Policy Statement | General Proxy Voting Guidelines | Administration of Policy | Appendix A | Appendix B

I. POLICY STATEMENT

Introduction
Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s (“MSIM”) policy and procedures for voting proxies (“Policy”) with respect to securities held in the accounts of clients applies to those MSIM entities that provide discretionary investment management services and for which an MSIM entity has authority to vote proxies. This Policy is reviewed and updated as necessary to address new and evolving proxy voting issues and standards.

The MSIM entities covered by this Policy currently include the following: Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company, Morgan Stanley Asset & Investment Trust Management Co., Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited, Van Kampen Asset Management, and Van Kampen Advisors Inc. (each an “MSIM Affiliate” and collectively referred to as the “MSIM Affiliates” or as “we” below).

Each MSIM Affiliate will use its best efforts to vote proxies as part of its authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets. With respect to the MSIM registered management investment companies (Van Kampen, Institutional and Advisor Funds--collectively referred to herein as the “MSIM Funds”), each MSIM Affiliate will vote proxies under this Policy pursuant to authority granted under its applicable investment advisory agreement or, in the absence of such authority, as authorized by the Board of Directors/Trustees of the MSIM Funds. An MSIM Affiliate will not vote proxies if the “named fiduciary” for an ERISA account has reserved the authority for itself, or in the case of an account not governed by ERISA, the investment management or investment advisory agreement does not authorize the MSIM Affiliate to vote proxies. MSIM Affiliates will vote proxies in a prudent and diligent manner and in the best interests of clients, including beneficiaries of and participants in a client’s benefit plan(s) for which the MSIM Affiliates manage assets, consistent with the objective of maximizing long-term investment returns (“Client Proxy Standard”). In certain situations, a client or its fiduciary may provide an MSIM Affiliate with a proxy voting policy. In these situations, the MSIM Affiliate will comply with the client’s policy.

Proxy Research Services
RiskMetrics Group ISS Governance Services (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis (together with other proxy research providers as we may retain from time to time, the “Research Providers”) are independent advisers that specialize in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy-related services to institutional investment managers, plan sponsors, custodians, consultants, and other institutional investors. The services provided include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations. While we may review and utilize the recommendations of the Research Providers in making proxy voting decisions, we are in no way obligated to follow such recommendations. In addition to research, ISS provides vote execution, reporting, and recordkeeping.  

Voting Proxies for Certain Non-U.S. Companies
Voting proxies of companies located in some jurisdictions, particularly emerging markets, may involve several problems that can restrict or prevent the ability to vote such proxies or entail significant costs. These problems include, but are not limited to: (i) proxy statements and ballots being written in a language other than English; (ii) untimely and/or inadequate notice of shareholder meetings; (iii) restrictions on the ability of holders outside the issuer’s jurisdiction of organization to exercise votes; (iv) requirements to vote proxies in person; (v) the imposition of restrictions on the sale of the securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with power of attorney to facilitate our voting instructions. As a result, we vote clients’ non-U.S. proxies on a best efforts basis only, after weighing the costs and benefits of voting such proxies, consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. ISS has been retained to provide assistance in connection with voting non U.S. proxies.

 

II. GENERAL PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

To promote consistency in voting proxies on behalf of its clients, we follow this Policy (subject to any exception set forth herein), including the guidelines set forth below. These guidelines address a broad range of issues, and provide general voting parameters on proposals that arise most frequently. However, details of specific proposals vary, and those details affect particular voting decisions, as do factors specific to a given company. Pursuant to the procedures set forth herein, we may vote in a manner that is not in accordance with the following general guidelines, provided the vote is approved by the Proxy Review Committee (see Section III for description) and is consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP will follow the procedures as described in Appendix A.

We endeavor to integrate governance and proxy voting policy with investment goals and to follow the Client Proxy Standard for each client. At times, this may result in split votes, for example when different clients have varying economic interests in the outcome of a particular voting matter (such as a case in which varied ownership interests in two companies involved in a merger result in different stakes in the outcome). We also may split votes at times based on differing views of portfolio managers, but such a split vote must be approved by the Proxy Review Committee.

We may abstain on matters for which disclosure is inadequate.

A. Routine Matters
We generally support routine management proposals. The following are examples of routine management proposals:

• Approval of financial statements and auditor reports.

• General updating/corrective amendments to the charter, articles of association or bylaws.

• Most proposals related to the conduct of the annual meeting, with the following exceptions. We generally oppose proposals that relate to “the transaction of such other business which may come before the meeting,” and open-ended requests for adjournment. However, where management specifically states the reason for requesting an adjournment and the requested adjournment would facilitate passage of a proposal that would otherwise be supported under this Policy (i.e. an uncontested corporate transaction), the adjournment request will be supported.

B. Board of Directors

1. Election of Directors: In the absence of a proxy contest, we generally support the board’s nominees for director except as follows:

   • We consider withholding support from or voting against interested directors if the company’s board does not meet market standards for director independence, or if otherwise we believe board independence is insufficient. We refer to prevalent market standards as promulgated by a stock exchange or other authority within a given market (e.g., New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq rules for most U.S. companies, and The Combined Code on Corporate Governance in the United Kingdom). Thus, for an NYSE company with no controlling shareholder, we would expect that at a minimum a majority of directors should be independent as defined by NYSE. Where we view market standards as inadequate, we may withhold votes based on stronger independence standards. Market standards notwithstanding, we generally do not view long board tenure alone as a basis to classify a director as non-independent, although lack of board turnover and fresh perspective can be a negative factor in voting on directors.

     • At a company with a shareholder or group that controls the company by virtue of a majority economic interest in the company, we have a reduced expectation for board independence, although we believe the presence of independent directors can be helpful, particularly in staffing the audit committee, and at times we may withhold support from or vote against a nominee on the view the board or its committees are not sufficiently independent.

     • We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if he or she is affiliated with a major shareholder that has representation on a board disproportionate to its economic interest.

   • Depending on market standards, we consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who is interested and who is standing for election as a member of the company’s compensation, nominating or audit committee.

   • We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if we believe a direct conflict exists between the interests of the nominee and the public shareholders, including failure to meet fiduciary standards of care and/or loyalty. We may oppose directors where we conclude that actions of directors are unlawful, unethical or negligent. We consider opposing individual board members or an entire slate if we believe the board is entrenched and/or dealing inadequately with performance problems, and/or acting with insufficient independence between the board and management.

   • We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee standing for election if the board has not taken action to implement generally accepted governance practices for which there is a “bright line” test. For example, in the context of the U.S. market, failure to eliminate a dead hand or slow hand poison pills would be seen as a basis for opposing one or more incumbent nominees.

   • In markets that encourage designated audit committee financial experts, we consider voting against members of an audit committee if no members are designated as such.

   • We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who has failed to attend at least 75% of board meetings within a given year without a reasonable excuse.

   • We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who serves on the board of directors of more than six companies (excluding investment companies). We also consider voting against a director who otherwise appears to have too many commitments to serve adequately on the board of the company.

2. Board independence: We generally support U.S. shareholder proposals requiring that a certain percentage (up to 66 ⅔%) of the company’s board members be independent directors, and promoting all independent audit, compensation and nominating/governance committees.

3. Board diversity:  We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals urging diversity of board membership with respect to social, religious or ethnic group.

4. Majority voting:  We generally support proposals requesting or requiring majority voting policies in election of directors, so long as there is a carve-out for plurality voting in the case of contested elections.

5. Proxy access:  We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to provide procedures for inclusion of shareholder nominees in company proxy statements.

6. Proposals to elect all directors annually:  We generally support proposals to elect all directors annually at public companies (to “declassify” the Board of Directors) where such action is supported by the board, and otherwise consider the issue on a case-by-case basis based in part on overall takeover defenses at a company.

7. Cumulative voting:  We generally support proposals to eliminate cumulative voting in the U.S. market context. (Cumulative voting provides that shareholders may concentrate their votes for one or a handful of candidates, a system that can enable a minority bloc to place representation on a board). U.S. proposals to establish cumulative voting in the election of directors generally will not be supported.

8. Separation of Chairman and CEO positions:  We vote on shareholder proposals to separate the Chairman and CEO positions and/or to appoint a non-executive Chairman based in part on prevailing practice in particular markets, since the context for such a practice varies. In many non-U.S. markets, we view separation of the roles as a market standard practice, and support division of the roles in that context.

9. Director retirement age:  Proposals recommending set director retirement ages or director term limits are voted on a case-by-case basis.

10. Proposals to limit directors' liability and/or broaden indemnification of directors:  Generally, we will support such proposals provided that the officers and directors are eligible for indemnification and liability protection if they have acted in good faith on company business and were found innocent of any civil or criminal charges for duties performed on behalf of the company.

C. Corporate transactions and proxy fights
We examine proposals relating to mergers, acquisitions and other special corporate transactions (i.e., takeovers, spin offs, sales of assets, reorganizations, restructurings and recapitalizations) on a case-by-case basis. However, proposals for mergers or other significant transactions that are friendly and approved by the Research Providers generally will be supported and in those instances will not need to be reviewed by the Proxy Review Committee, where there is no portfolio manager objection and where there is no material conflict of interest. We also analyze proxy contests on a case-by-case basis.

D. Changes in legal and capital structure 

1. We generally support the following:

   • Management and shareholder proposals aimed at eliminating unequal voting rights, assuming fair economic treatment of classes of shares we hold.

   • Management proposals to increase the authorization of existing classes of common stock (or securities convertible into common stock) if: (i) a clear business purpose is stated that we can support and the number of shares requested is reasonable in relation to the purpose for which authorization is requested; and/or (ii) the authorization does not exceed 100% of shares currently authorized and at least 30% of the total new authorization will be outstanding.

   • Management proposals to create a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of preferred stock up to 50% of issued capital, unless we have concerns about use of the authority for anti-takeover purposes.

   • Management proposals to authorize share repurchase plans, except in some cases in which we believe there are insufficient protections against use of an authorization for anti-takeover purposes.

   • Management proposals to reduce the number of authorized shares of common or preferred stock, or to eliminate classes of preferred stock.

   • Management proposals to effect stock splits.

   • Management proposals to effect reverse stock splits if management proportionately reduces the authorized share amount set forth in the corporate charter. Reverse stock splits that do not adjust proportionately to the authorized share amount generally will be approved if the resulting increase in authorized shares coincides with the proxy guidelines set forth above for common stock increases.

   • Management proposals for higher dividend payouts.

2. We generally oppose the following (notwithstanding management support):

   • Proposals to add classes of stock that would substantially dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders.

   • Proposals to increase the authorized or issued number of shares of existing classes of stock that are unreasonably dilutive, particularly if there are no preemptive rights for existing shareholders.

   • Proposals that authorize share issuance at a discount to market rates, except where authority for such issuance is de minimis, or if there is a special situation that we believe justifies such authorization (as may be the case, for example, at a company under severe stress and risk of bankruptcy).

   • Proposals relating to changes in capitalization by 100% or more.

We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to increase dividend payout ratios, in light of market practice and perceived market weaknesses, as well as individual company payout history and current circumstances. For example, currently we perceive low payouts to shareholders as a concern at some Japanese companies, but may deem a low payout ratio as appropriate for a growth company making good use of its cash, notwithstanding the broader market concern.

E. Takeover Defenses and Shareholder Rights

1. Shareholder rights plans:  We generally support proposals to require shareholder approval or ratification of shareholder rights plans (poison pills). In voting on rights plans or similar takeover defenses, we consider on a case-by-case basis whether the company has demonstrated a need for the defense in the context of promoting long-term share value; whether provisions of the defense are in line with generally accepted governance principles; and the specific context if the proposal is made in the midst of a takeover bid or contest for control.

2. Supermajority voting requirements: We generally oppose requirements for supermajority votes to amend the charter or bylaws, unless the provisions protect minority shareholders where there is a large shareholder. In line with this view, in the absence of a large shareholder we support reasonable shareholder proposals to limit such supermajority voting requirements.

3. Shareholder rights to call meetings:  We consider proposals to enhance shareholder rights to call meetings on a case-by-case basis.

4. Reincorporation:  We consider management and shareholder proposals to reincorporate to a different jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. We oppose such proposals if we believe the main purpose is to take advantage of laws or judicial precedents that reduce shareholder rights.

5. Anti-greenmail provisions:  Proposals relating to the adoption of anti-greenmail provisions will be supported, provided that the proposal: (i) defines greenmail; (ii) prohibits buyback offers to large block holders (holders of at least 1% of the outstanding shares and in certain cases, a greater amount, as determined by the Proxy Review Committee) not made to all shareholders or not approved by disinterested shareholders; and (iii) contains no anti takeover measures or other provisions restricting the rights of shareholders.

6. Bundled Proposals:  We may consider opposing or abstaining on proposals if disparate issues are “bundled” and presented for a single vote.

7. Auditors:  We generally support management proposals for selection or ratification of independent auditors. However, we may consider opposing such proposals with reference to incumbent audit firms if the company has suffered from serious accounting irregularities and we believe rotation of the audit firm is appropriate, or if fees paid to the auditor for non audit-related services are excessive. Generally, to determine if non-audit fees are excessive, a 50% test will be applied (i.e., non-audit-related fees should be less than 50% of the total fees paid to the auditor). We generally vote against proposals to indemnify auditors.

G. Executive and Director Remuneration

1. We generally support the following proposals:

   • Proposals for employee equity compensation plans and other employee ownership plans, provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be against shareholder interest. Such approval may be against shareholder interest if it authorizes excessive dilution and shareholder cost, particularly in the context of high usage (“run rate”) of equity compensation in the recent past; or if there are objectionable plan design and provisions.

   • Proposals relating to fees to outside directors, provided the amounts are not excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry, and provided that the structure is appropriate within the market context. While stock-based compensation to outside directors is positive if moderate and appropriately structured, we are wary of significant stock option awards or other performance-based awards for outside directors, as well as provisions that could result in significant forfeiture of value on a director’s decision to resign from a board (such forfeiture can undercut director independence).

   • Proposals for employee stock purchase plans that permit discounts up to 15%, but only for grants that are part of a broad-based employee plan, including all non-executive employees.

   • Proposals for the establishment of employee retirement and severance plans, provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be against shareholder interest.

2. Shareholder proposals requiring shareholder approval of all severance agreements will not be supported, but proposals that require shareholder approval for agreements in excess of three times the annual compensation (salary and bonus) generally will be supported. We generally oppose shareholder proposals that would establish arbitrary caps on pay. We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals that seek to limit Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs), but support such proposals where we consider SERPs to be excessive.

3. Shareholder proposals advocating stronger and/or particular pay-for-performance models will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of the merits of the individual proposal within the context of the particular company and its labor markets, and the company’s current and past practices. While we generally support emphasis on long-term components of senior executive pay and strong linkage of pay to performance, we consider whether a proposal may be overly prescriptive, and the impact of the proposal, if implemented as written, on recruitment and retention.

4. We consider shareholder proposals for U.K.-style advisory votes on pay on a case-by-case basis.

5. We generally support proposals advocating reasonable senior executive and director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements for shares gained in option exercises.

6. Management proposals effectively to re-price stock options are considered on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include the company’s reasons and justifications for a re-pricing, the company’s competitive position, whether senior executives and outside directors are excluded, potential cost to shareholders, whether the re-pricing or share exchange is on a value-for-value basis, and whether vesting requirements are extended.

H. Social, Political and Environmental Issues
We consider proposals relating to social, political and environmental issues on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they will have a financial impact on shareholder value. However, we generally vote against proposals requesting reports that are duplicative, related to matters not material to the business, or that would impose unnecessary or excessive costs. We may abstain from voting on proposals that do not have a readily determinable financial impact on shareholder value. We generally oppose proposals requiring adherence to workplace standards that are not required or customary in market(s) to which the proposals relate.

I. Fund of Funds
Certain Funds advised by an MSIM Affiliate invest only in other MSIM Funds. If an underlying fund has a shareholder meeting, in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest, such proposals will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders of the underlying fund, unless otherwise determined by the Proxy Review Committee.

 

III. ADMINISTRATION OF POLICY

The MSIM Proxy Review Committee (the “Committee”) has overall responsibility for creating and implementing the Policy, working with an MSIM staff group (the “Corporate Governance Team”). The Committee, which is appointed by MSIM’s Chief Investment Officer of Global Equities (“CIO”), consists of senior investment professionals who represent the different investment disciplines and geographic locations of the firm. Because proxy voting is an investment responsibility and impacts shareholder value, and because of their knowledge of companies and markets, portfolio managers and other members of investment staff play a key role in proxy voting, although the Committee has final authority over proxy votes.

The Committee Chairperson is the head of the Corporate Governance Team, and is responsible for identifying issues that require Committee deliberation or ratification. The Corporate Governance Team, working with advice of investment teams and the Committee, is responsible for voting on routine items and on matters that can be addressed in line with these Policy guidelines. The Corporate Governance Team has responsibility for voting case-by-case where guidelines and precedent provide adequate guidance, and to refer other case-by-case decisions to the Proxy Review Committee.

The Committee will periodically review and have the authority to amend, as necessary, the Policy and establish and direct voting positions consistent with the Client Proxy Standard.

A. Committee Procedures
The Committee will meet at least monthly to (among other matters) address any outstanding issues relating to the Policy or its implementation. The Corporate Governance Team will timely communicate to ISS MSIM’s Policy (and any amendments and/or any additional guidelines or procedures the Committee may adopt).

The Committee will meet on an ad hoc basis to (among other matters): (1) authorize “split voting” (i.e., allowing certain shares of the same issuer that are the subject of the same proxy solicitation and held by one or more MSIM portfolios to be voted differently than other shares) and/or “override voting” (i.e., voting all MSIM portfolio shares in a manner contrary to the Policy); (2) review and approve upcoming votes, as appropriate, for matters for which specific direction has been provided in this Policy; and (3) determine how to vote matters for which specific direction has not been provided in this Policy.

Members of the Committee may take into account Research Providers’ recommendations and research as well as any other relevant information they may request or receive, including portfolio manager and/or analyst research, as applicable. Generally, proxies related to securities held in accounts that are managed pursuant to quantitative, index or index-like strategies ("Index Strategies") will be voted in the same manner as those held in actively managed accounts, unless economic interests of the accounts differ. Because accounts managed using Index Strategies are passively managed accounts, research from portfolio managers and/or analysts related to securities held in these accounts may not be available. If the affected securities are held only in accounts that are managed pursuant to Index Strategies, and the proxy relates to a matter that is not described in this Policy, the Committee will consider all available information from the Research Providers, and to the extent that the holdings are significant, from the portfolio managers and/or analysts.

B. Material Conflicts of Interest
In addition to the procedures discussed above, if the Committee determines that an issue raises a material conflict of interest, the Committee will request a special committee to review, and recommend a course of action with respect to, the conflict(s) in question (“Special Committee”).

The Special Committee shall be comprised of the Chairperson of the Proxy Review Committee, the Chief Compliance Officer or his/her designee, a senior portfolio manager (if practicable, one who is a member of the Proxy Review Committee) designated by the Proxy Review Committee, and MSIM’s relevant Chief Investment Officer or his/her designee, and any other persons deemed necessary by the Chairperson. The Special Committee may request the assistance of MSIM’s General Counsel or his/her designee who will have sole discretion to cast a vote. In addition to the research provided by Research Providers, the Special Committee may request analysis from MSIM Affiliate investment professionals and outside sources to the extent it deems appropriate.

C. Identification of Material Conflicts of Interest
A potential material conflict of interest could exist in the following situations, among others:

1. The issuer soliciting the vote is a client of MSIM or an affiliate of MSIM and the vote is on a material matter affecting the issuer.

2. The proxy relates to Morgan Stanley common stock or any other security issuedby Morgan Stanley or its affiliates except if echo voting is used, as with MSIM Funds, as described herein.

3. Morgan Stanley has a material pecuniary interest in the matter submitted for avote (e.g., acting as a financial advisor to a party to a merger or acquisition for which Morgan Stanley will be paid a success fee if completed).

If the Chairperson of the Committee determines that an issue raises a potential material conflict of interest, depending on the facts and circumstances, the Chairperson will address the issue as follows:

1. If the matter relates to a topic that is discussed in this Policy, the proposal will be voted as per the Policy.

2. If the matter is not discussed in this Policy or the Policy indicates that the issue is to be decided case- by-case, the proposal will be voted in a manner consistent with the Research Providers, provided that all the Research Providers have the same recommendation, no portfolio manager objects to that vote, and the vote is consistent with MSIM’s Client Proxy Standard.

3. If the Research Providers’ recommendations differ, the Chairperson will refer the matter to the Committee to vote on the proposal. If the Committee determines that an issue raises a material conflict of interest, the Committee will request a Special Committee to review and recommend a course of action, as described above. Notwithstanding the above, the Chairperson of the Committee may request a Special Committee to review a matter at any time as he/she deems necessary to resolve a conflict.

D. Proxy Voting Reporting
 

The Committee and the Special Committee, or their designee(s), will document in writing all of their decisions and actions, which documentation will be maintained by the Committee and the Special Committee, or their designee(s), for a period of at least 6 years. To the extent these decisions relate to a security held by an MSIM Fund, the Committee and Special Committee, or their designee(s), will report their decisions to each applicable Board of Trustees/Directors of those Funds at each Board’s next regularly scheduled Board meeting. The report will contain information concerning decisions made by the Committee and Special Committee during the most recently ended calendar quarter immediately preceding the Board meeting.

The Corporate Governance Team will timely communicate to applicable portfolio managers and to ISS, decisions of the Committee and Special Committee so that, among other things, ISS will vote proxies consistent with their decisions.

MSIM will promptly provide a copy of this Policy to any client requesting it. MSIM will also, upon client request, promptly provide a report indicating how each proxy was voted with respect to securities held in that client’s account.

MSIM’s Legal Department is responsible for filing an annual Form N-PX on behalf of each MSIM Fund for which such filing is required, indicating how all proxies were voted with respect to such Fund’s holdings.

Appendix A

The following procedures apply to accounts managed by Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP (“AIP”).

Generally, AIP will follow the guidelines set forth in Section II of MSIM’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures. To the extent that such guidelines do not provide specific direction, or AIP determines that consistent with the Client Proxy Standard, the guidelines should not be followed, the Proxy Review Committee has delegated the voting authority to vote securities held by accounts managed by AIP to the Liquid Markets investment team and the Private Markets investment team of AIP. A summary of decisions made by the investment teams will be made available to the Proxy Review Committee for its information at the next scheduled meeting of the Proxy Review Committee.

In certain cases, AIP may determine to abstain from determining (or recommending) how a proxy should be voted (and therefore abstain from voting such proxy or recommending how such proxy should be voted), such as where the expected cost of giving due consideration to the proxy does not justify the potential benefits to the affected account(s) that might result from adopting or rejecting (as the case may be) the measure in question.

Waiver of Voting Rights
For regulatory reasons, AIP may either 1) invest in a class of securities of an underlying fund (the “Fund”) that does not provide for voting rights; or 2) waive 100% of its voting rights with respect to the following:

1. Any rights with respect to the removal or replacement of a director, general partner, managing member or other person acting in a similar capacity for or on behalf of the Fund (each individually a “Designated Person,” and collectively, the “Designated Persons”), which may include, but are not limited to, voting on the election or removal of a Designated Person in the event of such Designated Person’s death, disability, insolvency, bankruptcy, incapacity, or other event requiring a vote of interest holders of the Fund to remove or replace a Designated Person; and
2. Any rights in connection with a determination to renew, dissolve, liquidate, or otherwise terminate or continue the Fund, which may include, but are not limited to, voting on the renewal, dissolution, liquidation, termination or continuance of the Fund upon the occurrence of an event described in the Fund’s organizational documents; provided, however, that, if the Fund’s organizational documents require the consent of the Fund’s general partner or manager, as the case may be, for any such termination or continuation of the Fund to be effective, then AIP may exercise its voting rights with respect to such matter.

Appendix B

The following procedures apply to the portion of the Van Kampen Dynamic Credit Opportunities Fund (“VK Fund”) sub advised by Avenue Europe International Management, L.P. (“Avenue”). (The portion of the VK Fund managed solely by Van Kampen Asset Management will continue to be subject to MSIM’s Policy.)

1. Generally:  With respect to Avenue’s portion of the VK Fund, the Board of Trustees of the VK Fund will retain sole authority and responsibility for proxy voting. The Adviser’s involvement in the voting process of Avenue’s portion of the VK Fund is a purely administrative function, and serves to execute and deliver the proxy voting decisions made by the VK Fund Board in connection with the Avenue portion of the VK Fund, which may, from time to time, include related administrative tasks such as receiving proxies, following up on missing proxies, and collecting data related to proxies. As such, the Adviser shall not be deemed to have voting power or shared voting power with Avenue with respect to Avenue’s portion of the Fund.

2. Voting Guidelines:  All proxies, with respect to Avenue’s portion of the VK Fund, will be considered by the VK Fund Board or such subcommittee as the VK Fund Board may designate from time to time for determination and voting approval. The VK Board or its subcommittee will timely communicate to MSIM’s Corporate Governance Group its proxy voting decisions, so that among other things the votes will be effected consistent with the VK Board’s authority.

3. Administration:  The VK Board or its subcommittee will meet on an adhoc basis as may be required from time to time to review proxies that require its review and determination. The VK Board or its subcommittee will document in writing all of its decisions and actions which will be maintained by the VK Fund, or its designee(s), for a period of at least 6 years. If a subcommittee is designated, a summary of decisions made by such subcommittee will be made available to the full VK Board for its information at its next scheduled respective meetings.