely restrict shareholder rights to facilitate the business combination.

Therefore, when shareholders are required to approve binding charters as a condition to approval of a business combination with a SPAC, we believe shareholders should also be provided with advisory votes on material charter amendments as a means to voice their opinions on such restrictive governance provisions.

When evaluating companies that have recently gone public via business combination with a SPAC, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely and whether these restrictive provisions were put forth for a shareholder vote on an advisory basis at the prior meeting where shareholders voted on the business combination.

In cases where, prior to the combined company becoming publicly traded, the board adopts a multi-class share structure where voting rights are not aligned with economic interest, or an anti-takeover provision, such as a poison pill or classified board, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						36

at the time of the combined company becoming publicly traded if the board: (i) did not also submit these provisions to a shareholder vote on an advisory basis at the prior meeting where shareholders voted on the business combination; (ii) did not also commit to submitting these provisions to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the company becoming publicly traded; or (iii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of these provisions (generally three to five years in the case of a classified board or poison pill; or seven years or less in the case of a multi-class share structure).

Consistent with our view on IPOs, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest.

Dual-Listed or Foreign-Incorporated Companies

For companies that trade on multiple exchanges or are incorporated in foreign jurisdictions but trade only in the U.S., we will apply the governance standard most relevant in each situation. We will consider a number of factors in determining which Glass Lewis country-specific policy to apply, including but not limited to: (i) the corporate governance structure and features of the company including whether the board structure is unique to a particular market; (ii) the nature of the proposals; (iii) the location of the company’s primary listing, if one can be determined; (iv) the regulatory/governance regime that the board is reporting against; and (v) the availability and completeness of the company’s SEC filings.

OTC-listed Companies

Companies trading on the OTC Bulletin Board are not considered “listed companies” under SEC rules and therefore not subject to the same governance standards as listed companies. However, we believe that more stringent corporate governance standards should be applied to these companies given that their shares are still publicly traded.

When reviewing OTC companies, Glass Lewis will review the available disclosure relating to the shareholder meeting to determine whether shareholders are able to evaluate several key pieces of information, including: (i) the composition of the board’s key committees, if any; (ii) the level of share ownership of company insiders or directors; (iii) the board meeting attendance record of directors; (iv) executive and non-employee director compensation; (v) related-party transactions conducted during the past year; and (vi) the board’s leadership structure and determinations regarding director independence.

We are particularly concerned when company disclosure lacks any information regarding the board’s key committees. We believe that committees of the board are an essential tool for clarifying how the responsibilities of the board are being delegated, and specifically for indicating which directors are accountable for ensuring: (i) the independence and quality of directors, and the transparency and integrity of the nominating process; (ii) compensation programs that are fair and appropriate; (iii) proper oversight of the company’s accounting, financial reporting, and internal and external audits; and (iv) general adherence to principles of good corporate governance.

In cases where shareholders are unable to identify which board members are responsible for ensuring oversight of the above-mentioned responsibilities, we may consider recommending against certain members of the board.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						37

Ordinarily, we believe it is the responsibility of the corporate governance committee to provide thorough disclosure of the board’s governance practices. In the absence of such a committee, we believe it is appropriate to hold the board’s chair or, if such individual is an executive of the company, the longest-serving non-executive board member accountable.

Mutual Fund Boards

Mutual funds, or investment companies, are structured differently from regular public companies (i.e., operating companies). Typically, members of a fund’s advisor are on the board and management takes on a different role from that of regular public companies. Thus, we focus on a short list of requirements, although many of our guidelines remain the same.

The following mutual fund policies are similar to the policies for regular public companies:

1.Size of the board of directors — The board should be made up of between five and twenty directors.

2.The CFO on the board — Neither the CFO of the fund nor the CFO of the fund’s registered investment advisor should serve on the board.

3.Independence of the audit committee — The audit committee should consist solely of independent directors.

4.Audit committee financial expert — At least one member of the audit committee should be designated as the audit committee financial expert.

The following differences from regular public companies apply at mutual funds:

1.Independence of the board — We believe that three-fourths of an investment company’s board should be made up of independent directors. This is consistent with a proposed SEC rule on investment company boards. The Investment Company Act requires 40% of the board to be independent, but in 2001, the SEC amended the Exemptive Rules to require that a majority of a mutual fund board be independent. In 2005, the SEC proposed increasing the independence threshold to 75%. In 2006, a federal appeals court ordered that this rule amendment be put back out for public comment, putting it back into “proposed rule” status. Since mutual fund boards play a vital role in overseeing the relationship between the fund and its investment manager, there is greater need for independent oversight than there is for an operating company board.

2.When the auditor is not up for ratification — We do not recommend voting against the audit committee if the auditor is not up for ratification. Due to the different legal structure of an investment company compared to an operating company, the auditor for the investment company (i.e., mutual fund) does not conduct the same level of financial review for each investment company as for an operating company.

3.Non-independent chair — The SEC has proposed that the chair of the fund board be independent. We agree that the roles of a mutual fund’s chair and CEO should be separate. Although we believe this would be best at all companies, we recommend voting against the chair of an investment company’s nominating committee as well as the board chair if the chair and CEO of a mutual fund are the same person and the fund does not have an independent lead or presiding director. Seven former SEC commissioners support the appointment of an independent chair and we agree with them that “an independent board chair would be better able to create conditions favoring the long-term interests of


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						38

fund shareholders than would a chair who is an executive of the advisor.” (See the comment letter sent to the SEC in support of the proposed rule at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/indchair.pdf.)

4.Multiple funds overseen by the same director — Unlike service on a public company board, mutual fund boards require much less of a time commitment. Mutual fund directors typically serve on dozens of other mutual fund boards, often within the same fund complex. The Investment Company Institute’s (ICI) Overview of Fund Governance Practices, 1994-2012, indicates that the average number of funds served by an independent director in 2012 was 53. Absent evidence that a specific director is hindered from being an effective board member at a fund due to service on other funds’ boards, we refrain from maintaining a cap on the number of outside mutual fund boards that we believe a director can serve on.

Declassified Boards

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards and the annual election of directors. We believe staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than boards that are elected annually. Furthermore, we feel the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on shareholder interests.

Empirical studies have shown: (i) staggered boards are associated with a reduction in a firm’s valuation; and (ii) in the context of hostile takeovers, staggered boards operate as a takeover defense, which entrenches management, discourages potential acquirers, and delivers a lower return to target shareholders.

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Some research has indicated that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction; further, when a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premium occurs.34 Additional research found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”35 A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.”36

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2019, 90% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from 68% in 2009.37 Management proposals to declassify boards are approved with near unanimity and shareholder proposals on the topic also receive strong shareholder support; in 2014, shareholder proposals requesting that companies declassify their boards received average support of 84% (excluding

34 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002).

35 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, “The Costs of Entrenched Boards” (2004).

36 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Charles C.Y. Wang, “Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from a Natural Experiment,”

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706806 (2010), p. 26.

37 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 15.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						39

abstentions and broker non-votes), whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.38 Further, a growing number of companies, nearly half of all those targeted by shareholder proposals requesting that all directors stand for election annually, either recommended shareholders support the proposal or made no recommendation, a departure from the more traditional management recommendation to vote against shareholder proposals.

Given our belief that declassified boards promote director accountability, the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the established shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

Board Composition and Refreshment

Glass Lewis strongly supports routine director evaluation, including independent external reviews, and periodic board refreshment to foster the sharing of diverse perspectives in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. Further, we believe the board should evaluate the need for changes to board composition based on an analysis of skills and experience necessary for the company, as well as the results of the director evaluations, as opposed to relying solely on age or tenure limits. When necessary, shareholders can address concerns regarding proper board composition through director elections.

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. This said, we recognize that in rare circumstances, a lack of refreshment can contribute to a lack of board responsiveness to poor company performance.

We will note as a potential concern instances where the average tenure of non-executive directors is 10 years or more and no new directors have joined the board in the past five years. While we will be highlighting this as a potential area of concern, we will not be making voting recommendations strictly on this basis, unless we have identified other governance or board performance concerns.

On occasion, age or term limits can be used as a means to remove a director for boards that are unwilling to police their membership and enforce turnover. Some shareholders support term limits as a way to force change in such circumstances.

While we understand that age limits can aid board succession planning, the long-term impact of age limits restricts experienced and potentially valuable board members from service through an arbitrary means. We believe that shareholders are better off monitoring the board’s overall composition, including the diversity of its members, the alignment of the board’s areas of expertise with a company’s strategy, the board’s approach to corporate governance, and its stewardship of company performance, rather than imposing inflexible rules that don’t necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders.

However, if a board adopts term/age limits, it should follow through and not waive such limits. In cases where the board waives its term/age limits for two or more consecutive years, Glass Lewis will generally recommend that shareholders vote against the nominating and/or governance committee chair, unless a compelling

38 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy”.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						40

rationale is provided for why the board is proposing to waive this rule, such as consummation of a corporate transaction.

Board Diversity

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring that the board is composed of directors who have a diversity of skills, thought and experience, as such diversity benefits companies by providing a broad range of perspectives and insights. Glass Lewis closely reviews the composition of the board for representation of diverse director candidates.

Board Gender Diversity

Beginning in 2023, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not as least 30 percent gender diverse, or all members of the nominating committee of a board with no gender diverse directors, at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside the Russell 3000 index, our existing policy requiring a minimum of one gender diverse director will remain in place.

We may extend our gender diversity recommendations to additional members of the nominating committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry, applicable laws in its state of headquarters, and its overall governance profile.

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline of when the board intends to appoint additional gender diverse directors (generally by the next annual meeting).

Board Underrepresented Community Diversity

Beginning in 2023, we will generally recommend against the chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

We define “underrepresented community director” as an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, North African, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaskan Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. For the purposes of this evaluation, we will rely solely on self-identified demographic information as disclosed in company proxy statements.

We may extend our underrepresented community diversity recommendations to additional members of the nominating committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry, applicable laws in its state of headquarters, and its overall governance profile.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						41

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline to appoint additional directors from an underrepresented community (generally by the next annual meeting).

State Laws on Diversity

Several states have begun to encourage board diversity through legislation. Some state laws imposed mandatory board composition requirements, while other states have enacted or are considering legislation that encourages companies to diversify their boards but does not mandate board composition requirements. Furthermore, several states have enacted or are considering enacting certain disclosure or reporting requirements in filings made with each respective state annually.

Glass Lewis will recommend in accordance with mandatory board composition requirements set forth in applicable state laws when they come into effect. We will generally refrain from recommending against directors when applicable state laws do not mandate board composition requirements, are non-binding, or solely impose disclosure or reporting requirements.

We note that during 2022, California’s Senate Bill 826 and Assembly Bill 979 regarding board gender and “underrepresented community” diversity, respectively, were both deemed to violate the equal protection clause of the California state constitution. These laws are currently in the appeals process.

Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills

Because company disclosure is critical when measuring the mix of diverse attributes and skills of directors, Glass Lewis assesses the quality of such disclosure in companies’ proxy statements. Accordingly, we reflect how a company’s proxy statement presents: (i) the board’s current percentage of racial/ethnic diversity; (ii) whether the board’s definition of diversity explicitly includes gender and/or race/ethnicity; (iii) whether the board has adopted a policy requiring women and minorities to be included in the initial pool of candidates when selecting new director nominees (aka “Rooney Rule”); and (iv) board skills disclosure. Such ratings will help inform our assessment of a company’s overall governance and may be a contributing factor in our recommendations when additional board-related concerns have been identified.

At companies in the Russell 1000 index that have not provided any disclosure in any of the above categories, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee. Further beginning in 2023, when companies in the Russell 1000 index have not provided any disclosure of individual or aggregate racial/ethnic minority board demographic information, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						42

Stock Exchange Diversity Disclosure Requirements

On August 6, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure for Nasdaq-listed companies. Beginning in 2022, companies listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange will be required to disclose certain board diversity statistics annually in a standardized format in the proxy statement or on the company's website. Nasdaq-listed companies are required to provide this disclosure by the later of (i) August 8, 2022, or (ii) the date the company files its proxy statement for its 2022 annual meeting. Accordingly, for annual meetings held after August 8, 2022, of applicable Nasdaq-listed companies, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee when the required disclosure has not been provided.

Proxy Access

In lieu of running their own contested election, proxy access would not only allow certain shareholders to nominate directors to company boards but the shareholder nominees would be included on the company’s ballot, significantly enhancing the ability of shareholders to play a meaningful role in selecting their representatives. Glass Lewis generally supports affording shareholders the right to nominate director candidates to management’s proxy as a means to ensure that significant, long-term shareholders have an ability to nominate candidates to the board.

Companies generally seek shareholder approval to amend company bylaws to adopt proxy access in response to shareholder engagement or pressure, usually in the form of a shareholder proposal requesting proxy access, although some companies may adopt some elements of proxy access without prompting. Glass Lewis considers several factors when evaluating whether to support proposals for companies to adopt proxy access including the specified minimum ownership and holding requirement for shareholders to nominate one or more directors, as well as company size, performance and responsiveness to shareholders.

For a discussion of recent regulatory events in this area, along with a detailed overview of the Glass Lewis approach to shareholder proposals regarding Proxy Access, refer to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com.

Majority Vote for Election of Directors

Majority voting for the election of directors is fast becoming the de facto standard in corporate board elections. In our view, the majority voting proposals are an effort to make the case for shareholder impact on director elections on a company-specific basis.

While this proposal would not give shareholders the opportunity to nominate directors or lead to elections where shareholders have a choice among director candidates, if implemented, the proposal would allow shareholders to have a voice in determining whether the nominees proposed by the board should actually serve as the overseer-representatives of shareholders in the boardroom. We believe this would be a favorable outcome for shareholders.

The number of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a majority voting standard has declined significantly during the past decade, largely as a result of widespread adoption of majority voting or director


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						43

resignation policies at U.S. companies. In 2019, 89% of the S&P 500 Index had implemented a resignation policy for directors failing to receive majority shareholder support, compared to 65% in 2009.39

The Plurality Vote Standard

Today, most U.S. companies still elect directors by a plurality vote standard. Under that standard, if one shareholder holding only one share votes in favor of a nominee (including that director, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard is the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.”

Advantages of a Majority Vote. Standard

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. Given that so few directors (less than 100 a year) do not receive majority support from shareholders, we think that a majority vote standard is reasonable since it will neither result in many failed director elections nor reduce the willingness of qualified, shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future. Further, most directors who fail to receive a majority shareholder vote in favor of their election do not step down, underscoring the need for true majority voting.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Although shareholders only rarely fail to support directors, the occasional majority vote against a director’s election will likely deter the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests. Glass Lewis will therefore generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote, excepting contested director elections.

In response to the high level of support majority voting has garnered, many companies have voluntarily taken steps to implement majority voting or modified approaches to majority voting. These steps range from a modified approach requiring directors that receive a majority of withheld votes to resign (i.e., a resignation policy) to actually requiring a majority vote of outstanding shares to elect directors.

We feel that the modified approach does not go far enough because requiring a director to resign is not the same as requiring a majority vote to elect a director and does not allow shareholders a definitive voice in the election process. Further, under the modified approach, the corporate governance committee could reject a resignation and, even if it accepts the resignation, the corporate governance committee decides on the director’s replacement. And since the modified approach is usually adopted as a policy by the board or a board committee, it could be altered by the same board or committee at any time.

Conflicting and Excluded Proposals

SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(9) allows companies to exclude shareholder proposals “if the proposal directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting.” On October 22,

39 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 15.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						44

2015, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (SLB 14H) clarifying its rule concerning the exclusion of certain shareholder proposals when similar items are also on the ballot. SLB 14H increased the burden on companies to prove to SEC staff that a conflict exists; therefore, many companies still chose to place management proposals alongside similar shareholder proposals in many cases.

During the 2018 proxy season, a new trend in the SEC’s interpretation of this rule emerged. Upon submission of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a lower special meeting threshold, several companies petitioned the SEC for no-action relief under the premise that the shareholder proposals conflicted with management’s own special meeting proposals, even though the management proposals set a higher threshold than those requested by the proponent. No-action relief was granted to these companies; however, the SEC stipulated that the companies must state in the rationale for the management proposals that a vote in favor of management’s proposal was tantamount to a vote against the adoption of a lower special meeting threshold. In certain instances, shareholder proposals to lower an existing special meeting right threshold were excluded on the basis that they conflicted with management proposals seeking to ratify the existing special meeting rights. We find the exclusion of these shareholder proposals to be especially problematic as, in these instances, shareholders are not offered any enhanced shareholder right, nor would the approval (or rejection) of the ratification proposal initiate any type of meaningful change to shareholders’ rights.

In instances where companies have excluded shareholder proposals, such as those instances where special meeting shareholder proposals are excluded as a result of “conflicting” management proposals, Glass Lewis will take a case-by-case approach, taking into account the following issues:

•The threshold proposed by the shareholder resolution;

•The threshold proposed or established by management and the attendant rationale for the threshold;

•Whether management’s proposal is seeking to ratify an existing special meeting right or adopt a bylaw that would establish a special meeting right; and

•The company’s overall governance profile, including its overall responsiveness to and engagement with shareholders.

Glass Lewis generally favors a 10-15% special meeting right. Accordingly, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting for management or shareholder proposals that fall within this range. When faced with conflicting proposals, Glass Lewis will generally recommend in favor of the lower special meeting right and will recommend voting against the proposal with the higher threshold. However, in instances where there are conflicting management and shareholder proposals and a company has not established a special meeting right, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote in favor of the shareholder proposal and that they abstain from a management-proposed bylaw amendment seeking to establish a special meeting right. We believe that an abstention is appropriate in this instance in order to ensure that shareholders are sending a clear signal regarding their preference for the appropriate threshold for a special meeting right, while not directly opposing the establishment of such a right.

In cases where the company excludes a shareholder proposal seeking a reduced special meeting right by means of ratifying a management proposal that is materially different from the shareholder proposal, we will generally recommend voting against the chair or members of the governance committee.

In other instances of conflicting management and shareholder proposals, Glass Lewis will consider the following:


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						45

•The nature of the underlying issue;

•The benefit to shareholders of implementing the proposal;

•The materiality of the differences between the terms of the shareholder proposal and management proposal;

•The context of a company’s shareholder base, corporate structure and other relevant circumstances;

and

•A company’s overall governance profile and, specifically, its responsiveness to shareholders as evidenced by a company’s response to previous shareholder proposals and its adoption of progressive shareholder rights provisions.

In recent years, we have seen the dynamic nature of the considerations given by the SEC when determining whether companies may exclude certain shareholder proposals. We understand that not all shareholder proposals serve the long-term interests of shareholders, and value and respect the limitations placed on shareholder proponents, as certain shareholder proposals can unduly burden companies. However, Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should be able to vote on issues of material importance.

We view the shareholder proposal process as an important part of advancing shareholder rights and encouraging responsible and financially sustainable business practices. While recognizing that certain proposals cross the line between the purview of shareholders and that of the board, we generally believe that companies should not limit investors’ ability to vote on shareholder proposals that advance certain rights or promote beneficial disclosure. Accordingly, Glass Lewis will make note of instances where a company has successfully petitioned the SEC to exclude shareholder proposals. If after review we believe that the exclusion of a shareholder proposal is detrimental to shareholders, we may, in certain very limited circumstances, recommend against members of the governance committee.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						46

Transparency and Integrity in Financial Reporting

Auditor Ratification

The auditor’s role as gatekeeper is crucial in ensuring the integrity and transparency of the financial information necessary for protecting shareholder value. Shareholders rely on the auditor to ask tough questions and to do a thorough analysis of a company’s books to ensure that the information provided to shareholders is complete, accurate, fair, and that it is a reasonable representation of a company’s financial position. The only way shareholders can make rational investment decisions is if the market is equipped with accurate information about a company’s fiscal health. As stated in the October 6, 2008 Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

“The auditor is expected to offer critical and objective judgment on the financial matters under consideration, and actual and perceived absence of conflicts is critical to that expectation. The Committee believes that auditors, investors, public companies, and other market participants must understand the independence requirements and their objectives, and that auditors must adopt a mindset of skepticism when facing situations that may compromise their independence.”

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.”40

On August 16, 2011, the PCAOB issued a Concept Release seeking public comment on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism could be enhanced, with a specific emphasis on mandatory audit firm rotation. The PCAOB convened several public roundtable meetings during 2012 to further discuss such matters. Glass Lewis believes auditor rotation can ensure both the independence of the auditor and the integrity of the audit; we will typically recommend supporting proposals to require auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years), particularly at companies with a history of accounting problems.

On June 1, 2017, the PCAOB adopted new standards to enhance auditor reports by providing additional important information to investors. For companies with fiscal year end dates on or after December 15, 2017,

40 “Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.” p. VIII:20, October 6, 2008.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						47

reports were required to include the year in which the auditor began serving consecutively as the company’s auditor. For large accelerated filers with fiscal year ends of June 30, 2019 or later, and for all other companies with fiscal year ends of December 15, 2020 or later, communication of critical audit matters (CAMs) will also be required. CAMs are matters that have been communicated to the audit committee, are related to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements, and involve especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.

Glass Lewis believes the additional reporting requirements are beneficial for investors. The additional disclosures can provide investors with information that is critical to making an informed judgment about an auditor’s independence and performance. Furthermore, we believe the additional requirements are an important step toward enhancing the relevance and usefulness of auditor reports, which too often are seen as boilerplate compliance documents that lack the relevant details to provide meaningful insight into a particular audit.

Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification

We generally support management’s choice of auditor except when we believe the auditor’s independence or audit integrity has been compromised. Where a board has not allowed shareholders to review and ratify an auditor, we typically recommend voting against the audit committee chair. When there have been material restatements of annual financial statements or material weaknesses in internal controls, we usually recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

Reasons why we may not recommend ratification of an auditor include:

1.When audit fees plus audit-related fees total less than the tax fees and/or other non-audit fees.

2.Recent material restatements of annual financial statements, including those resulting in the reporting of material weaknesses in internal controls and including late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing.41

3.When the auditor performs prohibited services such as tax-shelter work, tax services for the CEO or CFO, or contingent-fee work, such as a fee based on a percentage of economic benefit to the company.

4.When audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

5.When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

6.When the company has poor disclosure or lack of transparency in its financial statements.

7.Where the auditor limited its liability through its contract with the company or the audit contract requires the corporation to use alternative dispute resolution procedures without adequate justification.

8.We also look for other relationships or concerns with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between the auditor’s interests and shareholder interests.

9.In determining whether shareholders would benefit from rotating the company’s auditor, where relevant we will consider factors that may call into question an auditor’s effectiveness, including auditor

41 An auditor does not audit interim financial statements. Thus, we generally do not believe that an auditor should be opposed due to a restatement of interim financial statements unless the nature of the misstatement is clear from a reading of the incorrect financial statements.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						48

tenure, a pattern of inaccurate audits, and any ongoing litigation or significant controversies. When Glass Lewis considers ongoing litigation and significant controversies, it is mindful that such matters may involve unadjudicated allegations. Glass Lewis does not assume the truth of such allegations or that the law has been violated. Instead, Glass Lewis focuses more broadly on whether, under the particular facts and circumstances presented, the nature and number of such lawsuits or other significant controversies reflects on the risk profile of the company or suggests that appropriate risk mitigation measures may be warranted.”

Pension Accounting Issues

A pension accounting question occasionally raised in proxy proposals is what effect, if any, projected returns on employee pension assets should have on a company’s net income. This issue often arises in the executive- compensation context in a discussion of the extent to which pension accounting should be reflected in business performance for purposes of calculating payments to executives.

Glass Lewis believes that pension credits should not be included in measuring income that is used to award performance-based compensation. Because many of the assumptions used in accounting for retirement plans are subject to the company’s discretion, management would have an obvious conflict of interest if pay were tied to pension income. In our view, projected income from pensions does not truly reflect a company’s performance.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						49

The Link Between Compensation and Performance

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives, as we believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities are revealed. Glass Lewis strongly believes executive compensation should be linked directly with the performance of the business the executive is charged with managing. We believe the most effective compensation arrangements provide for an appropriate mix of performance-based short- and long-term incentives in addition to fixed pay elements while promoting a prudent and sustainable level of risk-taking.

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which pay is aligned with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. We recognize performance metrics must necessarily vary depending on the company and industry, among other factors, and may include a wide variety of financial measures as well as industry-specific performance indicators. However, we believe companies should disclose why the specific performance metrics were selected and how the actions they are designed to incentivize will lead to better corporate performance.

Moreover, it is rarely in shareholders’ interests to disclose competitive data about individual salaries below the senior executive level. Such disclosure could create internal personnel discord that would be counterproductive for the company and its shareholders. While we favor full disclosure for senior executives and we view pay disclosure at the aggregate level (e.g., the number of employees being paid over a certain amount or in certain categories) as potentially useful, we do not believe shareholders need or will benefit from detailed reports about individual management employees other than the most senior executives. Additional company disclosure provided as a result of the recent final rules on pay versus performance from the SEC in August 2022 may be considered if they provide further insight into a company's executive pay program.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required companies to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation at the first shareholder meeting that occurs six months after enactment of the bill (January 21, 2011).

This practice of allowing shareholders a non-binding vote on a company’s compensation report is standard practice in many non-U.S. countries, and has been a requirement for most companies in the United Kingdom since 2003 and in Australia since 2005. Although say-on-pay proposals are non-binding, a high level of “against” or “abstain” votes indicates substantial shareholder concern about a company’s compensation policies and procedures.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						50

Given the complexity of most companies’ compensation programs, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach when analyzing advisory votes on executive compensation. We review each company’s compensation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that each company must be examined in the context of industry, size, maturity, performance, financial condition, its historic pay for performance practices, and any other relevant internal or external factors.

We believe that each company should design and apply specific compensation policies and practices that are appropriate to the circumstances of the company and, in particular, will attract and retain competent executives and other staff, while motivating them to grow the company’s long-term shareholder value.

Where we find those specific policies and practices serve to reasonably align compensation with performance, and such practices are adequately disclosed, Glass Lewis will recommend supporting the company’s approach. If, however, those specific policies and practices fail to demonstrably link compensation with performance, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

Glass Lewis reviews say-on-pay proposals on both a qualitative basis and a quantitative basis, with a focus on several main areas:

•The overall design and structure of the company’s executive compensation programs including selection and challenging nature of performance metrics;

•The implementation and effectiveness of the company’s executive compensation programs including pay mix and use of performance metrics in determining pay levels;

•The quality and content of the company’s disclosure;

•The quantum paid to executives; and

•The link between compensation and performance as indicated by the company’s current and past pay- for-performance grades.

We also review any significant changes or modifications, including post fiscal year-end changes and one-time awards, particularly where the changes touch upon issues that are material to Glass Lewis recommendations.

Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations

In cases where we find deficiencies in a company’s compensation program’s design, implementation or management, we will recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. Generally such instances include evidence of a pattern of poor pay-for-performance practices (i.e., deficient or failing pay-for- performance grades), unclear or questionable disclosure regarding the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited information regarding benchmarking processes, limited rationale for bonus performance metrics and targets, etc.), questionable adjustments to certain aspects of the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited rationale for significant changes to performance targets or metrics, the payout of guaranteed bonuses or sizable retention grants, etc.), and/or other egregious compensation practices.

Although not an exhaustive list, the following issues when weighed together may cause Glass Lewis to recommend voting against a say-on-pay vote:

•Inappropriate or outsized self-selected peer groups and/or benchmarking issues such as compensation targets set well above the median without adequate justification;


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						51

•Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments, including golden handshakes and golden parachutes;

•Insufficient response to low shareholder support;

•Problematic contractual payments, such as guaranteed bonuses;

•Insufficiently challenging performance targets and/or high potential payout opportunities;

•Performance targets lowered without justification;

•Discretionary bonuses paid when short- or long-term incentive plan targets were not met;

•High executive pay relative to peers that is not justified by outstanding company performance; and

•The terms of the long-term incentive plans are inappropriate (please see “Long-Term Incentives”).

The aforementioned issues may also influence Glass Lewis’ assessment of the structure of a company’s compensation program. We evaluate structure on a “Good, Fair, Poor” rating scale whereby a “Good” rating represents a compensation program with little to no concerns, a “Fair” rating represents a compensation program with some concerns and a “Poor” rating represents a compensation program that deviates significantly from best practice or contains one or more egregious compensation practices.

We believe that it is important for companies to provide investors with clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements. Similar to structure, we evaluate disclosure on a “Good, Fair, Poor” rating scale whereby a “Good” rating represents a thorough discussion of all elements of compensation, a “Fair” rating represents an adequate discussion of all or most elements of compensation and a “Poor” rating represents an incomplete or absent discussion of compensation. In instances where a company has simply failed to provide sufficient disclosure of its policies, we may recommend shareholders vote against this proposal solely on this basis, regardless of the appropriateness of compensation levels.

In general, most companies will fall within the “Fair” range for both structure and disclosure, and Glass Lewis largely uses the “Good” and “Poor” ratings to highlight outliers.

Where we identify egregious compensation practices, we may also recommend voting against the compensation committee based on the practices or actions of its members during the year. Such practices may include: approving large one-off payments, the inappropriate, unjustified use of discretion, or sustained poor pay for performance practices. (Refer to the section on "Compensation Committee Performance" for more information.)

Company Responsiveness

When companies receive a significant level of shareholder opposition to a say-on-pay proposal, which occurs when there is more than 20% opposition to the proposal, we believe the board should demonstrate a commensurate level of engagement and responsiveness to the concerns behind the disapproval, with a particular focus on responding to shareholder feedback. When assessing the level of opposition to say-on-pay proposals, we may further examine the level of opposition among disinterested shareholders as an independent group. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration, and that often a majority of shareholders may have voted in favor of the proposal, given that the average approval rate for say-on-pay proposals is about 90%, we believe the compensation committee should provide some level of response to a significant vote against. In general, our expectations regarding the minimum appropriate levels of responsiveness will correspond with the level of shareholder opposition, as expressed both


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						52

through the magnitude of opposition in a single year, and through the persistence of shareholder disapproval over time.

Responses we consider appropriate include engaging with large shareholders, especially dissenting shareholders, to identify their concerns, and, where reasonable, implementing changes and/or making commitments that directly address those concerns within the company’s compensation program. In cases where particularly egregious pay decisions caused the say on pay proposal to fail, Glass Lewis will closely consider whether any changes were made directly relating to the pay decision that may address structural concerns that shareholders have. In the absence of any evidence in the disclosure that the board is actively engaging shareholders on these issues and responding accordingly, we may recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for failing to adequately respond to shareholder opposition. Regarding such recommendations, careful consideration will be given to the level of shareholder protest and the severity and history of compensation practices.

Pay for Performance

Glass Lewis believes an integral part of a well-structured compensation package is a successful link between pay and performance. Our proprietary pay-for-performance model was developed to better evaluate the link between pay and performance. Generally, compensation and performance are measured against a peer group of appropriate companies that may overlap, to a certain extent, with a company’s self-disclosed peers. This quantitative analysis provides a consistent framework and historical context for our clients to determine how well companies link executive compensation to relative performance. Companies that demonstrate a weaker link are more likely to receive a negative recommendation; however, other qualitative factors such as overall incentive structure, significant forthcoming changes to the compensation program or reasonable long-term payout levels may mitigate our concerns to a certain extent.

While we assign companies a letter grade of A, B, C, D or F based on the alignment between pay and performance, the grades derived from the Glass Lewis pay-for-performance analysis do not follow the traditional U.S. school letter grade system. Rather, the grades are generally interpreted as follows:

Grade of A: The company’s percentile rank for pay is significantly less than its percentile rank for performance Grade of B: The company’s percentile rank for pay is moderately less than its percentile rank for performance Grade of C: The company’s percentile rank for pay is approximately aligned with its percentile rank for performance

Grade of D: The company’s percentile rank for pay is higher than its percentile rank for performance

Grade of F: The company’s percentile rank for pay is significantly higher than its percentile rank for performance

For the avoidance of confusion, the above grades encompass the relationship between a company’s percentile rank for pay and its percentile rank in performance. Separately, a specific comparison between the company’s executive pay and its peers’ executive pay levels is discussed in the analysis for additional insight into the grade. Likewise, a specific comparison between the company’s performance and its peers’ performance is reflected in the analysis for further context. Finally, Glass Lewis' pay-for-performance analysis is currently unaffected by any additional disclosure concerning pay versus performance as mandated by an August 2022 SEC rule.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						53

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a “D” or “F” from our proprietary model, we are more likely to recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, supplemental quantitative factors like realized pay levels may be considered, and other qualitative factors such as an effective overall incentive structure, the relevance of selected performance metrics, significant forthcoming enhancements or reasonable long-term payout levels may give us cause to recommend in favor of a proposal even when we have identified a disconnect between pay and performance.

In determining the peer groups used in our A-F pay-for-performance letter grades, Glass Lewis utilizes a proprietary methodology that considers both market and industry peers, along with each company’s network of self-disclosed peers. Each component is considered on a weighted basis and is subject to size-based ranking and screening. The peer groups used are provided to Glass Lewis by Diligent Intel based on Glass Lewis’ methodology and using Diligent Intel’s data.

Selecting an appropriate peer group to analyze a company’s compensation program is a subjective determination, requiring significant judgment and on which there is not a “correct” answer. Since the peer group used is based on an independent, proprietary technique, it will often differ from the one used by the company which, in turn, will affect the resulting analyses. While Glass Lewis believes that the independent, rigorous methodology it uses provides a valuable perspective on the company’s compensation program, the company’s self-selected peer group is also presented in the Proxy Paper for comparative purposes.

Short-Term Incentives

A short-term bonus or incentive (STI) should be demonstrably tied to performance. Whenever possible, we believe a mix of corporate and individual performance measures is appropriate. We would normally expect performance measures for STIs to be based on company-wide or divisional financial measures as well as non- financial, qualitative or non-formulaic factors such as those related to safety, environmental issues, and customer satisfaction. While we recognize that companies operating in different sectors or markets may seek to utilize a wide range of metrics, we expect such measures to be appropriately tied to a company’s business drivers.

Further, the threshold, target and maximum performance goals and corresponding payout levels that can be achieved under STI plans should be disclosed. Shareholders should expect stretching performance targets for the maximum award to be achieved. Any increase in the potential target and maximum award should be clearly justified to shareholders, as should any decrease in target and maximum performance levels from the previous year.

Glass Lewis recognizes that disclosure of some measures or performance targets may include commercially confidential information. Therefore, we believe it may be reasonable to exclude such information in some cases as long as the company provides sufficient justification for non-disclosure. However, where a short-term bonus has been paid, companies should disclose the extent to which performance has been achieved against relevant targets, including disclosure of the actual target achieved.

Where management has received significant short-term incentive payments but overall performance and/or the shareholder experience over the measurement year prima facie appears to be poor or negative, we believe the company should provide a clear explanation of why these significant short-term payments were made. We also believe any significant changes to the program structure should be accompanied by rationalizing disclosure.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						54

Further, where a company has applied upward discretion, which includes lowering goals mid-year, increasing calculated payouts or retroactively pro-rating performance periods, we expect a robust discussion of why the decision was necessary. In addition, we believe that where companies use non-GAAP or bespoke metrics, clear reconciliations between these figures and GAAP figures in audited financial statement should be provided. Adjustments to GAAP figures may be considered in Glass Lewis’ assessment of the effectiveness of the incentive at tying executive pay with performance.

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant, material events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. For instance, major litigation settlement charges may be removed from non-GAAP results before the determination of formulaic incentive payouts, or health and safety failures may not be reflected in performance results where companies do not expressly include health and safety metrics in incentive plans; such events may nevertheless be consequential to corporate performance results, impact the shareholder experience, and, in some cases, may present material risks. Conversely, certain events may adversely impact formulaic payout results despite being outside executives' control. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes. The inclusion of this disclosure may be helpful when we consider concerns around the exercise or absence of committee discretion.

We do not generally recommend against a pay program due to the use of a non-formulaic plan. If a company has chosen to rely primarily on a subjective assessment or the board’s discretion in determining short-term bonuses, we believe that the proxy statement should provide a meaningful discussion of the board’s rationale in determining the bonuses paid as well as a rationale for the use of a non- formulaic mechanism. Particularly where the aforementioned disclosures are substantial and satisfactory, such a structure will not provoke serious concern in our analysis on its own. However, in conjunction with other significant issues in a program’s design or operation, such as a disconnect between pay and performance, the absence of a cap on payouts, or a lack of performance-based long-term awards, the use of a non-formulaic bonus may help drive a negative recommendation.

Long-Term Incentives

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs, which are often the primary long-term incentive for executives. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an executive’s pay to company performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In addition, equity-based compensation can be an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

There are certain elements that Glass Lewis believes are common to most well-structured long-term incentive

(LTI) plans. These include:

•No re-testing or lowering of performance conditions;

•Performance metrics that cannot be easily manipulated by management;

•Two or more performance metrics;

•At least one relative performance metric that compares the company’s performance to a relevant peer group or index;


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						55

•Performance periods of at least three years;

•Stretching metrics that incentivize executives to strive for outstanding performance while not encouraging excessive risk-taking;

•Individual award limits expressed as a percentage of base salary; and

•Equity granting practices that are clearly disclosed.

In evaluating long-term incentive grants, Glass Lewis generally believes that at least half of the grant should consist of performance-based awards, putting a material portion of executive compensation at-risk and demonstrably linked to the performance of the company. While we will consistently raise concern with programs that do not meet this criterion, we may refrain from a negative recommendation in the absence of other significant issues with the program’s design or operation. However, in cases where performance-based awards are significantly rolled back or eliminated from a company’s long-term incentive plan, such decisions will generally be viewed negatively outside of exceptional circumstances, and may lead to a recommendation against the proposal.

As with the short-term incentive, Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes.

Performance measures should be carefully selected and should relate to the specific business/industry in which the company operates and, especially, to the key value drivers of the company’s business. As with short-term incentive plans, the basis for any adjustments to metrics or results should be clearly explained, as should the company’s judgment on the use of discretion and any significant changes to the performance program structure.

While cognizant of the inherent complexity of certain performance metrics, Glass Lewis generally believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics serves to provide a more complete picture of the company’s performance than a single metric. Further, reliance on just one metric may focus too much management attention on a single target and is therefore more susceptible to manipulation. When utilized for relative measurements, external benchmarks such as a sector index or peer group should be disclosed and transparent. The rationale behind the selection of a specific index or peer group should also be disclosed. Internal performance benchmarks should also be disclosed and transparent, unless a cogent case for confidentiality is made and fully explained. Similarly, actual performance and vesting levels for previous grants earned during the fiscal year should be disclosed.

We also believe shareholders should evaluate the relative success of a company’s compensation programs, particularly with regard to existing equity-based incentive plans, in linking pay and performance when evaluating potential changes to LTI plans and determining the impact of additional stock awards. We will therefore review the company’s pay-for-performance grade (see below for more information) and specifically the proportion of total compensation that is stock-based.

Grants of Front-Loaded Awards

Many U.S. companies have chosen to provide large grants, usually in the form of equity awards, that are intended to serve as compensation for multiple years. This practice, often called front-loading, is taken up either


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						56

in the regular course of business or as a response to specific business conditions and with a predetermined objective. The so-called "mega-grant", an outsized award to one individual sometimes valued at over $100 million is sometimes but not always provided as a front-loaded award. We believe shareholders should generally be wary of this approach, and we accordingly weigh these grants with particular scrutiny.

While the use of front-loaded awards is intended to lock-in executive service and incentives, the same rigidity also raises the risk of effectively tying the hands of the compensation committee. As compared with a more responsive annual granting schedule program, front-loaded awards may preclude improvements or changes to reflect evolving business strategies or to respond to other unforeseen factors. Additionally, if structured poorly, early vesting of such awards may reduce or eliminate the retentive power at great cost to shareholders. The considerable emphasis on a single grant can place intense pressures on every facet of its design, amplifying any potential perverse incentives and creating greater room for unintended consequences. In particular, provisions around changes of control or separations of service must ensure that executives do not receive excessive payouts that do not reflect shareholder experience or company performance.

We consider a company’s rationale for granting awards under this structure and also expect any front-loaded awards to include a firm commitment not to grant additional awards for a defined period, as is commonly associated with this practice. Even when such a commitment is provided, unexpected circumstances may lead the board to make additional payments or awards for retention purposes, or to incentivize management towards more realistic goals or a revised strategy. If a company breaks its commitment not to grant further awards, we may recommend against the pay program unless a convincing rationale is provided. In situations where the front-loaded award was meant to cover a certain portion of the regular long-term incentive grant for each year during the covered period, our analysis of the value of the remaining portion of the regular long-term incentives granted during the period covered by the award will account for the annualized value of the front-loaded portion, and we expect no supplemental grant be awarded during the vesting period of the front-loaded portion.

The multiyear nature of these awards generally lends itself to significantly higher compensation figures in the year of grant than might otherwise be expected. In our qualitative analysis of the grants of front-loaded awards to executives, Glass Lewis considers the quantum of the award on an annualized basis and may compare this result to the prior practice and peer data, among other benchmarks. Additionally, for awards that are granted in the form of equity, Glass Lewis may consider the total potential dilutive effect of such award on shareholders.

Linking Executive Pay to Environmental and Social Criteria

Glass Lewis believes that explicit environmental and/or social (E&S) criteria in executive incentive plans, when used appropriately, can serve to provide both executives and shareholders a clear line of sight into a company’s ESG strategy, ambitions, and targets. Although we are strongly supportive of companies’ incorporation of material E&S risks and opportunities in their long-term strategic planning, we believe that the inclusion of E&S metrics in compensation programs should be predicated on each company’s unique circumstances. In order to establish a meaningful link between pay and performance, companies must consider factors including their industry, size, risk profile, maturity, performance, financial condition, and any other relevant internal or external factors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						57

When a company is introducing E&S criteria into executive incentive plans, we believe it is important that companies provide shareholders with sufficient disclosure to allow them to understand how these criteria align with its strategy. Additionally, Glass Lewis recognizes that there may be situations where certain E&S performance criteria are reasonably viewed as prerequisites for executive performance, as opposed to behaviors and conditions that need to be incentivized. For example, we believe that shareholders should interrogate the use of metrics that award executives for ethical behavior or compliance with policies and regulations. It is our view that companies should provide shareholders with disclosures that clearly lay out the rationale for selecting specific E&S metrics, the target-setting process, and corresponding payout opportunities. Further, particularly in the case of qualitative metrics, we believe that shareholders should be provided with a clear understanding of the basis on which the criteria will be assessed. Where quantitative targets have been set, we believe that shareholders are best served when these are disclosed on an ex-ante basis, or the board should outline why it believes it is unable to do so.

While we believe that companies should generally set long-term targets for their environmental and social ambitions, we are mindful that not all compensation schemes lend themselves to the inclusion of E&S metrics. We also are of the view that companies should retain flexibility in not only choosing to incorporate E&S metrics in their compensation plans, but also in the placement of these metrics. For example, some companies may resolve that including E&S criteria in the annual bonus may help to incentivize the achievement of short-term milestones and allow for more maneuverability in strategic adjustments to long-term goals. Other companies may determine that their long-term sustainability targets are best achieved by incentivizing executives through metrics included in their long-term incentive plans.

One-Time Awards

Glass Lewis believes shareholders should generally be wary of awards granted outside of the standard incentive schemes, as such awards have the potential to undermine the integrity of a company’s regular incentive plans or the link between pay and performance, or both. We generally believe that if the existing incentive programs fail to provide adequate incentives to executives, companies should redesign their compensation programs rather than make additional grants.

However, we recognize that in certain circumstances, additional incentives may be appropriate. In these cases, companies should provide a thorough description of the awards, including a cogent and convincing explanation of their necessity and why existing awards do not provide sufficient motivation and a discussion of how the quantum of the award and its structure were determined. Further, such awards should be tied to future service and performance whenever possible.

Additionally, we believe companies making supplemental or one-time awards should also describe if and how the regular compensation arrangements will be affected by these additional grants. In reviewing a company’s use of supplemental awards, Glass Lewis will evaluate the terms and size of the grants in the context of the company’s overall incentive strategy and granting practices, as well as the current operating environment.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						58

Contractual Payments and Arrangements

Beyond the quantum of contractual payments, Glass Lewis will also consider the design of any entitlements. Certain executive employment terms may help to drive a negative recommendation, including, but not limited to:

•Excessively broad change in control triggers;

•Inappropriate severance entitlements;

•Inadequately explained or excessive sign-on arrangements;

•Guaranteed bonuses (especially as a multiyear occurrence); and

•Failure to address any concerning practices in amended employment agreements.

In general, we are wary of terms that are excessively restrictive in favor of the executive, or that could potentially incentivize behaviors that are not in a company’s best interest.

Sign-on Awards and Severance Benefits

We acknowledge that there may be certain costs associated with transitions at the executive level. In evaluating the size of severance and sign-on arrangements, we may consider the executive’s regular target compensation level, or the sums paid to other executives (including the recipient’s predecessor, where applicable) in evaluating the appropriateness of such an arrangement.

We believe sign-on arrangements should be clearly disclosed and accompanied by a meaningful explanation of the payments and the process by which the amounts were reached. Further, the details of and basis for any “make-whole” payments (paid as compensation for awards forfeited from a previous employer) should be provided.

With respect to severance, we believe companies should abide by predetermined payouts in most circumstances. While in limited circumstances some deviations may not be inappropriate, we believe shareholders should be provided with a meaningful explanation of any additional or increased benefits agreed upon outside of regular arrangements. However, where Glass Lewis determines that such predetermined payouts are particularly problematic or unfavorable to shareholders, we may consider the execution of such payments in a negative recommendation for the advisory vote on executive compensation.

In the U.S. market, most companies maintain severance entitlements based on a multiple of salary and, in many cases, bonus. In almost all instances we see, the relevant multiple is three or less, even in the case of a change in control. We believe the basis and total value of severance should be reasonable and should not exceed the upper limit of general market practice. We consider the inclusion of long-term incentives in cash severance calculations to be inappropriate, particularly given the commonality of accelerated vesting and the proportional weight of long-term incentives as a component of total pay. Additional considerations, however, will be accounted for when reviewing atypically structured compensation approaches.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						59

Change in Control

Glass Lewis considers double-trigger change in control arrangements, which require both a change in control and termination or constructive termination, to be best practice. Any arrangement that is not explicitly double- trigger may be considered a single-trigger or modified single-trigger arrangement.

Further, we believe that excessively broad definitions of change in control are potentially problematic as they may lead to situations where executives receive additional compensation where no meaningful change in status or duties has occurred.

Excise Tax Gross-ups

Among other entitlements, Glass Lewis is strongly opposed to excise tax gross-ups related to IRC § 4999 and their expansion, especially where no consideration is given to the safe harbor limit. We believe that under no normal circumstance is the inclusion of excise tax gross-up provisions in new agreements or the addition of such provisions to amended agreements acceptable. In consideration of the fact that minor increases in change-in- control payments can lead to disproportionately large excise taxes, the potential negative impact of tax gross- ups far outweighs any retentive benefit.

Depending on the circumstances, the addition of new gross-ups around this excise tax may lead to negative recommendations for a company’s say-on-pay proposal, the chair of the compensation committee, or the entire committee, particularly in cases where a company had committed not to provide any such entitlements in the future. For situations in which the addition of new excise tax gross ups will be provided in connection with a specific change-in-control transaction, this policy may be applied to the say-on-pay proposal, the golden parachute proposal and recommendations related to the compensation committee for all involved corporate parties, as appropriate.

Amended Employment Agreements

Any contractual arrangements providing for problematic pay practices which are not addressed in materially amended employment agreements will potentially be viewed by Glass Lewis as a missed opportunity on the part of the company to align its policies with current best practices. Such problematic pay practices include, but are not limited to, excessive change in control entitlements, modified single-trigger change in control entitlements, excise tax gross-ups, and multi-year guaranteed awards.

Recoupment Provisions (Clawbacks)

On October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted Rule 10D-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule mandates national securities exchanges and associations to promulgate new listing standards requiring companies to maintain recoupment policies (“clawback provisions”). While the final rules will be effective 60 days after the date of publication in the federal register, listing standards may be effective as late as one year following such publication. Affected companies are provided with another 60 days following the listing standards’ effective date to comply.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						60

Despite the above timeline, Glass Lewis believes in the importance of such risk-mitigating provisions and their alignment with shareholder interests. Whether or not a company is affected by Rule 10D-1, during the intervening time between the final rule’s announcement and the effective date of listing standards, we believe it is prudent for boards to adopt detailed variable compensation recoupment policies that, at a minimum, provide companies the ability to recover compensation from former and current named executive officers in the event of overpayment due to erroneous data that triggered an accounting restatement. For companies that will be subject to the new listing requirements and are yet to adopt clawback policies that exceed the standards set forth by Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, providing detailed disclosure in the proxy statement evidencing the board’s proactive effort to ensure that the company will be in compliance may serve to mitigate concerns.

Notwithstanding the new rules, we are increasingly focusing attention on the specific terms of recoupment policies beyond whether a company maintains a clawback that simply satisfies the minimum legal requirements. We believe that clawbacks should be triggered, at a minimum, in the event of a restatement of financial results or similar revision of performance indicators upon which incentive awards were based. Such policies allow the board to review all performance-related bonuses and awards made to senior executives during a specified period and, to the extent feasible, allow the company to recoup such incentive pay where appropriate. However, some recoupment policies empower companies to recover compensation without regard to a restatement, such as those triggered by actions causing reputational harm. These may inform our overall view of the compensation program in future especially as market practice continues to evolve around expanded clawback authority.

Hedging of Stock

Glass Lewis believes that the hedging of shares by executives in the shares of the companies where they are employed severs the alignment of interests of the executive with shareholders. We believe companies should adopt strict policies to prohibit executives from hedging the economic risk associated with their share ownership in the company.

Pledging of Stock

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should examine the facts and circumstances of each company rather than apply a one-size-fits-all policy regarding employee stock pledging. Glass Lewis believes that shareholders benefit when employees, particularly senior executives, have meaningful financial interest in the success of the company under their management, and therefore we recognize the benefits of measures designed to encourage employees to both buy shares out of their own pocket and to retain shares they have been granted; blanket policies prohibiting stock pledging may discourage executives and employees from doing either.

However, we also recognize that the pledging of shares can present a risk that, depending on a host of factors, an executive with significant pledged shares and limited other assets may have an incentive to take steps to avoid a forced sale of shares in the face of a rapid stock price decline. Therefore, to avoid substantial losses from a forced sale to meet the terms of the loan, the executive may have an incentive to boost the stock price in the short term in a manner that is unsustainable, thus hurting shareholders in the long-term. We also recognize concerns regarding pledging may not apply to less senior employees, given the latter group’s significantly more


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						61

limited influence over a company’s stock price. Therefore, we believe that the issue of pledging shares should be reviewed in that context, as should policies that distinguish between the two groups.

Glass Lewis believes that the benefits of stock ownership by executives and employees may outweigh the risks of stock pledging, depending on many factors. As such, Glass Lewis reviews all relevant factors in evaluating proposed policies, limitations and prohibitions on pledging stock, including:

•The number of shares pledged;

•The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of outstanding shares;

•The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of each executive’s shares and total assets;

•Whether the pledged shares were purchased by the employee or granted by the company;

•Whether there are different policies for purchased and granted shares;

•Whether the granted shares were time-based or performance-based;

•The overall governance profile of the company;

•The volatility of the company’s stock (in order to determine the likelihood of a sudden stock price drop);

•The nature and cyclicality, if applicable, of the company’s industry;

•The participation and eligibility of executives and employees in pledging;

•The company’s current policies regarding pledging and any waiver from these policies for employees and executives; and

•Disclosure of the extent of any pledging, particularly among senior executives.

Compensation Consultant Independence

As mandated by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require compensation committees to consider six factors (https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/33-9330.pdf, p.31-32) in assessing compensation advisor independence. According to the SEC, “no one factor should be viewed as a determinative factor.” Glass Lewis believes this six- factor assessment is an important process for every compensation committee to undertake but believes companies employing a consultant for board compensation, consulting and other corporate services should provide clear disclosure beyond just a reference to examining the six points, in order to allow shareholders to review the specific aspects of the various consultant relationships.

We believe compensation consultants are engaged to provide objective, disinterested, expert advice to the compensation committee. When the consultant or its affiliates receive substantial income from providing other services to the company, we believe the potential for a conflict of interest arises and the independence of the consultant may be jeopardized. Therefore, Glass Lewis will, when relevant, note the potential for a conflict of interest when the fees paid to the advisor or its affiliates for other services exceeds those paid for compensation consulting.

CEO Pay Ratio

As mandated by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer and Protection Act, beginning in 2018, issuers will be required to disclose the median annual total compensation of all employees except the CEO, the total annual compensation of the CEO or equivalent position, and the ratio between the two amounts. Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in our Proxy Papers, as available. While we recognize that the pay


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						62

ratio has the potential to provide additional insight when assessing a company’s pay practices, at this time it will not be a determinative factor in our voting recommendations.

Frequency of Say-on-Pay

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on the frequency of say- on-pay votes (i.e., every one, two or three years). Additionally, Dodd-Frank requires companies to hold such votes on the frequency of say-on-pay votes at least once every six years.

We believe companies should submit say-on-pay votes to shareholders every year. We believe that the time and financial burdens to a company with regard to an annual vote are relatively small and incremental and are outweighed by the benefits to shareholders through more frequent accountability. Implementing biannual or triennial votes on executive compensation limits shareholders’ ability to hold the board accountable for its compensation practices through means other than voting against the compensation committee. Unless a company provides a compelling rationale or unique circumstances for say-on-pay votes less frequent than annually, we will generally recommend that shareholders support annual votes on compensation.

Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to provide shareholders with a separate non-binding vote on approval of golden parachute compensation arrangements in connection with certain change-in-control transactions. However, if the golden parachute arrangements have previously been subject to a say-on-pay vote which shareholders approved, then this required vote is waived.

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements benefits all shareholders. Glass Lewis analyzes each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the nature of the change-in-control transaction, the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, any excise tax gross-up obligations, the tenure and position of the executives in question before and after the transaction, any new or amended employment agreements entered into in connection with the transaction, and the type of triggers involved (i.e., single vs. double). In cases where new problematic features, such as excise tax gross-up obligations, are introduced in a golden parachute proposal, such features may contribute to a negative recommendation not only for the golden parachute proposal under review, but for the next say-on-pay proposal of any involved corporate parties, as well as recommendations against their compensation committee as appropriate.

Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals

We believe that equity compensation awards, when not abused, are useful for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance. Glass Lewis recognizes that equity-based compensation plans are critical components of a company’s overall compensation program, and we analyze such plans accordingly based on both quantitative and qualitative factors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						63

Our quantitative analysis assesses the plan’s cost and the company’s pace of granting utilizing a number of different analyses, comparing the program with absolute limits we believe are key to equity value creation and with a carefully chosen peer group. In general, our model seeks to determine whether the proposed plan is either absolutely excessive or is more than one standard deviation away from the average plan for the peer group on a range of criteria, including dilution to shareholders and the projected annual cost relative to the company’s financial performance. Each of the analyses (and their constituent parts) is weighted and the plan is scored in accordance with that weight.

We compare the program’s expected annual expense with the business’s operating metrics to help determine whether the plan is excessive in light of company performance. We also compare the plan’s expected annual cost to the enterprise value of the firm rather than to market capitalization because the employees, managers and directors of the firm contribute to the creation of enterprise value but not necessarily market capitalization (the biggest difference is seen where cash represents the vast majority of market capitalization). Finally, we do not rely exclusively on relative comparisons with averages because, in addition to creeping averages serving to inflate compensation, we believe that some absolute limits are warranted.

We then consider qualitative aspects of the plan such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions. We also closely review the choice and use of, and difficulty in meeting, the awards’ performance metrics and targets, if any. We believe significant changes to the terms of a plan should be explained for shareholders and clearly indicated. Other factors such as a company’s size and operating environment may also be relevant in assessing the severity of concerns or the benefits of certain changes. Finally, we may consider a company’s executive compensation practices in certain situations, as applicable.

We evaluate equity plans based on certain overarching principles:

•Companies should seek more shares only when needed;

•Requested share amounts or share reserves should be conservative in size so that companies must seek shareholder approval every three to four years (or more frequently);

•If a plan is relatively expensive, it should not grant options solely to senior executives and board members;

•Dilution of annual net share count or voting power, along with the “overhang” of incentive plans, should be limited;

•Annual cost of the plan (especially if not shown on the income statement) should be reasonable as a percentage of financial results and should be in line with the peer group;

•The expected annual cost of the plan should be proportional to the business’s value;

•The intrinsic value that option grantees received in the past should be reasonable compared with the business’s financial results;

•Plans should not permit re-pricing of stock options;

•Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms;

•Plans should not count shares in ways that understate the potential dilution, or cost, to common shareholders. This refers to “inverse” full-value award multipliers;

•Selected performance metrics should be challenging and appropriate, and should be subject to relative performance measurements; and


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						64

•Stock grants should be subject to minimum vesting and/or holding periods sufficient to ensure sustainable performance and promote retention.

Option Exchanges and Repricing

Glass Lewis is generally opposed to the repricing of employee and director options regardless of how it is accomplished. Employees should have some downside risk in their equity-based compensation program and repricing eliminates any such risk. As shareholders have substantial risk in owning stock, we believe that the equity compensation of employees and directors should be similarly situated to align their interests with those of shareholders. We believe this will facilitate appropriate risk- and opportunity-taking for the company by employees.

We are concerned that option grantees who believe they will be “rescued” from underwater options will be more inclined to take unjustifiable risks. Moreover, a predictable pattern of repricing or exchanges substantially alters a stock option’s value because options that will practically never expire deeply out of the money are worth far more than options that carry a risk of expiration.

In short, repricings and option exchange programs change the bargain between shareholders and employees after the bargain has been struck.

There is one circumstance in which a repricing or option exchange program may be acceptable: if macroeconomic or industry trends, rather than specific company issues, cause a stock’s value to decline dramatically and the repricing is necessary to motivate and retain employees. In viewing the company’s stock decline as part of a larger trend, we would expect the impact to approximately reflect the market or industry price decline in terms of timing and magnitude. In this circumstance, we think it fair to conclude that option grantees may be suffering from a risk that was not foreseeable when the original “bargain” was struck. In such a scenario, we may opt to support a repricing or option exchange program only if sufficient conditions are met. We are largely concerned with the inclusion of the following features:

•Officers and board members cannot participate in the program; and

•The exchange is value-neutral or value-creative to shareholders using very conservative assumptions.

•In our evaluation of the appropriateness of the program design, we also consider the inclusion of the following features:

•The vesting requirements on exchanged or repriced options are extended beyond one year;

•Shares reserved for options that are reacquired in an option exchange will permanently retire (i.e., will not be available for future grants) so as to prevent additional shareholder dilution in the future; and

•Management and the board make a cogent case for needing to motivate and retain existing employees, such as being in a competitive employment market.

Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to repricing options and eliminate much of the downside risk inherent in an option grant that is designed to induce recipients to maximize shareholder return.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						65

Backdating an option is the act of changing an option’s grant date from the actual grant date to an earlier date when the market price of the underlying stock was lower, resulting in a lower exercise price for the option. In past studies, Glass Lewis identified over 270 companies that have disclosed internal or government investigations into their past stock-option grants.

Spring-loading is granting stock options while in possession of material, positive information that has not been disclosed publicly. Bullet-dodging is delaying the grants of stock options until after the release of material, negative information. This can allow option grants to be made at a lower price either before the release of positive news or following the release of negative news, assuming the stock’s price will move up or down in response to the information. This raises a concern similar to that of insider trading, or the trading on material non-public information.

The exercise price for an option is determined on the day of grant, providing the recipient with the same market risk as an investor who bought shares on that date. However, where options were backdated, the executive or the board (or the compensation committee) changed the grant date retroactively. The new date may be at or near the lowest price for the year or period. This would be like allowing an investor to look back and select the lowest price of the year at which to buy shares.

A 2006 study of option grants made between 1996 and 2005 at 8,000 companies found that option backdating can be an indication of poor internal controls. The study found that option backdating was more likely to occur at companies without a majority independent board and with a long-serving CEO; both factors, the study concluded, were associated with greater CEO influence on the company’s compensation and governance practices.42

Where a company granted backdated options to an executive who is also a director, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against that executive/director, regardless of who decided to make the award. In addition, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against those directors who either approved or allowed the backdating. Glass Lewis feels that executives and directors who either benefited from backdated options or authorized the practice have failed to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Given the severe tax and legal liabilities to the company from backdating, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against members of the audit committee who served when options were backdated, a restatement occurs, material weaknesses in internal controls exist and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation. These committee members failed in their responsibility to ensure the integrity of the company’s financial reports.

When a company has engaged in spring-loading or bullet-dodging, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against the compensation committee members where there has been a pattern of granting options at or near historic lows. Glass Lewis will also recommend voting against executives serving on the board who benefited from the spring-loading or bullet-dodging.

42 Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer. “LUCKY CEOs.” November, 2006.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						66

Director Compensation Plans

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive reasonable and appropriate compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. However, a balance is required. Fees should be competitive in order to retain and attract qualified individuals, but excessive fees represent a financial cost to the company and potentially compromise the objectivity and independence of non-employee directors. We will consider recommending support for compensation plans that include option grants or other equity- based awards that help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders. However, to ensure directors are not incentivized in the same manner as executives but rather serve as a check on imprudent risk-taking in executive compensation plan design, equity grants to directors should not be performance-based. Where an equity plan exclusively or primarily covers non-employee directors as participants, we do not believe that the plan should provide for performance-based awards in any capacity.

When non-employee director equity grants are covered by the same equity plan that applies to a company’s broader employee base, we will use our proprietary model and analyst review of this model to guide our voting recommendations. If such a plan broadly allows for performance-based awards to directors or explicitly provides for such grants, we may recommend against the overall plan on this basis, particularly if the company has granted performance-based awards to directors in past.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Glass Lewis believes that employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs) can provide employees with a sense of ownership in their company and help strengthen the alignment between the interests of employees and shareholders. We evaluate ESPPs by assessing the expected discount, purchase period, expected purchase activity (if previous activity has been disclosed) and whether the plan has a “lookback” feature. Except for the most extreme cases, Glass Lewis will generally support these plans given the regulatory purchase limit of

$25,000 per employee per year, which we believe is reasonable. We also look at the number of shares requested to see if a ESPP will significantly contribute to overall shareholder dilution or if shareholders will not have a chance to approve the program for an excessive period of time. As such, we will generally recommend against ESPPs that contain “evergreen” provisions that automatically increase the number of shares available under the ESPP each year.

Executive Compensation Tax Deductibility —

Amendment to IRC 162(M)

The “Tax Cut and Jobs Act” had significant implications on Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, a provision that allowed companies to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million for the CEO and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the CFO, if the compensation is performance-based and is paid under shareholder-approved plans. Glass Lewis does not generally view amendments to equity plans and changes to compensation programs in response to the elimination of tax deductions under 162(m) as problematic. This specifically holds true if such modifications contribute to the maintenance of a sound performance-based compensation program.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						67

As grandfathered contracts may continue to be eligible for tax deductions under the transition rule for Section 162(m), companies may therefore submit incentive plans for shareholder approval to take of advantage of the tax deductibility afforded under 162(m) for certain types of compensation.

We believe the best practice for companies is to provide robust disclosure to shareholders so that they can make fully informed judgments about the reasonableness of the proposed compensation plan. To allow for meaningful shareholder review, we prefer that disclosure should include specific performance metrics, a maximum award pool, and a maximum award amount per employee. We also believe it is important to analyze the estimated grants to see if they are reasonable and in line with the company’s peers.

We typically recommend voting against a 162(m) proposal where: (i) a company fails to provide at least a list of performance targets; (ii) a company fails to provide one of either a total maximum or an individual maximum; or (iii) the proposed plan or individual maximum award limit is excessive when compared with the plans of the company’s peers.

The company’s record of aligning pay with performance (as evaluated using our proprietary pay-for- performance model) also plays a role in our recommendation. Where a company has a record of setting reasonable pay relative to business performance, we generally recommend voting in favor of a plan even if the plan caps seem large relative to peers because we recognize the value in special pay arrangements for continued exceptional performance.

As with all other issues we review, our goal is to provide consistent but contextual advice given the specifics of the company and ongoing performance. Overall, we recognize that it is generally not in shareholders’ best interests to vote against such a plan and forgo the potential tax benefit since shareholder rejection of such plans will not curtail the awards; it will only prevent the tax deduction associated with them.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						68

Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise

Anti-Takeover Measures

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans are not generally in shareholders’ best interests. They can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock. Typically we recommend that shareholders vote against these plans to protect their financial interests and ensure that they have an opportunity to consider any offer for their shares, especially those at a premium.

We believe boards should be given wide latitude in directing company activities and in charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this, where the link between the shareholders’ financial interests and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether they support such a plan’s implementation. This issue is different from other matters that are typically left to board discretion. Its potential impact on and relation to shareholders is direct and substantial. It is also an issue in which management interests may be different from those of shareholders; thus, ensuring that shareholders have a voice is the only way to safeguard their interests.

In certain circumstances, we will support a poison pill that is limited in scope to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable qualifying offer clause. We will consider supporting a poison pill plan if the qualifying offer clause includes each of the following attributes:

•The form of offer is not required to be an all-cash transaction;

•The offer is not required to remain open for more than 90 business days;

•The offeror is permitted to amend the offer, reduce the offer, or otherwise change the terms;

•There is no fairness opinion requirement; and

•There is a low to no premium requirement.

Where these requirements are met, we typically feel comfortable that shareholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on any legitimate offer.

NOL Poison Pills

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						69

of the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.”43 In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (NOL pill) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis taking into consideration, among other factors, the value of the NOLs to the company, the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holding and the nature of the larger shareholders, the trigger threshold and whether the term of the plan is limited in duration (i.e., whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision) or is subject to periodic board review and/or shareholder ratification. In many cases, companies will propose the adoption of bylaw amendments specifically restricting certain share transfers, in addition to proposing the adoption of a NOL pill. In general, if we support the terms of a particular NOL pill, we will generally support the additional protective amendment in the absence of significant concerns with the specific terms of that proposal.

Furthermore, we believe that shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote on any adoption or renewal of a NOL pill regardless of any potential tax benefit that it offers a company. As such, we will consider recommending voting against those members of the board who served at the time when an NOL pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months and where the NOL pill is not subject to shareholder ratification.

Fair Price Provisions

Fair price provisions, which are rare, require that certain minimum price and procedural requirements be observed by any party that acquires more than a specified percentage of a corporation’s common stock. The provision is intended to protect minority shareholder value when an acquirer seeks to accomplish a merger or other transaction which would eliminate or change the interests of the minority shareholders. The provision is generally applied against the acquirer unless the takeover is approved by a majority of ”continuing directors” and holders of a majority, in some cases a supermajority as high as 80%, of the combined voting power of all stock entitled to vote to alter, amend, or repeal the above provisions.

The effect of a fair price provision is to require approval of any merger or business combination with an “interested shareholder” by 51% of the voting stock of the company, excluding the shares held by the interested shareholder. An interested shareholder is generally considered to be a holder of 10% or more of the company’s outstanding stock, but the trigger can vary.

Generally, provisions are put in place for the ostensible purpose of preventing a back-end merger where the interested shareholder would be able to pay a lower price for the remaining shares of the company than he or she paid to gain control. The effect of a fair price provision on shareholders, however, is to limit their ability to gain a premium for their shares through a partial tender offer or open market acquisition which typically raise the share price, often significantly. A fair price provision discourages such transactions because of the potential

43 Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code refers to a “change of ownership” of more than 50 percentage points by one or more 5% shareholders within a three-year period. The statute is intended to deter the “trafficking” of net operating losses.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						70

costs of seeking shareholder approval and because of the restrictions on purchase price for completing a merger or other transaction at a later time.

Glass Lewis believes that fair price provisions, while sometimes protecting shareholders from abuse in a takeover situation, more often act as an impediment to takeovers, potentially limiting gains to shareholders from a variety of transactions that could significantly increase share price. In some cases, even the independent directors of the board cannot make exceptions when such exceptions may be in the best interests of shareholders. Given the existence of state law protections for minority shareholders such as Section 203 of the Delaware Corporations Code, we believe it is in the best interests of shareholders to remove fair price provisions.

Quorum Requirements

Glass Lewis believes that a company’s quorum requirement should be set at a level high enough to ensure that a broad range of shareholders are represented in person or by proxy, but low enough that the company can transact necessary business. Companies in the U.S. are generally subject to quorum requirements under the laws of their specific state of incorporation. Additionally, those companies listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market are required to specify a quorum in their bylaws, provided however that such quorum may not be less than one- third of outstanding shares. Prior to 2013, the New York Stock Exchange required a quorum of 50% for listed companies, although this requirement was dropped in recognition of individual state requirements and potential confusion for issuers. Delaware, for example, required companies to provide for a quorum of no less than one-third of outstanding shares; otherwise such quorum shall default to a majority.

We generally believe a majority of outstanding shares entitled to vote is an appropriate quorum for the transaction of business at shareholder meetings. However, should a company seek shareholder approval of a lower quorum requirement we will generally support a reduced quorum of at least one-third of shares entitled to vote, either in person or by proxy. When evaluating such proposals, we also consider the specific facts and circumstances of the company, such as size and shareholder base.

Director and Officer Indemnification

While Glass Lewis strongly believes that directors and officers should be held to the highest standard when carrying out their duties to shareholders, some protection from liability is reasonable to protect them against certain suits so that these officers feel comfortable taking measured risks that may benefit shareholders. As such, we find it appropriate for a company to provide indemnification and/or enroll in liability insurance to cover its directors and officers so long as the terms of such agreements are reasonable.

Officer Exculpation

In August 2022, the Delaware General Assembly amended Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to authorize corporations to adopt a provision in their certificate of incorporation to eliminate or limit monetary liability of certain corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duty of care. Previously,


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						71

the DGCL allowed only exculpation of corporate directors from breach of fiduciary duty of care claims if the corporation’s certificate of incorporation includes an exculpation provision.

The amendment authorizes corporations to provide for exculpation of the following officers: (i) the corporation’s president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief legal officer, controller, treasurer or chief accounting officer, (ii) “named executive officers” identified in the corporation’s SEC filings, and (iii) individuals who have agreed to be identified as officers of the corporation.

Corporate exculpation provisions under the DGCL only apply to claims for breach of the duty of care, and not to breaches of the duty of loyalty. Exculpation provisions also do not apply to acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct, knowing violations of the law, or transactions involving the receipt of any improper personal benefits. Furthermore, officers may not be exculpated from claims brought against them by, or in the right of, the corporation (i.e., derivative actions).

Reincorporation

In general, Glass Lewis believes that the board is in the best position to determine the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for the company. When examining a management proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country, we review the relevant financial benefits, generally related to improved corporate tax treatment, as well as changes in corporate governance provisions, especially those relating to shareholder rights, resulting from the change in domicile. Where the financial benefits are de minimis and there is a decrease in shareholder rights, we will recommend voting against the transaction.

However, costly, shareholder-initiated reincorporations are typically not the best route to achieve the furtherance of shareholder rights. We believe shareholders are generally better served by proposing specific shareholder resolutions addressing pertinent issues which may be implemented at a lower cost, and perhaps even with board approval. However, when shareholders propose a shift into a jurisdiction with enhanced shareholder rights, Glass Lewis examines the significant ways would the company benefit from shifting jurisdictions including the following:

•Is the board sufficiently independent?

•Does the company have anti-takeover protections such as a poison pill or classified board in place?

•Has the board been previously unresponsive to shareholders (such as failing to implement a shareholder proposal that received majority shareholder support)?

•Do shareholders have the right to call special meetings of shareholders?

•Are there other material governance issues of concern at the company?

•Has the company’s performance matched or exceeded its peers in the past one and three years?

•How has the company ranked in Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance analysis during the last three years?

•Does the company have an independent chair?


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						72

We note, however, that we will only support shareholder proposals to change a company’s place of incorporation in exceptional circumstances.

Exclusive Forum and Fee-Shifting Bylaw Provisions

Glass Lewis recognizes that companies may be subject to frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits, particularly in conjunction with a merger or acquisition, that are expensive and distracting. In response, companies have sought ways to prevent or limit the risk of such suits by adopting bylaws regarding where the suits must be brought or shifting the burden of the legal expenses to the plaintiff, if unsuccessful at trial.

Glass Lewis believes that charter or bylaw provisions limiting a shareholder’s choice of legal venue are not in the best interests of shareholders. Such clauses may effectively discourage the use of shareholder claims by increasing their associated costs and making them more difficult to pursue. As such, shareholders should be wary about approving any limitation on their legal recourse including limiting themselves to a single jurisdiction (e.g., Delaware or federal courts for matters arising under the Securities Act of 1933) without compelling evidence that it will benefit shareholders.

For this reason, we recommend that shareholders vote against any bylaw or charter amendment seeking to adopt an exclusive forum provision unless the company: (i) provides a compelling argument on why the provision would directly benefit shareholders; (ii) provides evidence of abuse of legal process in other, non- favored jurisdictions; (iii) narrowly tailors such provision to the risks involved; and (iv) maintains a strong record of good corporate governance practices.

Moreover, in the event a board seeks shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal, we will weigh the importance of the other bundled provisions when determining the vote recommendation on the proposal. We will nonetheless recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee for bundling disparate proposals into a single proposal (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines).

Similarly, some companies have adopted bylaws requiring plaintiffs who sue the company and fail to receive a judgment in their favor pay the legal expenses of the company. These bylaws, also known as “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws, will likely have a chilling effect on even meritorious shareholder lawsuits as shareholders would face an strong financial disincentive not to sue a company. Glass Lewis therefore strongly opposes the adoption of such fee-shifting bylaws and, if adopted without shareholder approval, will recommend voting against the governance committee. While we note that in June of 2015 the State of Delaware banned the adoption of fee-shifting bylaws, such provisions could still be adopted by companies incorporated in other states.

Authorized Shares

Glass Lewis believes that adequate capital stock is important to a company’s operation. When analyzing a request for additional shares, we typically review four common reasons why a company might need additional capital stock:


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						73

1.Stock Split — We typically consider three metrics when evaluating whether we think a stock split is likely or necessary: The historical stock pre-split price, if any; the current price relative to the company’s most common trading price over the past 52 weeks; and some absolute limits on stock price that, in our view, either always make a stock split appropriate if desired by management or would almost never be a reasonable price at which to split a stock.

2.Shareholder Defenses — Additional authorized shares could be used to bolster takeover defenses such as a poison pill. Proxy filings often discuss the usefulness of additional shares in defending against or discouraging a hostile takeover as a reason for a requested increase. Glass Lewis is typically against such defenses and will oppose actions intended to bolster such defenses.

3.Financing for Acquisitions — We look at whether the company has a history of using stock for acquisitions and attempt to determine what levels of stock have typically been required to accomplish such transactions. Likewise, we look to see whether this is discussed as a reason for additional shares in the proxy.

4.Financing for Operations — We review the company’s cash position and its ability to secure financing through borrowing or other means. We look at the company’s history of capitalization and whether the company has had to use stock in the recent past as a means of raising capital.

Issuing additional shares generally dilutes existing holders in most circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not detailed a plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares far exceeds those needed to accomplish a detailed plan, we typically recommend against the authorization of additional shares. Similar concerns may also lead us to recommend against a proposal to conduct a reverse stock split if the board does not state that it will reduce the number of authorized common shares in a ratio proportionate to the split.

With regard to authorizations and/or increases in preferred shares, Glass Lewis is generally against such authorizations, which allow the board to determine the preferences, limitations and rights of the preferred shares (known as “blank-check preferred stock”). We believe that granting such broad discretion should be of concern to common shareholders, since blank-check preferred stock could be used as an anti-takeover device or in some other fashion that adversely affects the voting power or financial interests of common shareholders.

Therefore, we will generally recommend voting against such requests, unless the company discloses a commitment to not use such shares as an anti-takeover defense or in a shareholder rights plan, or discloses a commitment to submit any shareholder rights plan to a shareholder vote prior to its adoption.

While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of a large pool of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

Advance Notice Requirements

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against proposals that would require advance notice of shareholder proposals or of director nominees.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						74

These proposals typically attempt to require a certain amount of notice before shareholders are allowed to place proposals on the ballot. Notice requirements typically range between three to six months prior to the annual meeting. Advance notice requirements typically make it impossible for a shareholder who misses the deadline to present a shareholder proposal or a director nominee that might be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

We believe shareholders should be able to review and vote on all proposals and director nominees. Shareholders can always vote against proposals that appear with little prior notice. Shareholders, as owners of a business, are capable of identifying issues on which they have sufficient information and ignoring issues on which they have insufficient information. Setting arbitrary notice restrictions limits the opportunity for shareholders to raise issues that may come up after the window closes.

Virtual Shareholder Meetings

A growing contingent of companies have elected to hold shareholder meetings by virtual means only. Glass Lewis believes that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a “hybrid meeting”). However, we also believe that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management.

Prominent shareholder rights advocates, including the Council of Institutional Investors, have expressed concerns that such virtual-only meetings do not approximate an in-person experience and may serve to reduce the board’s accountability to shareholders. When analyzing the governance profile of companies that choose to hold virtual-only meetings, we look for robust disclosure in a company’s proxy statement which assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in- person meeting.

Examples of effective disclosure include: (i) addressing the ability of shareholders to ask questions during the meeting, including time guidelines for shareholder questions, rules around what types of questions are allowed, and rules for how questions and comments will be recognized and disclosed to meeting participants; (ii) procedures, if any, for posting appropriate questions received during the meeting and the company’s answers, on the investor page of their website as soon as is practical after the meeting; (iii) addressing technical and logistical issues related to accessing the virtual meeting platform; and (iv) procedures for accessing technical support to assist in the event of any difficulties accessing the virtual meeting.

We will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide such disclosure.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						75

Voting Structure

Multi-Class Share Structures

Glass Lewis believes multi-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders. Allowing one vote per share generally operates as a safeguard for common shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares are able to weigh in on issues set forth by the board.

Furthermore, we believe that the economic stake of each shareholder should match their voting power and that no small group of shareholders, family or otherwise, should have voting rights different from those of other shareholders. On matters of governance and shareholder rights, we believe shareholders should have the power to speak and the opportunity to effect change. That power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few for reasons other than economic stake.

We generally consider a multi-class share structure to reflect negatively on a company’s overall corporate governance. Because we believe that companies should have share capital structures that protect the interests of non-controlling shareholders as well as any controlling entity, we typically recommend that shareholders vote in favor of recapitalization proposals to eliminate dual-class share structures. Similarly, we will generally recommend against proposals to adopt a new class of common stock. We will generally recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee at companies with a multi-class share structure and unequal voting rights when the company does not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class share structure (generally seven years or less).

In the case of a board that adopts a multi-class share structure in connection with an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the IPO if the board: (i) did not also commit to submitting the multi-class structure to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class structure (generally seven years or less). If the multi-class share structure is put to a shareholder vote, we will examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining the vote outcome.

At companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. In the case of companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns.

Cumulative Voting

Cumulative voting increases the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director by allowing shareholders to cast as many shares of the stock they own multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. As companies


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						76

generally have multiple nominees up for election, cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee, or a smaller number of nominees than up for election, thereby raising the likelihood of electing one or more of their preferred nominees to the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

Glass Lewis believes that cumulative voting generally acts as a safeguard for shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares can elect a candidate of their choosing to the board. This allows the creation of boards that are responsive to the interests of all shareholders rather than just a small group of large holders.

We review cumulative voting proposals on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the independence of the board and the status of the company’s governance structure. But we typically find these proposals on ballots at companies where independence is lacking and where the appropriate checks and balances favoring shareholders are not in place. In those instances we typically recommend in favor of cumulative voting.

Where a company has adopted a true majority vote standard (i.e., where a director must receive a majority of votes cast to be elected, as opposed to a modified policy indicated by a resignation policy only), Glass Lewis will recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals due to the incompatibility of the two election methods. For companies that have not adopted a true majority voting standard but have adopted some form of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted anti-takeover protections and has been responsive to shareholders.

Where a company has not adopted a majority voting standard and is facing both a shareholder proposal to adopt majority voting and a shareholder proposal to adopt cumulative voting, Glass Lewis will support only the majority voting proposal. When a company has both majority voting and cumulative voting in place, there is a higher likelihood of one or more directors not being elected as a result of not receiving a majority vote. This is because shareholders exercising the right to cumulate their votes could unintentionally cause the failed election of one or more directors for whom shareholders do not cumulate votes.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Glass Lewis believes that supermajority vote requirements impede shareholder action on ballot items critical to shareholder interests. An example is in the takeover context, where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit the voice of shareholders in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business. This in turn degrades share value and can limit the possibility of buyout premiums to shareholders. Moreover, we believe that a supermajority vote requirement can enable a small group of shareholders to overrule the will of the majority shareholders. We believe that a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.

Transaction of Other Business

We typically recommend that shareholders not give their proxy to management to vote on any other business items that may properly come before an annual or special meeting. In our opinion, granting unfettered discretion is unwise.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						77

Anti-Greenmail Proposals

Glass Lewis will support proposals to adopt a provision preventing the payment of greenmail, which would serve to prevent companies from buying back company stock at significant premiums from a certain shareholder.

Since a large or majority shareholder could attempt to compel a board into purchasing its shares at a large premium, the anti-greenmail provision would generally require that a majority of shareholders other than the majority shareholder approve the buyback.

Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements

Glass Lewis believes that decisions about a fund’s structure and/or a fund’s relationship with its investment advisor or sub-advisors are generally best left to management and the members of the board, absent a showing of egregious or illegal conduct that might threaten shareholder value. As such, we focus our analyses of such proposals on the following main areas:

•The terms of any amended advisory or sub-advisory agreement;

•Any changes in the fee structure paid to the investment advisor; and

•Any material changes to the fund’s investment objective or strategy.

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement or fund reorganization. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally purchased, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

Real Estate Investment Trusts

The complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) provide for a unique shareholder evaluation. In simple terms, a REIT must have a minimum of 100 shareholders (the 100 Shareholder Test) and no more than 50% of the value of its shares can be held by five or fewer individuals (the “5/50 Test”). At least 75% of a REITs’ assets must be in real estate, it must derive 75% of its gross income from rents or mortgage interest, and it must pay out 90% of its taxable earnings as dividends. In


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						78

addition, as a publicly traded security listed on a stock exchange, a REIT must comply with the same general listing requirements as a publicly traded equity.

In order to comply with such requirements, REITs typically include percentage ownership limitations in their organizational documents, usually in the range of 5% to 10% of the REITs outstanding shares. Given the complexities of REITs as an asset class, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach in our evaluation of REIT proposals, especially regarding changes in authorized share capital, including preferred stock.

Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs

Glass Lewis is generally against the authorization of "blank-check preferred stock." However, given the requirement that a REIT must distribute 90% of its net income annually, it is inhibited from retaining capital to make investments in its business. As such, we recognize that equity financing likely plays a key role in a REIT’s growth and creation of shareholder value. Moreover, shareholder concern regarding the use of preferred stock as an anti-takeover mechanism may be allayed by the fact that most REITs maintain ownership limitations in their certificates of incorporation. For these reasons, along with the fact that REITs typically do not engage in private placements of preferred stock (which result in the rights of common shareholders being adversely impacted), we may support requests to authorize shares of blank-check preferred stock at REITs.

Business Development Companies

Business Development Companies (BDCs) were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980; they are regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are taxed as regulated investment companies (RICs) under the Internal Revenue Code. BDCs typically operate as publicly traded private equity firms that invest in early stage to mature private companies as well as small public companies. BDCs realize operating income when their investments are sold off, and therefore maintain complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements that are similar to those of REITs—the most evident of which is that BDCs must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings as dividends.

Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price Below Net Asset Value

Considering that BDCs are required to distribute nearly all their earnings to shareholders, they sometimes need

to offer additional shares of common stock in the public markets to finance operations and acquisitions. However, shareholder approval is required in order for a BDC to sell shares of common stock at a price below Net Asset Value (NAV). Glass Lewis evaluates these proposals using a case-by-case approach, but will recommend supporting such requests if the following conditions are met:

•The authorization to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date of one year or less from the date that shareholders approve the underlying proposal (i.e. the meeting date);

•The proposed discount below NAV is minimal (ideally no greater than 20%);

•The board specifies that the issuance will have a minimal or modest dilutive effect (ideally no greater than 25% of the company’s then-outstanding common stock prior to the issuance); and

•A majority of the company’s independent directors who do not have a financial interest in the issuance approve the sale.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						79

In short, we believe BDCs should demonstrate a responsible approach to issuing shares below NAV, by proactively addressing shareholder concerns regarding the potential dilution of the requested share issuance, and explaining if and how the company’s past below-NAV share issuances have benefitted the company.

Auditor Ratification and Below-NAV Issuances

When a BDC submits a below-NAV issuance for shareholder approval, we will refrain from recommending against the audit committee chair for not including auditor ratification on the same ballot. Because of the unique way these proposals interact, votes may be tabulated in a manner that is not in shareholders’ interests. In cases where these proposals appear on the same ballot, auditor ratification is generally the only “routine proposal,” the presence of which triggers a scenario where broker non-votes may be counted toward shareholder quorum, with unintended consequences.

Under the 1940 Act, below-NAV issuance proposals require relatively high shareholder approval. Specifically, these proposals must be approved by the lesser of: (i) 67% of votes cast if a majority of shares are represented at the meeting; or (ii) a majority of outstanding shares. Meanwhile, any broker non-votes counted toward quorum will automatically be registered as “against” votes for purposes of this proposal. The unintended result can be a case where the issuance proposal is not approved, despite sufficient voting shares being cast in favor. Because broker non-votes result from a lack of voting instruction by the shareholder, we do not believe shareholders’ ability to weigh in on the selection of auditor outweighs the consequences of failing to approve an issuance proposal due to such technicality.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), also known as “blank check companies,” are publicly traded entities with no commercial operations and are formed specifically to pool funds in order to complete a merger or acquisition within a set time frame. In general, the acquisition target of a SPAC is either not yet identified or otherwise not explicitly disclosed to the public even when the founders of the SPAC may have at least one target in mind. Consequently, IPO investors often do not know what company they will ultimately be investing in.

SPACs are therefore very different from typical operating companies. Shareholders do not have the same expectations associated with an ordinary publicly traded company and executive officers of a SPAC typically do not continue in employment roles with an acquired company.

Extension of Business Combination Deadline

Governing documents of SPACs typically provide for the return of IPO proceeds to common shareholders if no qualifying business combination is consummated before a certain date. Because the time frames for the consummation of such transactions are relatively short, SPACs will sometimes hold special shareholder meetings at which shareholders are asked to extend the business combination deadline. In such cases, an acquisition target will typically have been identified, but additional time is required to allow management of the SPAC to finalize the terms of the deal.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						80

Glass Lewis believes management and the board are generally in the best position to determine when the extension of a business combination deadline is needed. We therefore generally defer to the recommendation of management and support reasonable extension requests.

SPAC Board Independence

The board of directors of a SPAC’s acquisition target is in many cases already established prior to the business combination. In some cases, however, the board’s composition may change in connection with the business combination, including the potential addition of individuals who served in management roles with the SPAC. The role of a SPAC executive is unlike that of a typical operating company executive. Because the SPAC’s only business is identifying and executing an acquisition deal, the interests of a former SPAC executive are also different. Glass Lewis does not automatically consider a former SPAC executive to be affiliated with the acquired operating entity when their only position on the board of the combined entity is that of an otherwise independent director. Absent any evidence of an employment relationship or continuing material financial interest in the combined entity, we will therefore consider such directors to be independent.

Director Commitments of SPAC Executives

We believe the primary role of executive officers at SPACs is identifying acquisition targets for the SPAC and consummating a business combination. Given the nature of these executive roles and the limited business operations of SPACs, when a directors’ only executive role is at a SPAC, we will generally apply our higher limit for company directorships. As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves in an executive role only at a SPAC while serving on more than five public company boards.

Shareholder Proposals

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should seek to promote governance structures that protect shareholders, support effective ESG oversight and reporting, and encourage director accountability. Accordingly, Glass Lewis places a significant emphasis on promoting transparency, robust governance structures and companies’ responsiveness to and engagement with shareholders. We also believe that companies should be transparent on how they are mitigating material ESG risks, including those related to climate change, human capital management, and stakeholder relations.

To that end, we evaluate all shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis with a view to promoting long-term shareholder value. While we are generally supportive of those that promote board accountability, shareholder rights, and transparency, we consider all proposals in the context of a company’s unique operations and risk profile.

For a detailed review of our policies concerning compensation, environmental, social, and governance shareholder proposals, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						81

Overall Approach to Environmental,

Social & Governance Issues

Glass Lewis evaluates all environmental and social issues through the lens of long-term shareholder value. We believe that companies should be considering material environmental and social factors in all aspects of their operations and that companies should provide shareholders with disclosures that allow them to understand how these factors are being considered and how attendant risks are being mitigated. We also are of the view that governance is a critical factor in how companies manage environmental and social risks and opportunities and that a well-governed company will be generally managing these issues better than one without a governance structure that promotes board independence and accountability.

We believe part of the board’s role is to ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have material environmental and social implications. We believe that directors should monitor management’s performance in both capitalizing on environmental and social opportunities and mitigating environmental and social risks related to operations in order to best serve the interests of shareholders. Companies face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight thereof. Therefore, in cases where the board or management has neglected to take action on a pressing issue that could negatively impact shareholder value, we believe that shareholders should take necessary action in order to effect changes that will safeguard their financial interests.

Given the importance of the role of the board in executing a sustainable business strategy that allows for the realization of environmental and social opportunities and the mitigation of related risks, relating to environmental risks and opportunities, we believe shareholders should seek to promote governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability. When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental or social risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental and social risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should consider holding directors accountable. In such instances, we will generally recommend against responsible members of the board that are specifically charged with oversight of the issue in question.

When evaluating environmental and social factors that may be relevant to a given company, Glass Lewis does so in the context of the financial materiality of the issue to the company’s operations. We believe that all companies face risks associated with environmental and social issues. However, we recognize that these risks manifest themselves differently at each company as a result of a company’s operations, workforce, structure, and geography, among other factors. Accordingly, we place a significant emphasis on the financial implications of a company’s actions with regard to impacts on its stakeholders and the environment.

When evaluating environmental and social issues, Glass Lewis examines companies’:

Direct environmental and social risk — Companies should evaluate financial exposure to direct environmental risks associated with their operations. Examples of direct environmental risks include those associated with oil or gas spills, contamination, hazardous leakages, explosions, or reduced water or air quality, among others. Social risks may include non-inclusive employment policies, inadequate human rights policies, or issues that


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						82

adversely affect the company’s stakeholders. Further, we believe that firms should consider their exposure to risks emanating from a broad range of issues, over which they may have no or only limited control, such as insurance companies being affected by increased storm severity and frequency resulting from climate change or membership in trade associations with controversial political ties.

Risk due to legislation and regulation — Companies should evaluate their exposure to changes or potential changes in regulation that affect current and planned operations. Regulation should be carefully monitored in all jurisdictions in which the company operates. We look closely at relevant and proposed legislation and evaluate whether the company has responded proactively.

Legal and reputational risk — Failure to take action on important environmental or social issues may carry the risk of inciting negative publicity and potentially costly litigation. While the effect of high-profile campaigns on shareholder value may not be directly measurable, we believe it is prudent for companies to carefully evaluate the potential impacts of the public perception of their impacts on stakeholders and the environment. When considering investigations and lawsuits, Glass Lewis is mindful that such matters may involve unadjudicated allegations or other charges that have not been resolved. Glass Lewis does not assume the truth of such allegations or charges or that the law has been violated. Instead, Glass Lewis focuses more broadly on whether, under the particular facts and circumstances presented, the nature and number of such concerns, lawsuits or investigations reflects on the risk profile of the company or suggests that appropriate risk mitigation measures may be warranted.

Governance risk — Inadequate oversight of environmental and social issues carries significant risks to companies. When leadership is ineffective or fails to thoroughly consider potential risks, such risks are likely unmitigated and could thus present substantial risks to the company, ultimately leading to loss of shareholder value.

Glass Lewis believes that one of the most crucial factors in analyzing the risks presented to companies in the form of environmental and social issues is the level and quality of oversight over such issues. When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should consider holding directors accountable. When companies have not provided for explicit, board-level oversight of environmental and social matters and/or when a substantial environmental or social risk has been ignored or inadequately addressed, we may recommend voting against members of the board. In addition, or alternatively, depending on the proposals presented, we may also consider recommending voting in favor of relevant shareholder proposals or against other relevant management-proposed items, such as the ratification of auditor, a company’s accounts and reports, or ratification of management and board acts.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						83

Connect with Glass Lewis

Corporate Website | www.glasslewis.com

Email | info@glasslewis.com

Social

@glasslewis

Glass, Lewis & Co.

Global Locations


North America	United States Headquarters 255 California Street	Asia Pacific	Australia CGI Glass Lewis Suite 5.03, Level 5
	Suite 1100		255 George Street
	San Francisco, CA 94111		Sydney NSW 2000
	+1 415 678 4110		+61 2 9299 9266
	+1 888 800 7001
			Japan
	New York, NY 10005		Shinjuku Mitsui Building
	+1 646 606 2345		11th floor
			2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku,
	2323 Grand Boulevard		Shinjuku-ku,
	Suite 1125		Tokyo 163-0411, Japan
	Kansas City, MO 64108
	+1 816 945 4525

Europe	Ireland 15 Henry Street
	Limerick V94 V9T4
	+353 61 292 800

	United Kingdom
	80 Coleman Street
	Suite 4.02
	London EC2R 5BJ
	+44 20 7653 8800

	Germany
	IVOX Glass Lewis
	Kaiserallee 23a
	76133 Karlsruhe
	+49 721 35 49 622


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						84

DISCLAIMER

This document is intended to provide an overview of Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines. It is not intended to be exhaustive and does not address all potential voting issues. Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines, as they apply to certain issues or types of proposals, are further explained in supplemental guidelines and reports that are made available on Glass Lewis’ website – http://www.glasslewis.com. These guidelines have not been set or approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. Additionally, none of the information contained herein is or should be relied upon as investment advice. The content of this document has been developed based on Glass Lewis’ experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues, engagement with clients and issuers, and review of relevant studies and surveys, and has not been tailored to any specific person or entity.

Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines are grounded in corporate governance best practices, which often exceed minimum legal requirements. Accordingly, unless specifically noted otherwise, a failure to meet these guidelines should not be understood to mean that the company or individual involved has failed to meet applicable legal requirements.

No representations or warranties express or implied, are made as to the accuracy or completeness of any information included herein. In addition, Glass Lewis shall not be liable for any losses or damages arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use, reliance on, or inability to use any such information. Glass Lewis expects its subscribers possess sufficient experience and knowledge to make their own decisions entirely independent of any information contained in this document.

All information contained in this report is protected by law, including, but not limited to, copyright law, and none of such information may be copied or otherwise reproduced, repackaged, further transmitted, transferred, disseminated, redistributed or resold, or stored for subsequent use for any such purpose, in whole or in part, in any form or manner, or by any means whatsoever, by any person without Glass Lewis’ prior written consent.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States						85