UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSR

 

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED

MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

 

Investment Company Act file number:

811-22144

 

Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

 

7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Suite 100, Scottsdale, AZ	85258
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip code)

 

The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange

Street, Wilmington, DE 19801

(Name and address of agent for service)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 1-800-992-0180

 

Date of fiscal year end: February 28

 

Date of reporting period: February 29, 2016

 

 

Item 1.

Reports to Stockholders.

 

The following is a copy of the report transmitted to stockholders pursuant to Rule 30e-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.30e-1):

 

 

Item 2.

Code of Ethics.

 

As of the end of the period covered by this report, Registrant had adopted a code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, that applies to the Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer. There were no amendments to the Code during the period covered by the report. The Registrant did not grant any waivers, including implicit waivers, from any provisions of the Code during the period covered by this report. The code of ethics is filed herewith pursuant to Item 10(a)(1), Exhibit 99.CODE ETH.

 

Item 3.

Audit Committee Financial Expert.

 

The Board of Trustees has determined that Colleen D. Baldwin, Peter S. Drotch, Patrick W. Kenny, Joseph E. Obermeyer, and Roger B. Vincent are audit committee financial experts, as defined in Item 3 of Form N-CSR. Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Drotch, Mr. Kenny, Mr. Obermeyer and Mr. Vincent are “independent” for purposes of Item 3 of Form N-CSR.

 

Item 4.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

 

(a)

Audit Fees: The aggregate fees billed for the last fiscal period for professional services rendered by KPMG LLP (“KPMG”), the principal accountant for the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements, for services that are normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for the fiscal year was $26,600 for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2016 and $26,600 for the period ended February 28, 2015.

 

(b)

Audit-Related Fees: The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for assurance and related services by KPMG that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant’s financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of this item were $2,525 for the year ended February 29, 2016 and $2,525 for the period ended February 28, 2015.

 

(c)

Tax Fees: The aggregate fees billed in each the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by KPMG for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning were $10,883 in the year ended February 29, 2016 and $10,210 in the period ended February 28, 2015. Such services included review of excise distribution calculations (if applicable), preparation of the Fund’s federal, state and excise tax returns, tax services related to mergers and routine consulting.

 

(d)	All Other Fees: The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for products and services provided by KPMG, other than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Item were $0 for the year ended February 29, 2016 and $849 for the year ended February 28, 2015.

 

(e)(1)

Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

 

 

AUDIT AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES
PRE-APPROVAL POLICY

 

I.

Statement of Principles

 

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors or Trustees (the “Committee”) of the Voya funds (each a “Fund,” collectively, the “Funds”) set out on Exhibit A to this Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy (“Policy”) is responsible for the oversight of the work of the Funds’ independent auditors. As part of its responsibilities, the Committee must pre-approve the audit and non-audit services performed by the auditors in order to assure that the provision of these services does not impair the auditors’ independence from the Funds. The Committee has adopted, and the Board has ratified, this Policy, which sets out the procedures and conditions under which the services of the independent auditors may be pre-approved.

 

Under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules promulgated in accordance with the Act, the Funds may establish two different approaches to pre-approving audit and non-audit services. The Committee may approve services without consideration of specific case-by-case services (“general pre-approval”) or it may pre-approve specific services (“specific pre-approval”). The Committee believes that the combination of these approaches contemplated in this Policy results in an effective and efficient method for pre-approving audit and non-audit services to be performed by the Funds’ independent auditors. Under this Policy, services that are not of a type that may receive general pre-approval require specific pre-approval by the Committee. Any proposed services that exceed pre-approved cost levels or budgeted amounts will also require the Committee’s specific pre-approval.

 

For both types of approval, the Committee considers whether the subject services are consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence and that such services are compatible with maintaining the auditors independence. The Committee also considers whether a particular audit firm is in the best position to provide effective and efficient services to the Funds. Reasons that the auditors are in the best position include the auditors’ familiarity with the Funds’ business, personnel, culture, accounting systems, risk profile, and other factors, and whether the services will enhance the Funds’ ability to manage and control risk or improve audit quality. Such factors will be considered as a whole, with no one factor being determinative.

 

The appendices attached to this Policy describe the audit, audit-related, tax-related, and other services that have the Committee’s general pre-approval. For any service that has been approved through general pre-approval, the general pre-approval will remain in place for a period 12 months from the date of pre-approval, unless the Committee determines that a different period is appropriate. The Committee will annually review and pre-approve the services that may be provided by the independent auditors without specific pre-approval. The Committee will revise the list of services subject to general pre-approval as appropriate. This Policy does not serve as a delegation to Fund management of the Committee’s duty to pre-approve services performed by the Funds’ independent auditors.

 

 

II.

Audit Services

 

The annual audit services engagement terms and fees are subject to the Committee’s specific pre-approval. Audit services are those services that are normally provided by auditors in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements or those that generally only independent auditors can reasonably provide. They include the Funds’ annual financial statement audit and procedures that the independent auditors must perform in order to form an opinion on the Funds’ financial statements (e.g., information systems and procedural reviews and testing). The Committee will monitor the audit services engagement and approve any changes in terms, conditions or fees deemed by the Committee to be necessary or appropriate.

 

The Committee may grant general pre-approval to other audit services, such as statutory audits and services associated with SEC registration statements, periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or issued in connection with securities offerings.

 

The Committee has pre-approved the audit services listed on Appendix A. The Committee must specifically approve all audit services not listed on Appendix A.

 

III.

Audit-related Services

 

Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or the review of the Funds’ financial statements or are traditionally performed by the independent auditors. The Committee believes that the provision of audit-related services will not impair the independent auditors’ independence, and therefore may grant pre-approval to audit-related services. Audit-related services include accounting consultations related to accounting, financial reporting or disclosure matters not classified as “audit services;” assistance with understanding and implementing new accounting and financial reporting guidance from rulemaking authorities; agreed-upon or expanded audit procedures relating to accounting and/or billing records required to respond to or comply with financial, accounting or regulatory reporting matters; and assistance with internal control reporting requirements under Form N-SAR or Form N-CSR.

 

The Committee has pre-approved the audit-related services listed on Appendix B. The Committee must specifically approve all audit-related services not listed on Appendix B.

 

IV.

Tax Services

 

The Committee believes the independent auditors can provide tax services to the Funds, including tax compliance, tax planning, and tax advice, without compromising the auditors’ independence. Therefore, the Committee may grant general pre-approval with respect to tax services historically provided by the Funds’ independent auditors that do not, in the Committee’s view, impair auditor independence and that are consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence.

 

The Committee will not grant pre-approval if the independent auditors initially recommends a transaction the sole business purpose of which is tax avoidance and the tax treatment of which may not be supported in the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. The Committee may consult outside counsel to determine that tax planning and reporting positions are consistent with this Policy.

 

The Committee has pre-approved the tax-related services listed on Appendix C. The Committee must specifically approve all tax-related services not listed on Appendix C.

 

 

V.

Other Services

 

The Committee believes it may grant approval of non-audit services that are permissible services for independent auditors to a Fund. The Committee has determined to grant general pre-approval to other services that it believes are routine and recurring, do not impair auditor independence, and are consistent with SEC rules on auditor independence.

 

The Committee has pre-approved the non-audit services listed on Appendix D. The Committee must specifically approve all non-audit services not listed on Appendix D.

 

A list of the SEC’s prohibited non-audit services is attached to this Policy as Appendix E. The SEC’s rules and relevant guidance should be consulted to determine the precise definitions of these impermissible services and the applicability of exceptions to certain of the SEC’s prohibitions.

 

VI.

Pre-approval of Fee levels and Budgeted Amounts

 

The Committee will annually establish pre-approval fee levels or budgeted amounts for audit, audit-related, tax and non-audit services to be provided to the Funds by the independent auditors. Any proposed services exceeding these levels or amounts require the Committee’s specific pre-approval. The Committee considers fees for audit and non-audit services when deciding whether to pre-approve services. The Committee may determine, for a pre-approval period of 12 months, the appropriate ratio between the total amount of fees for the Fund’s audit, audit-related, and tax services (including fees for services provided to Fund affiliates that are subject to pre-approval), and the total amount of fees for certain permissible non-audit services for the Fund classified as other services (including any such services provided to Fund affiliates that are subject to pre-approval).

 

VII.

Procedures

 

Requests or applications for services to be provided by the independent auditors will be submitted to management. If management determines that the services do not fall within those services generally pre-approved by the Committee and set out in the appendices to these procedures, management will submit the services to the Committee or its delagee. Any such submission will include a detailed description of the services to be rendered. Notwithstanding this paragraph, the Committee will, on a quarterly basis, receive from the independent auditors a list of services provided for the previous calendar quarter on a cumulative basis by the auditors during the Pre-Approval Period.

 

 

VIII.

Delegation

 

The Committee may delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of the Committee’s members. Any member or members to whom such pre-approval authority is delegated must report any pre-approval decisions, including any pre-approved services, to the Committee at its next scheduled meeting. The Committee will identify any member to whom pre-approval authority is delegated in writing. The member will retain such authority for a period of 12 months from the date of pre-approval unless the Committee determines that a different period is appropriate. The period of delegated authority may be terminated by the Committee or at the option of the member.

 

IX.

Additional Requirements

 

The Committee will take any measures the Committee deems necessary or appropriate to oversee the work of the independent auditors and to assure the auditors’ independence from the Funds. This may include reviewing a formal written statement from the independent auditors delineating all relationships between the auditors and the Funds, consistent with Independence Standards Board No. 1, and discussing with the auditors their methods and procedures for ensuring independence.

 

Part of KPMG’s performance of an audit in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (US) includes their responsibility to maintain and monitor auditor independence with respect to the Voya funds. Using a proprietary system called Sentinel, the audit team is able to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest across the member firms of the KPMG International Network and prevent the provision of prohibited services to the Voya entities that would impair KPMG independence with the respect to the Voya funds. KPMG requests pre-approval from the Voya funds Audit Committee for services provided to the Voya funds and for services to affiliated entities that relate to the financial reporting or nature of operations of the Voya Funds. Additionally, KPMG provides an annual summary of the fees for services that have commenced for Voya funds and Affiliates.

 

Last Approved: November 19, 2015

 

 

Appendix A
Pre-Approved Audit Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016

 

Service
	The Fund(s)	Fee Range
Statutory audits or financial audits (including tax services associated with audit services)	√	As presented to Audit Committee1
Services associated with SEC registration statements, periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or other documents issued in connection with securities offerings (e.g., consents), and assistance in responding to SEC comment letters.	√	Not to exceed $9,750 per filing
Consultations by Fund management with respect to accounting or disclosure treatment of transactions or events and/or the actual or potential effect of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the SEC, Financial Accounting Standards Board, or other regulatory or standard setting bodies.	√	Not to exceed $8,000 during the Pre-Approval Period
Seed capital audit and related review and issuance of consent on the N-2 registration statement	√	Not to exceed $13,750 per audit
Audit of summary portfolio of investments	√	Not to exceed $525 per fund

 

1

For new Funds launched during the Pre-Approval Period, the fee ranges pre-approved will be the same as those for existing Funds, pro-rated in accordance with inception dates as provided in the auditors’ Proposal or any Engagement Letter covering the period at issue. Fees in the Engagement Letter will be controlling.

 

 

Appendix B
Pre-Approved Audit-Related Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016

 

Service
	The Fund(s)	Fund Affiliates	Fee Range
Services related to Fund mergers (Excludes tax services  - See Appendix C for tax services associated with Fund mergers)	√	√	Not to exceed $10,000 per merger
Consultations by Fund management with respect to accounting or disclosure treatment of transactions or events and/or the actual or potential effect of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the SEC, Financial Accounting Standards Board, or other regulatory or standard setting bodies.  [Note:  Under SEC rules some consultations may be “audit” services and others may be “audit-related” services.]	√		Not to exceed $5,000 per occurrence during the Pre-Approval Period
Review of the Funds’ semi-annual and quarterly financial statements	√		Not to exceed $2,525 per set of financial statements per fund
Reports to regulatory or government agencies related to the annual engagement	√		Up to $5,000 per occurrence during the Pre-Approval Period
Regulatory compliance assistance	√	√	Not to exceed $5,000 per quarter
Training courses		√	Not to exceed $5,000 per course
For Prime Rate Trust, agreed upon procedures for quarterly reports to rating agencies	√		Not to exceed $9,450 per quarter

 

 

Appendix C
Pre-Approved Tax Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016

 

Service
	The Fund(s)	Fund Affiliates	Fee Range
Preparation of federal and state income tax returns and federal excise tax returns for the Funds including assistance and review with excise tax distributions	√		As presented to Audit Committee2
Review of IRC Sections 851(b) and 817(h) diversification testing on a real-time basis	√		As presented to Audit Committee2
Assistance and advice regarding year-end reporting for 1099’s, as requested	√		As presented to Audit Committee2
Tax assistance and advice regarding statutory, regulatory or administrative developments	√	√	Not to exceed $5,000 for the Funds or for the Funds’ investment adviser during the Pre-Approval Period

 

2

For new Funds launched during the Pre-Approval Period, the fee ranges pre-approved will be the same as those for existing Funds, pro-rated in accordance with inception dates as provided in the auditors’ Proposal or any Engagement Letter covering the period at issue. Fees in the Engagement Letter will be controlling.

 

 

Appendix C, continued

 

Service
	The Fund(s)	Fund Affiliates	Fee Range
Tax training courses		√	Not to exceed $5,000 per course during the Pre-Approval Period
Tax services associated with Fund mergers	√	√	Not to exceed $4,000 per fund per merger during the Pre-Approval Period
Other tax-related assistance and consultation, including, without limitation, assistance in evaluating derivative financial instruments and international tax issues, qualification and distribution issues, and similar routine tax consultations.	√		Not to exceed $120,000 during the Pre-Approval Period

 

 

Appendix D
Pre-Approved Other Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016

 

Service
	The Fund(s)	Fund Affiliates	Fee Range
Agreed-upon procedures for Class B share 12b-1 programs		√	Not to exceed $60,000 during the Pre-Approval Period
Security counts performed pursuant to Rule 17f-2 of the 1940 Act (i.e., counts for Funds holding securities with affiliated sub-custodians)   Cost to be borne 50% by the Funds and 50% by Voya Investments, LLC.	√	√	Not to exceed $5,300 per Fund during the Pre-Approval Period
Agreed upon procedures for 15 (c) FACT Books	√		Not to exceed $50,000 during the Pre-Approval Period

 

 

Appendix E

 

Prohibited Non-Audit Services
Dated:      January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016

 

·

Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the Funds

 

·

Financial information systems design and implementation

 

·

Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, or contribution-in-kind reports

 

·

Actuarial services

 

·

Internal audit outsourcing services

 

·

Management functions

 

·

Human resources

 

·

Broker-dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services

 

·

Legal services

 

·

Expert services unrelated to the audit

 

·

Any other service that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board determines, by regulation, is impermissible

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

VOYA ASIA PACIFIC HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND

VOYA BALANCED PORTFOLIO, INC.

VOYA EMERGING MARKETS HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY FUND

VOYA EQUITY TRUST

VOYA FUNDS TRUST

VOYA GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND

VOYA GLOBAL EQUITY DIVIDEND AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND

VOYA INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRIALS, AND MATERIALS FUND

VOYA INTERMEDIATE BOND PORTFOLIO

VOYA INTERNATIONAL HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND

VOYA INVESTORS TRUST

VOYA MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO

VOYA MUTUAL FUNDS

VOYA PARTNERS, INC.

VOYA PRIME RATE TRUST

VOYA NATURAL RESOURCES EQUITY INCOME FUND

VOYA SENIOR INCOME FUND

VOYA SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS TRUST

VOYA SERIES FUND, INC.

VOYA STRATEGIC ALLOCATIONS PORTFOLIOS, INC.
VOYA VARIABLE FUNDS

VOYA VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST

VOYA VARIABLE PORTFOLIOS INC,

VOYA VARIABLE PRODUCTS TRUST

 

 

(e)(2)

Percentage of services referred to in 4(b) — (4)(d) that were approved by the audit committee 100% of the services were approved by the audit committee.

 

(f)	Percentage of hours expended attributable to work performed by other than full time employees of KPMG if greater than 50%. Not applicable.

 

(g)

Non-Audit Fees: The following table presents (i) the aggregate non-audit fees (i.e., fees for audit-related, tax, and other services) billed to each Registrant by the independent registered public accounting firm for each Registrant's fiscal years ended February 29, 2016 and February 28, 2015; and (ii) the aggregate non-audit fees billed to the investment adviser, or any of its affiliates that provide ongoing services to the registrant, by the independent registered public accounting firm for the same time periods.

 

Registrant/Investment  Adviser		2016				2015
Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund		$	13,408			$	13,584
Voya Investments, LLC(1)		$	178,050			$	211,825

 

(1)  Each Registrant's investment adviser and any of its affiliates, which are subsidiaries of Voya Financial, Inc.

 

(h)

Principal Accountants Independence: The Registrant’s Audit committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the registrant’s investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were not pre-approved pursuant to Rule 2-01(c)(7)(ii) of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining KPMG’s independence.

 

Item 5.

Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.

 

a.	The registrant has a separately-designated standing audit committee. The members are Colleen D. Baldwin, Peter S. Drotch, Patrick W. Kenny, Joseph E. Obermeyer, and Roger B. Vincent.

 

b.	Not applicable.

 

Item 6.

Schedule of Investments

 

Complete schedule of investments filed herein.

 

 

	KPMG LLP
	Two Financial Center
	60 South Street
	Boston, MA 02111

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Shareholders and Board of Trustees

Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund

 

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the summary portfolio of investments, of Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund, as of February 29, 2016, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended (collectively, the "financial statements"), the financial highlights for each of the years or periods in the seven-year period then ended (the financial statements and financial highlights are included in Item 1 of this Form N-CSR), and the portfolio of investments as of February 29, 2016 (included in Item 6 of this Form N-CSR). These financial statements, financial highlights, and portfolio of investments are the responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements, financial highlights, and portfolio of investments based on our audits.

 

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements, financial highlights, and portfolio of investments are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and portfolio of investments. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of February 29, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian, transfer agent, and brokers, or by other appropriate auditing procedures when replies from brokers were not received. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

In our opinion, the financial statements, financial highlights, and portfolio of investments referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund, as of February 29, 2016, and the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years or periods in the seven-year period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

 

Boston, Massachusetts

April 25, 2016

 

Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund

PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS as of February 29, 2016

 

Shares								Value				Percentage of Net Assets
COMMON STOCK: 98.6%
						Australia: 1.5%
	362,121					BHP Billiton Ltd.			4,083,088				1.5
						Brazil: 1.5%
	131,093					Embraer SA ADR			3,928,857				1.5
						China: 3.1%
	95,600					China Mobile Ltd. ADR			5,113,644				1.9
	3,278,000					China Railway Construction Corp. Ltd.			3,102,728				1.2
									8,216,372				3.1
						France: 5.5%
	40,224					Air Liquide SA			4,187,504				1.6
	92,189			@		Alstom SA			2,013,965				0.7
	237,808					Orange SA			4,118,957				1.5
	262,895					Suez Environnement S.A.			4,541,242				1.7
									14,861,668				5.5
						Germany: 4.1%
	59,585					BASF SE			3,863,390				1.4
	78,747					Siemens AG			7,279,775				2.7
									11,143,165				4.1
						India: 2.2%
	139,123					Larsen & Toubro Ltd.			2,187,130				0.8
	1,959,337					Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd.			3,722,510				1.4
									5,909,640				2.2
						Indonesia: 0.9%
	2,164,100					United Tractors Tbk PT			2,508,909				0.9
						Israel: 1.7%
	1,985,576					Bezeq Israeli Telecommunication Corp., Ltd.			4,451,404				1.7
						Italy: 1.9%
	1,276,360					Enel S.p.A.			5,100,919				1.9
						Japan: 9.1%
	828,000					Hitachi Ltd.			3,502,572				1.3
	206,400					LIXIL Group Corp.			4,238,730				1.6
	281,700					JSR Corp.			3,948,939				1.5
	281,300					Komatsu Ltd.			4,299,621				1.6
	179,000					Mitsubishi Corp.			2,864,633				1.0
	78,400					Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.			3,936,589				1.4
	287,400					Sumco Corp.			1,825,829				0.7
									24,616,913				9.1
						Luxembourg: 1.3%
	129,231					SES S.A. - Luxembourg			3,388,620				1.3
						Netherlands: 5.1%
	76,279					Airbus Group SE			4,922,822				1.8
	83,930					Koninklijke DSM NV			4,128,774				1.5
	183,932					Koninklijke Philips NV			4,670,018				1.8
									13,721,614				5.1
						South Africa: 1.0%
	279,375					Vodacom Group Pty Ltd.			2,641,034				1.0
						South Korea: 1.2%
	17,869					SK Telecom Co., Ltd.			3,368,639				1.2
						Spain: 1.2%
	188,366					Gas Natural SDG S.A.			3,280,272				1.2
						Sweden: 2.3%
	179,749					SKF AB - B Shares			2,961,758				1.1
	313,251					Volvo AB - B Shares			3,137,817				1.2
									6,099,575				2.3
						Switzerland: 2.1%
	42,295			@		Adecco S.A.			2,449,623				0.9
	62,914					Wolseley PLC			3,226,369				1.2
									5,675,992				2.1
						United Kingdom: 0.9%
	373,604					CNH Industrial NV			2,480,281				0.9
						United States: 52.0%
	17,942					Acuity Brands, Inc.			3,757,593				1.4
	79,581					Albemarle Corp.			4,474,044				1.7
	142,983					AT&T, Inc.			5,283,222				2.0
	59,364					Deere & Co.			4,759,806				1.8
	141,689					Dow Chemical Co.			6,887,502				2.6
	161,221					Exelon Corp.			5,076,849				1.9
	70,744					Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc.			3,552,764				1.3
	50,470					General Dynamics Corp.			6,877,547				2.6
	447,983					General Electric Co.			13,054,225				4.8
	71,132					Honeywell International, Inc.			7,209,228				2.7
	53,800					Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.			2,935,866				1.1
	34,091					Lockheed Martin Corp.			7,356,497				2.7
	498,520					Mueller Water Products, Inc.			4,292,257				1.6
	46,584					NextEra Energy, Inc.			5,255,607				1.9
	66,900			@		Old Dominion Freight Line			4,319,064				1.6
	94,103					PG&E Corp.			5,338,463				2.0
	62,706					Packaging Corp. of America			3,041,241				1.1
	59,156					Pinnacle West Capital Corp.			4,071,707				1.5
	139,042					PPL Corp.			4,865,080				1.8
	31,503					Roper Technologies, Inc.			5,290,299				2.0
	80,183					Schlumberger Ltd.			5,750,725				2.1
	21,920					Snap-On, Inc.			3,171,166				1.2
	102,342					Steel Dynamics, Inc.			1,861,601				0.7
	65,600					TE Connectivity Ltd.			3,733,952				1.4
	129,100					Textron, Inc.			4,408,765				1.6
	19,566			@		TransDigm Group, Inc.			4,178,906				1.5
	74,701					Valero Energy Corp.			4,488,036				1.7

 

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

 

 

Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund

PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS as of February 29, 2016 (continued)

 

Shares								Value				Percentage of Net Assets
COMMON STOCK: (Continued)
						United States: (Continued)
	47,270					Vulcan Materials Co.			4,657,513				1.7
									139,949,525				52.0
				Total Common Stock
				(Cost $264,675,446)					265,426,487				98.6
SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS: 1.9%
						Mutual Funds: 1.9%
	5,106,000					BlackRock Liquidity Funds, TempFund, Institutional Class, 0.390%††
						(Cost $5,106,000)			5,106,000				1.9
				Total Short-Term Investments
				(Cost $5,106,000)					5,106,000				1.9
				Total Investments in Securities (Cost $269,781,446)				$	270,532,487				100.5
				Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets					(1,318,116	)			(0.5	)
				Net Assets				$	269,214,371				100.0

 

††	Rate shown is the 7-day yield as of February 29, 2016.
@	Non-income producing security.
ADR	American Depositary Receipt

 

Cost for federal income tax purposes is $270,465,879.

 

Net unrealized appreciation consists of:

 

Gross Unrealized Appreciation		$	31,885,413
Gross Unrealized Depreciation			(31,818,805	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation		$	66,608

 

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

 

 

Item 7.

Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment companies.

 

 

PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES and GUIDELINES

 

VOYA FUNDS

VOYA iNVESTMENTS, LLC

DIRECTED SERVICES LLC

 

Date Last Revised:  March 18, 2016

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of these Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines (the “Procedures”, the “Guidelines”) is to set forth the Board of Directors/Trustees of the Voya funds’ (the “Board”) instructions to Voya Investments, LLC and Directed Services LLC (each referred to as the “Advisor” and collectively the “Advisors”) for the voting of proxies for each fund the Board serves as Director/Trustee (the “Funds”).

 

The Board may elect to delegate proxy voting to a sub-advisor of the Funds and also approve the sub-advisor’s proxy policies and procedures for implementation on behalf of such Voya fund (a “Sub-Advisor-Voted Fund”).  A Sub-Advisor-Voted Fund is not covered under these Procedures and Guidelines, except as described in the Reporting and Record Retention section below with respect to vote reporting requirements.  However, they are covered by those sub-advisor’s proxy policies, provided that the Board has approved them.

 

These Procedures and Guidelines incorporate principals and guidance set forth in relevant pronouncements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and its staff on the fiduciary duty of the Board to ensure that proxies are voted in a timely manner and that voting decisions are in the Funds’ beneficial owners’ best interest.

 

The Board, through these instructions, delegates to the Advisors’ Proxy Coordinator the responsibility to vote the Funds’ proxies in accordance with these Procedures and Guidelines on behalf of the Board.  The Board further delegates to the Compliance Committee of the Board certain oversight duties regarding the Advisors’ functions as it pertains to the voting of the Funds’ proxies.  

 

The Board directs the engagement of a Proxy Advisory Firm to be initially appointed and annually reviewed and approved by the Board.  The Proxy Coordinator is responsible for overseeing the Proxy Advisory Firm and shall direct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote proxies in accordance with the Guidelines.  

 

These Procedures and Guidelines will be reviewed by the Board’s Compliance Committee annually, and will be updated at such time as deemed appropriate.  No change to these Procedures and Guidelines will be made except pursuant to Board direction.  Non-material amendments, however, may be approved for immediate implementation by the Board’s Compliance Committee, subject to ratification by the full board at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

 

Advisors’ Roles and Responsibilities

 

Proxy Coordinator

The Voya Proxy Coordinator shall direct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote proxies on behalf of the Funds and the Advisors in connection with annual and special meetings of shareholders (except those regarding bankruptcy matters and/or related plans of reorganization).

 

The Proxy Coordinator is responsible for overseeing the Proxy Advisory Firm (as defined in the Proxy Advisory Firm section below) and voting the Funds’ proxies in accordance with the Procedures and Guidelines on behalf of the Funds and the Advisors.  The Proxy Coordinator is authorized to direct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote a Fund’s proxy in accordance with the Procedures and Guidelines.  Responsibilities assigned to the Proxy Coordinator, or activities that support it, may be performed by such members of the Proxy Group (as defined in the Proxy Group section below) or employees of the Advisors’ affiliates as the Proxy Group deems appropriate.

 

The Proxy Coordinator is also responsible for identifying and informing Counsel (as defined in the Counsel section below) of potential conflicts between the proxy issuer and the Proxy Advisory Firm, the Advisors, the Funds’ principal underwriters, or an affiliated person of the Funds.  The Proxy Coordinator will identify such potential conflicts of interest based on information the Proxy Advisory Firm periodically provides; client analyses, distributor, broker-dealer, and vendor lists; and information derived from other sources, including public filings.

 

Proxy Advisory Firm

The Proxy Advisory Firm is responsible for coordinating with the Funds’ custodians to ensure that all proxy materials received by the custodians relating to the portfolio securities are processed in a timely fashion.  To the extent applicable, the Proxy Advisory Firm is required to provide research, analysis, and

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

vote recommendations under its Proxy Voting guidelines, as well as to produce vote recommendations and/or refer all proxies in accordance with the Guidelines.  

 

Proxy Group

The members of the Proxy Group, which may include employees of the Advisors’ affiliates, are identified in Exhibit 1, and may be amended from time to time at the Advisors’ discretion except that the Fund’s Chief Investment Risk Officer, the Fund’s Chief Compliance Officer, and the Fund’s Proxy Coordinator shall be members unless the Board determines otherwise.

 

Investment Professionals

The Funds’ sub-advisors and/or portfolio managers are each referred to herein as an “Investment Professional” and collectively, “Investment Professionals”.  The Board encourages the Funds’ Investment Professionals to submit a recommendation to the Proxy Group regarding any proxy voting related proposal pertaining to the portfolio securities over which they have day-to-day portfolio management responsibility.  Additionally, when requested, Investment Professionals are responsible for submitting a recommendation to the Proxy Group regarding proxy voting related proxy contests or mergers and acquisitions involving to the portfolio securities over which they have day-to-day portfolio management responsibility.

 

Counsel

A member of the mutual funds legal practice group of the Advisor (“Counsel”) is responsible for determining if a potential conflict of interest is in fact deemed a conflict of interest and notifying the Chair of the Compliance Committee.

 

Proxy Voting Procedures

 

Proxy Group Oversight

A minimum of four (4) members of the Proxy Group (or three (3) if one member of the quorum is either the Fund’s Chief Investment Risk Officer or Chief Compliance Officer) will constitute a quorum for purposes of taking action at any meeting of the Group.

 

The Proxy Group may meet in person or by telephone.  The Proxy Group also may take action via electronic mail in lieu of a meeting, provided that the Proxy Coordinator follows the directions of a majority of a quorum responding via e-mail.  

 

A Proxy Group meeting will be held whenever:

·

The Proxy Coordinator receives a recommendation from an Investment Professional to vote a Fund’s proxy contrary to the Guidelines.

·

The Proxy Advisory Firm has made no recommendation on a matter and the Procedures do not provide instruction.

·

A matter requires case-by-case consideration, including those in which the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation is deemed to be materially conflicted.

·

The Proxy Coordinator requests the Proxy Group’s input and vote recommendation on a matter.

 

In its discretion, the Proxy Group may provide the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to perform responsibilities assigned to the Proxy Group, or activities in support thereof, on its behalf, provided that such instructions do not contravene any requirements of these Procedures or the Guidelines.

 

If the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to vote in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation, these recommendations do not contravene any requirements of these Procedures or the Guidelines, and no issue of conflict must be considered, the Proxy Coordinator may implement the instructions without calling a Proxy Group meeting.

 

For each proposal referred to the Proxy Group, it will review:

·

The relevant Procedures and Guidelines,

·

The recommendation of the Proxy Advisory Firm, if any,

·

The recommendation of the Investment Professional(s), if any,

·

Other resources that any Proxy Group member deems appropriate to aid in a determination of a recommendation.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Vote Instruction

The vote of a simple majority of the voting members present will determine any matter submitted to a vote.  Tie votes will be resolved by securing the vote of members not present at the meeting; provided, however, that the Proxy Coordinator will ensure compliance with all applicable voting and conflict of interest procedures, and will use best efforts to secure votes from as many absent members as may reasonably be accomplished, and to provide such members with a substantially similar level of relevant information as that provided at the in-person meeting.  

 

In the event a tie vote cannot be resolved, or in the event that the vote remains a tie, the Proxy Coordinator will refer the vote to the Compliance Committee Chair for vote determination.  

 

In the event a tie vote cannot be timely resolved in connection with a voting deadline, the Proxy Coordinator will vote in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation.

 

A member of the Proxy Group may abstain from voting on any given matter, provided that the member does not participate in the Proxy Group discussion(s) in connection with the vote determination.  If abstention results in the loss of quorum, the process for resolving tie votes will be observed.

 

If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote contrary to the Guidelines, the Proxy Group will follow the Out-of-Guidelines procedures.  

 

The Proxy Group may vote contrary to the Guidelines based on a recommendation from an Investment Professional.

 

Vote Determination and Execution

 

These Procedures and Guidelines specify how the Funds generally will vote with respect to the proposals indicated.  Unless otherwise noted, the Proxy Group instructs the Proxy Coordinator, on behalf of the Advisors, to vote in accordance with these Procedures and Guidelines.

 

Within-Guidelines Votes:  Votes in Accordance with the Guidelines

In the event the Proxy Group and, where applicable, an Investment Professional participating in the voting process, recommend a vote Within Guidelines, the Proxy Group will instruct the Proxy Advisory Firm, through the Proxy Coordinator, to vote in this manner.

 

Out-of-Guidelines Votes:  

·

Votes Contrary to the Procedures and Guidelines

·

Proxy Advisory Firm Does not Provide a Recommendation and the Guidelines do not provide voting instruction

 

A vote would be considered Out-of-Guidelines if the:

·

Vote is cast in circumstances where the Procedures and Guidelines provides no instruction and the Proxy Advisory Firm has made no recommendation on a matter, or

·

Vote is contrary to the Guidelines; provided that a vote will not be deemed to be Out-of-Guidelines if the Guidelines stipulate that primary consideration will be given to input from an Investment Professional, notwithstanding that the vote appears contrary to these Procedures and Guidelines and/or the proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation.

 

An Out-of-Guidelines vote is cast when the Compliance Committee or Proxy Group determines that the application of the Procedures and Guidelines is inapplicable or inappropriate under the circumstances of a case. Such votes include, but are not limited to votes cast on the recommendation of an Investment Professional.  

 

Routine Matters

Upon instruction from the Proxy Coordinator, the Proxy Advisory Firm will submit a vote in accordance with these Procedures and Guidelines where there is a clear policy (e.g., “For,” “Against,” “Withhold,” or “Abstain”) on a proposal.  

 

Matters Requiring Case-by-Case Consideration

The Proxy Coordinator will provide the Proxy Advisory Firm with the appropriate information from these Procedures and Guidelines to specify how the Funds generally will vote.  The Proxy Advisory Firm will review proxy materials based on these Procedures and Guidelines and will refer proxy proposals

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

accompanied by its written analysis and vote recommendation to the Proxy Coordinator when these Procedures and Guidelines indicate “case-by-case.”  Additionally, the Proxy Advisory Firm will refer any proxy proposal to the Proxy Coordinator for instructions as if it were a matter requiring case-by-case consideration under circumstances where the application of these Procedures and Guidelines is unclear or appears to involve unusual or controversial issues.

 

Upon receipt of a referral from the Proxy Advisory Firm, the Proxy Coordinator may solicit additional research or clarification from the Proxy Advisory Firm, Investment Professional(s), or other sources.

 

The Proxy Coordinator will review matters requiring a case-by-case consideration to determine if the Proxy Group had previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing vote instructions in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation, or a provision within the Guidelines is applicable based on prior voting history.

 

If a matter requires input and vote determination from the Proxy Group, the Proxy Coordinator will forward the Proxy Advisory Firm’s analysis and recommendation, the Proxy Coordinator’s recommendation and/or any research obtained from the Investment Professional(s), the Proxy Advisory Firm, or any other source to the Proxy Group.  The Proxy Group may consult with the Proxy Advisory Firm and/or Investment Professional(s) as appropriate.

 

The Proxy Coordinator will use best efforts to convene a Proxy Group meeting with respect to all matters requiring its consideration.  In the event quorum requirements cannot be timely met in connection with a voting deadline, it is the policy of the Funds and Advisors to vote in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation.

 

Non-Votes:  Votes in which No Action is Taken

The Proxy Group may recommend that a Fund refrain from voting under certain circumstances including: 

·

The economic effect on shareholders’ interests or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant, e.g., proxies in connection with fractional shares, securities no longer held in the portfolio of a Voya fund or proxies being considered on behalf of a Fund that is no longer in existence.

·

The cost of voting a proxy outweighs the benefits, e.g., certain international proxies, particularly in cases when share blocking practices may impose trading restrictions on the relevant portfolio security.

 

In such cases, the Proxy Group may instruct the Proxy Advisory Firm, through the Proxy Coordinator, not to vote such proxy.  The Proxy Group may provide the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions on parameters that would dictate a Non-Vote without the Proxy Group’s review of a specific proxy.

 

Further, Counsel may permit the Proxy Coordinator to abstain from voting any proposal that is subject to a material conflict, provided such abstention does not have the same effect as an “against” vote, and therefore has no effect on the outcome of the vote.  

 

The Proxy Coordinator will make reasonable efforts to secure and vote all other proxies for the Funds, particularly in markets where shareholders’ rights are limited.

 

Matters Requiring Further Consideration

 

Referrals to the Compliance Committee

If a vote is deemed Out-of-Guidelines and Counsel has determined that a material conflict of interest appears to exist with respect to the party or parties (i.e. Proxy Advisory Firm, the Advisors, underwriters, affiliates, any participating Proxy Group member, or any Investment Professional(s)) participating in the voting process, the Proxy Coordinator will refer the vote to the Compliance Committee Chair.

 

If an Investment Professional discloses a potential conflict of interest, and Counsel determines that the conflict of interest appears to exist, the proposal will also be referred to the Compliance Committee for review.

 

The Compliance Committee will be provided all recommendations (including Investment Professional(s)), analyses, research, and Conflicts Reports and any other written materials used to establish whether a conflict of interest exists, and will instruct the Proxy Coordinator how such referred proposals should be voted.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

The Proxy Coordinator will use best efforts to refer matters to the Compliance Committee for its consideration in a timely manner.  In the event any such matter cannot be referred to or considered by the Compliance Committee in a timely manner, the Compliance Committee’s standing instruction is to vote Within Guidelines.

 

Consultation with Compliance Committee

The Proxy Coordinator may consult the Compliance Committee Chair for guidance on behalf of the Committee if application of these Procedures and Guidelines is unclear or in connection with any unusual or controversial issue or a recommendation received from an Investment Professional.  

 

The Compliance Committee will receive a report detailing proposals that were voted Out-of-Guidelines, Within Guidelines if the Investment Professional’s recommendation was not acted on, or was referred to the Compliance Committee.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

The Advisors shall act in the Funds’ beneficial owners’ best interests and strive to avoid conflicts of interest.    

 

Conflicts of interest can arise, for example, in situations where:

·

The issuer is a vendor whose products or services are material to the Voya Funds, the Advisors or their affiliates;

·

The issuer is an entity participating to a material extent in the distribution of the Voya Funds;

·

The issuer is a significant executing broker dealer;

·

Any individual that participates in the voting process for the Funds including an Investment Professional, a member of the Proxy Group, an employee of the Advisors, or Director/Trustee of the Board serves as a director or officer of the issuer; or

·

The issuer is Voya Financial.

 

Potential Conflicts with a Proxy Issuer

The Proxy Coordinator is responsible for identifying and informing Counsel of potential conflicts with the proxy issuer.  In addition to obtaining potential conflict of interest information described in the Roles and Responsibilities section above, members of the Proxy Group are required to disclose to the Proxy Coordinator any potential conflicts of interests prior to discussing the Proxy Advisory Firms’ recommendation.

 

The Proxy Group member will advise the Proxy Coordinator in the event a Proxy Group member believes that a potential or perceived conflict of interest exists that may preclude him/her from making a vote determination in the best interests of the Funds’ beneficial owners.  The Proxy Group member may elect to recuse himself/herself from consideration of the relevant proxy or ask the Proxy Coordinator to solicit the opinion of Counsel on the matter, recusing himself/herself only in the event Counsel determines that a material conflict of interest exists.  If recusal, whether voluntary or pursuant to Counsel’s findings, does not occur prior to the member’s participation in any Proxy Group discussion of the relevant proxy, any Out-of-Guidelines Vote determination is subject to the Compliance Committee referral process.  Should members of the Proxy Group verbally disclose a potential conflict of interest, they are required to complete a Conflict of Interest Report, which will be reviewed by Counsel.

 

Investment Professionals are also required to complete a Conflict of Interest Report or confirm in writing that they do not have any potential conflicts of interests when submitting a vote recommendation to the Proxy Coordinator.

 

The Proxy Coordinator gathers and analyzes the information provided by the Proxy Advisory Firm, the Advisors, the Funds’ principal underwriters, affiliates of the Funds, members Proxy Group, Investment Professionals, and the Directors and Officers of the Funds.  Counsel will document such potential material conflicts of interest on a consolidated basis as appropriate.

 

The Proxy Coordinator will instruct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote the proxy as recommended by the Proxy Group if Counsel determines that a material conflict of interest does not appear to exist with respect a proxy issuer, any participating Proxy Group member, or any participating Investment Professional(s).

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Compliance Committee Oversight

The Proxy Coordinator will refer a proposal to the Funds’ Compliance Committee if the Proxy Group recommends an Out-of-Guidelines Vote, and Counsel has determined that a material conflict of interest appears to exist in order that the conflicted party(ies) have no opportunity to exercise voting discretion over a Fund’s proxy.  

 

The Proxy Coordinator will refer the proposal to the Compliance Committee Chair, forwarding all information relevant to the Compliance Committee’s review, including the following or a summary of its contents:  

·

The applicable Procedures and Guidelines

·

The Proxy Advisory Firm recommendation

·

The Investment Professional(s)’s recommendation, if available

·

Any resources used by the Proxy Group in arriving at its recommendation

·

Counsel’s findings

·

Conflicts Report(s) and/or any other written materials establishing whether a conflict of interest exists.

 

In the event a member of the Funds’ Compliance Committee believes he/she has a conflict of interest that would preclude him/her from making a vote determination in the best interests of the applicable Fund’s beneficial owners, the Compliance Committee member will advise the Compliance Committee Chair and recuse himself/herself with respect to the relevant proxy determinations.

 

Conflicts Reports

Investment Professionals, the Proxy Advisory Firm, and members of the Compliance Committee, the Proxy Group, and the Proxy Coordinator are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and/or confirm they do not have a conflict of interest in connection with their participation in the voting process for portfolio securities.  The Conflicts Report should describe any known relationships of either a business or personal nature that Counsel has not previously assessed, which may include communications with respect to the referral item, but excluding routine communications with or submitted to the Proxy Coordinator or Investment Professional(s) on behalf of the subject company or a proponent of a shareholder proposal.  

 

The Conflicts Report should also include written confirmation that the Investment Professional based the recommendation in connection with an Out-of-Guidelines Vote or under circumstances where a conflict of interest exists solely on the investment merits of the proposal and without regard to any other consideration.

 

Completed Conflicts Reports should be provided to the Proxy Coordinator as soon as possible and may be submitted to the Proxy Coordinator verbally, provided the Proxy Coordinator completes the Conflicts Report, and the submitter reviews and approves the Conflict Report in writing.  

 

The Proxy Coordinator will forward all Conflicts Reports to Counsel for review.  Upon review, Counsel will provide the Proxy Coordinator with a brief statement regarding whether or not a material conflict of interest is present.  

 

Counsel will document such potential conflicts of interest on a consolidated basis as appropriate rather than maintain individual Conflicts Reports.  

 

Assessment of the Proxy Advisory Firm

 

The Proxy Coordinator, on behalf of the Board and the Advisors, will assess if the Proxy Advisory Firm:

·

Is independent from the Advisors

·

Has resources that indicate it can competently provide analysis of proxy issues

·

Can make recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best interests of the Funds and their beneficial owners

·

Has adequate compliance policies and procedures to:

o

Ensure that its proxy voting recommendations are based on current and accurate information

o

Identify and address conflicts of interest.

 

The Proxy Coordinator will utilize, and the Proxy Advisory Firm will comply with, such methods for completing the assessment as the Proxy Coordinator may deem reasonably appropriate.  The Proxy

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Advisory Firm will also promptly notify the Proxy Coordinator in writing of any material change to information previously provided to the Proxy Coordinator in connection with establishing the Proxy Advisory Firm’s independence, competence, or impartiality.

 

Information provided in connection with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s potential conflict of interest will be forwarded to Counsel for review.  Counsel will review such information and advise the Proxy Coordinator as to whether a material concern exists and if so, determine the most appropriate course of action to eliminate such concern.  

 

Voting Funds of Funds, Investing Funds and Feeder Funds

 

Funds that are “Funds-of-Funds” will “echo” vote their interests in underlying mutual funds, which may include mutual funds other than the Voya funds indicated on Voya’s website (www.voyainvestments.com).  Meaning that, if the Fund-of-Funds must vote on a proposal with respect to an underlying investment company, the Fund-of-Funds will vote its interest in that underlying fund in the same proportion all other shareholders in the underlying investment company voted their interests.

 

However, if the underlying fund has no other shareholders, the Fund-of-Funds will vote as follows:

·

If the Fund-of-Funds and the underlying fund are being solicited to vote on the same proposal (e.g., the election of fund directors/trustees), the Fund-of-Funds will vote the shares it holds in the underlying fund in the same proportion as all votes received from the holders of the Fund-of-Funds’ shares with respect to that proposal.

·

If the Fund-of-Funds is being solicited to vote on a proposal for an underlying fund (e.g., a new Sub-Advisor to the underlying fund), and there is no corresponding proposal at the Fund-of-Funds level, the Board will determine the most appropriate method of voting with respect to the underlying fund proposal.

 

An Investing Fund (e.g., any Voya fund), while not a Fund-of-Funds will have the foregoing Fund-of-Funds procedure applied to any Investing Fund that invests in one or more underlying funds.  Accordingly:

·

Each Investing Fund will “echo” vote its interests in an underlying fund, if the underlying fund has shareholders other than the Investing Fund.

·

In the event an underlying fund has no other shareholders, and the Investing Fund and the underlying fund are being solicited to vote on the same proposal, the Investing Fund will vote its interests in the underlying fund in the same proportion as all votes received from the holders of its own shares on that proposal.

·

In the event an underlying fund has no other shareholders, and there is no corresponding proposal at the Investing Fund level, the Board will determine the most appropriate method of voting with respect to the underlying fund proposal.

 

A fund that is a “Feeder Fund” in a master-feeder structure passes votes requested by the underlying master fund to its shareholders.  Meaning that, if the master fund solicits the Feeder Fund, the Feeder Fund will request instructions from its own shareholders, either directly or, in the case of an insurance-dedicated Fund, through an insurance product or retirement plan, as to how it should vote its interest in an underlying master fund.

 

When a Voya fund is a feeder in a master-feeder structure, proxies for the portfolio securities owned by the master fund will be voted pursuant to the master fund’s proxy voting policies and procedures.  As such, except as described in the Reporting and Record Retention section below, Feeder Funds will not be subject to these Procedures and Guidelines.

 

Securities Lending

 

Many of the Funds participate in securities lending arrangements to generate additional revenue for the Fund.  Accordingly, the Fund will not be able to vote securities that are on loan under these types of arrangements.  However, under certain circumstances, for voting issues that may have a significant impact on the investment, the Proxy Group or Proxy Coordinator may request to recall securities that are on loan if they determine that the benefit of voting outweighs the costs and lost revenue to the Fund and the administrative burden of retrieving the securities.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Investment Professionals may also deem a vote is “material” in the context of the portfolio(s) they manage.  Therefore, they may request that lending activity on behalf of their portfolio(s) with respect to the relevant security be reviewed by the Proxy Group and considered for recall and/or restriction.  The Proxy Group will give primary consideration to relevant Investment Professional input in its determination of whether a given proxy vote is material and the associated security accordingly restricted from lending.  The determination that a vote is material in the context of a Fund’s portfolio will not mean that such vote is considered material across all Funds voting at that meeting.  In order to recall or restrict shares on a timely basis for material voting purposes, the Proxy Coordinator, on behalf of the Proxy Group, will use best efforts to consider, and when appropriate, to act upon, such requests on a timely basis.  Requests to review lending activity in connection with a potentially material vote may be initiated by any relevant Investment Professional and submitted for the Proxy Group’s consideration at any time.

 

Reporting and Record Retention

 

Reporting by the Funds

Annually, as required, each Fund and each Sub-Advisor-Voted Fund will post its proxy voting record, or a link to the prior one-year period ending on June 30^th on the Voya Funds’ website.  The proxy voting record for each Fund and each Sub-Advisor-Voted Fund will also be available on Form N-PX in the EDGAR database on the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).  For any Voya fund that is a feeder in a master/feeder structure, no proxy voting record related to the portfolio securities owned by the master fund will be posted on the Voya funds’ website or included in the Fund’s Form N-PX; however, a cross-reference to the master fund’s proxy voting record as filed in the SEC’s EDGAR database will be included in the Fund’s Form N-PX and posted on the Voya funds’ website.  If an underlying master fund solicited any Feeder Fund for a vote during the reporting period, a record of the votes cast by means of the pass-through process described above will be included on the Voya funds’ website and in the Feeder Fund’s Form N-PX.

 

Reporting to the Compliance Committee

At each regularly scheduled quarterly Compliance Committee meeting, the Compliance Committee will receive a report from the Proxy Coordinator indicating each proxy proposal, or a summary of such proposals, that was:

1.

Voted Out-of-Guidelines, including any proposals voted Out-of-Guidelines as a result of special circumstances raised by an Investment Professional;

2.

Voted Within-Guidelines in cases when the Proxy Group did not agree with an Investment Professional’s recommendation;

3.

Referred to the Compliance Committee for determination.

 

The report will indicate the name of the company, the substance of the proposal, a summary of the Investment Professional’s recommendation, where applicable, and the reasons for voting, or recommending, an Out-of-Guidelines Vote or, in the case of (2) above, a Within-Guidelines Vote.

 

Reporting by the Proxy Coordinator on behalf of the Advisor

The Advisor will maintain the records required by Rule 204-2(c)(2), as may be amended from time to time, including the following:

·

A copy of each proxy statement received regarding a Fund’s portfolio securities.  Such proxy statements the issuers send are available either in the SEC’s EDGAR database or upon request from the Proxy Advisory Firm.

·

A record of each vote cast on behalf of a Fund.

·

A copy of any Advisor-created document that was material to making a proxy vote decision, or that memorializes the basis for that decision.

·

A copy of written requests for Fund proxy voting information and any written response thereto or to any oral request for information on how the Advisor voted proxies on behalf of a Fund.

·

A record of all recommendations from Investment Professionals to vote contrary to the Guidelines.

·

All proxy questions/recommendations that have been referred to the Compliance Committee, and all applicable recommendations, analyses, research, Conflict Reports, and vote determinations.

 

All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation will be retained for a minimum of six years, the first two years in the Advisors’ office.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Records Maintained by the Proxy Advisory Firm

The Proxy Advisory Firm will retain a record of all proxy votes handled by the Proxy Advisory Firm.  Such record must reflect all the information required to be disclosed in a Fund’s Form N-PX pursuant to Rule 30b1-4 under the Investment Company Act.  In addition, the Proxy Advisory Firm is responsible for maintaining copies of all proxy statements received by issuers and to promptly provide such materials to the Advisor upon request.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

 

Introduction

 

Proxies must be voted in the best interest of the Funds’ beneficial owners.  The Guidelines summarize the Funds’ positions on various issues of concern to investors, and give an indication of how Fund securities will be voted on proposals dealing with particular issues.  Nevertheless, the Guidelines are not exhaustive, do not include all potential voting issues, and proposals may be addressed, as necessary, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis rather than according to the Guidelines.

 

These Guidelines apply to securities of publicly traded companies and to those of privately held companies if publicly available disclosure permits such application.  All matters for which such disclosure is not available shall be considered CASE-BY-CASE.  

 

The Board encourages Investment Professionals to submit a recommendation to the Proxy Group regarding proxy voting related to the portfolio securities over which they have day-to-day portfolio management responsibility.  Recommendations from the Investment Professionals may be submitted or requested in connection with any proposal and are likely to be requested with respect to proxies for private equity or fixed income securities and/or proposals related to merger transactions/corporate restructurings, proxy contests, or unusual or controversial issues.  

 

These policies may be overridden in any case as provided for in the Procedures.  Similarly, the Procedures provide that proposals whose Guidelines prescribe a firm voting position may instead be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when unusual or controversial circumstances so dictate.

 

Interpretation and application of these Guidelines is not intended to supersede any law, regulation, binding agreement, or other legal requirement to which an issuer may be or become subject.  No proposal shall be supported whose implementation would contravene such requirements.

 

General Policies

 

The Funds’ policy is generally to support the recommendation of the relevant company’s management when the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation also aligns with such recommendation and to vote in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation when management has made no recommendation.  However, this policy will not apply to CASE-BY-CASE proposals for which a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s) is being utilized.

 

Investment Professionals input will be given primary consideration with respect to CASE-BY-CASE proposals being considered on behalf of the relevant Fund if they involve merger transactions/corporate restructurings, proxy contests, fixed income or private equity securities, or unusual or controversial issues.  

 

The Fund’s policy is to not support proposals that would impose a negative impact on existing rights of the Funds’ beneficial owners to the extent that any positive impact would not be deemed sufficient to outweigh removal or diminution of such rights.  Depending on the relevant market, appropriate opposition may be expressed as an ABSTAIN, AGAINST, or WITHHOLD vote.

 

International Policies

Companies incorporated outside the U.S. are subject to the foregoing U.S. Guidelines if they are listed on a U.S. exchange and treated as a U.S. domestic issuer by the SEC.  Where applicable, certain U.S. Guidelines may also be applied to companies incorporated outside the U.S., e.g., companies with a significant base of U.S. operations and employees.  However, the following provide for differing regulatory and legal requirements, market practices, and political and economic systems existing in various international markets.

 

Funds will vote AGAINST international proxy proposals when the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends voting AGAINST such proposal because relevant disclosure by the company, or the time provided for consideration of such disclosure, is inadequate.  

 

The Funds will consider proposals that are associated with a firm AGAINST vote on a CASE-BY-CASE

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

basis if the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends their support when:

·

The company or market transitions to better practices (e.g., having committed to new regulations or governance codes);

·

The market standard is stricter than the Fund’s guidelines; or

·

It is the more favorable choice when shareholders must choose between alternate proposals.

 

Proposal Specific Policies

 

As mentioned above, these policies may be overridden in any case as provided for in the Procedures.  Similarly, the Procedures provide that proposals whose Guidelines prescribe a firm voting position may instead be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when unusual or controversial circumstances so dictate.

 

Proxy Contests:

 

Consider votes in contested elections on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with primary consideration given to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).

 

Uncontested Proxies:

 

1-

The Board of Directors

 

Overview

The Funds will lodge disagreement with a company’s policies or practices by withholding support from the relevant proposal rather than from the director nominee(s) to which the Proxy Advisory Firm assigns a correlation.  Support will be withheld from directors deemed responsible for governance shortfalls.  If the director(s) are not standing for election (e.g., the board is classified), support will not be withheld from others in their stead.  When a determination is made to withhold support due to concerns other than those related to an individual director’s independence or actions, responsibility may be attributed to the entire board, a committee, or an individual (such as the CEO or committee chair), taking into consideration whether the desired effect is to send a message or to remove the director from service.

 

The Funds will vote FOR directors in connection with issues raised by the Proxy Advisory Firm if the director did not serve on the board or relevant committee during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited by the Proxy Advisory Firm.

 

Vote with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation when more candidates are presented than available seats and no other provisions under these Guidelines apply.

 

In cases where a director holds more than one board seat and corresponding votes, manifested as one seat as a physical person plus an additional seat as a representative of a legal entity, generally vote with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation to withhold support from the legal entity and vote on the physical person.

 

Vote with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation to withhold support from directors for whom support has become moot since the time the individual was nominated (e.g., due to death, disqualification, or determination not to accept appointment).

 

Independence

 

Determination of Independence

The Fund will consider the relevant country or market listing exchange and the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards with respect to determining director independence.  These standards provide that, to be considered independent, a director shall have no material connection to the company other than the board seat.

 

Although the Funds’ may agree with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s independence standards, such agreement shall not dictate that a Fund’s vote will be cast according to the Proxy Advisory Firm’s corresponding recommendation.  Further, the application of Guidelines in connection with such standards will apply only when the director’s level of independence can be ascertained based on available disclosure.  Note:  Non-

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

voting directors (e.g., director emeritus or advisory director) shall be excluded from calculations with respect to majority board independence.

 

Board/Committee Independence

The Funds’ policy is that a board should be majority independent or, for international markets, meet the applicable independence requirements of the relevant country or market listing exchange (e.g., Hong Kong), and key committees (audit, remuneration (compensation), and nominating/governance) should be fully independent unless expressly dictated otherwise by such exchange (collectively defined as “Independence Requirements”).  Therefore, the Fund’s will consider non-independent directors standing for election on a Case-by-Case basis when the full board does not meet the Independence Requirements.  

·

WITHHOLD support from the fewest non-independent directors including the Founder, Chairman or CEO if their removal would achieve the Independence Requirements across the remaining board, except that support may be withheld from additional directors whose relative level of independence cannot be differentiated, or the number required to achieve the Independence Requirements is equal to or greater than the number of non-independent directors standing for election.

 

·

WITHHOLD support from slates of directors if the board’s independence cannot be ascertained due to inadequate disclosure or when the board’s independence does not meet the applicable independence requirements of the relevant exchange.

 

·

WITHHOLD support from key committee slates if they contain non-independent directors in the election.

 

·

WITHHOLD support from non-independent directors if the full board serves or the board has not established such a committee, and relevant country or market listing exchange requires the establishment of such committee.

 

For companies in Japan, generally follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendations in furtherance of greater board independence and minority shareholder protections, including to WITHHOLD support from the top executive(s) if the board does not include at least two independent directors.

 

For companies in Japan, generally follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to proposals seeking a board structure that would provide greater independence oversight of management and the board.

 

For companies in Italy presenting multiple slates of directors (voto di lista), WITHHOLD support from all slates until director names are disclosed, and upon disclosure, follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards for assessing which slate is best suited to represent shareholder interests.

 

WITHHOLD support from directors or slates of directors when they are presented in a manner not aligned with market best practice and/or regulation, irrespective of meeting independence requirements, such as:

·

Bundled slates of directors (e.g., Canada, France, Hong Kong, or Spain);

·

Simultaneous reappointment of retiring directors (e.g., South Africa);

·

In markets with term lengths capped by regulation or market practice, directors whose terms exceed the caps or are not disclosed; or

·

Directors whose names are not disclosed in advance of the meeting or far enough in advance relative to voting deadlines to make an informed voting decision.

 

Self-Nominated/Shareholder-Nominated Director Candidates

Consider self-nominated or shareholder-nominated director candidates on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

WITHHOLD support from the candidate when:

·

Adequate disclosure has not been provided (e.g., rationale for candidacy and candidate’s qualifications relative to the company);

·

A candidate will not be supported if the candidate’s agenda is not in line with the long-term best interests of the company; or

·

Cases of multiple self-nominated candidates may be considered as a proxy contest if similar issues

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

are raised (e.g., potential change in control).

 

Management Proposals Seeking Non-board member service on Key Committees

Vote AGAINST proposals that permit non-board members to serve on the audit, remuneration (compensation), or nominating committee, provided that bundled slates may be supported if no slate nominee serves on the relevant committee(s) except where best market practice otherwise dictates.  

 

Consider other concerns regarding committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Shareholder Proposals Regarding Board/Key Committee Independence

·

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to redefine director independence or directors’ specific roles (e.g., responsibilities of the lead director).

·

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals asking that more than a simple majority of directors be independent.

·

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals asking that the independence be greater than that required by the country or market listing exchange.

 

Board Member Roles and Responsibilities

 

The Funds generally will review issues  of the corresponding proposal (e.g., advisory vote on executive compensation or auditor ratification) rather than on the board or relevant committee members.  

 

Attendance

WITHHOLD support from a director who, during both of the most recent two years, attended less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings during the director’s period of service without a valid reason for the absences.  

 

Vote FOR in connection with attendance issues for directors who have served on the board for less than the two most recent years.

 

WITHHOLD support if two-year attendance cannot be ascertained from available disclosure (e.g., the company did not disclose which director(s) attended less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings during the director’s period of service without a valid reason for the absences).

 

The two-year attendance policy shall be applied to attendance of statutory auditors at Japanese companies.

 

Over-boarding

Vote FOR directors without regard to “over-boarding” issues, unless when in conjunction with attendance issues during the most recent year.  Consider such circumstances on a Case-by-Case basis.

 

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals limiting the number of public company boards on which a director may serve.

 

Combined Chairman / CEO Role

Vote FOR directors without regard to recommendations that the position of chairman should be separate from that of CEO, or should otherwise required to be independent, unless other concerns requiring Case-by-Case consideration are raised (e.g., former CEOs proposed as board chairmen in markets, such as the United Kingdom, for which best practice recommends against such practice).

 

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring that the positions of chairman and CEO be held separately, unless significant corporate governance concerns have been cited.  Consider such circumstances on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Cumulative/Net Voting Markets (e.g., Russia)

When cumulative or net voting applies, generally follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to vote FOR nominees asserted by the issuer to be independent, irrespective of key committee membership, even if independence disclosure or criteria fall short of the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Board Accountability

 

Vote FOR the top executive at companies in Japan if the only reason the Proxy Advisory Firm’s Withhold recommendation is due to the company underperforming in terms of capital efficiency; i.e., when the company has posted average return on equity (ROE) of less than five percent over the last five fiscal years.

 

Compensation Practices (U.S. and Canada)

It is the Funds’ policy that matters of compensation are best determined by an independent board and compensation committee.  Therefore support may be withheld from compensation committee members whose actions or disclosure do not appear to support compensation practices aligned with the best interests of the company and its shareholders.  

 

Where applicable, votes on compensation committee members in connection with compensation practices should be considered on a Case-by-Case basis:

·

Say on pay.  If shareholders have been provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation (“say on pay”), and practices not supported under these Guidelines (provisions under Section 2. Compensation) have been identified, the Funds will align with the Proxy Advisory Firm when a vote AGAINST the say on pay proposal has been recommended in lieu of withholding support from certain nominees for compensation concerns.  Companies receiving negative recommendations on both compensation committee members and say on pay (or shareholders have not been provided with a say on pay) regarding issues not otherwise supported by these Guidelines will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

·

Say on pay responsiveness.  Compensation committee members opposed by the Proxy Advisory Firm for failure to sufficiently address compensation concerns prompting significant opposition to the most recent say on pay vote will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in considerations such as level of shareholder opposition, subsequent actions taken by the compensation committee, and level of responsiveness disclosure.

o

WITHHOLD support from the compensation committee chair where the circumstances merit opposition.

o

If the compensation committee chair is not standing for election under circumstances meriting the chair’s opposition, WITHHOLD support from the other compensation committee members.

o

If no compensation committee members are standing for election, consider other directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

·

Say on frequency.  If the Proxy Advisory Firm opposes directors because the company has implemented a say on pay schedule that is less frequent than the frequency most recently preferred by at least a plurality of shareholders, WITHHOLD support from the compensation committee chair.  If the compensation committee chair is not standing for election, WITHHOLD support from the other compensation committee members.  If no compensation committee members are standing for election, consider other directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

·

Tenure.  Vote FOR compensation committee members who did not serve on the compensation committee during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited by the Proxy Advisory Firm.

 

·

Repricing.  If the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends withholding support from compensation committee members in connection with their failure to seek, or acknowledge, a shareholder vote on plans to reprice, replace, buy back, or exchange options, WITHHOLD support from such directors.  (Note:  cancellation of options would not be considered an exchange unless the cancelled options were re-granted or expressly returned to the plan reserve for reissuance.)

 

·

Commitments.  Vote FOR compensation committee members receiving an adverse recommendation due to problematic pay practices if the company makes a public commitment (e.g., via a Form 8-K filing) to rectify the practice on a going-forward basis.  However, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the company does not rectify the practice by the following year’s annual general meeting.

 

·

Burn Rate Commitment.  If burn rate commitment issues are raised, consider compensation

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into account factors such as burn rate history and issuer’s rationale and disclosure.

 

For all other markets, consider remuneration committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends withholding support from directors in connection with remuneration practices not otherwise supported by these Guidelines (provisions under Section 2. Compensation), including cases in which the issuer has not followed market practice by submitting a resolution on executive compensation.  

 

Accounting Practices

Vote FOR audit committee members, or the company’s CEO or CFO if nominated as directors, who did not serve on the committee or did not have responsibility over the relevant financial function, during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited.

 

Consider audit committee members and the company’s CEO and CFO, if nominated as directors, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if poor accounting practice concerns are raised, factoring in considerations such as:

·

If the audit committee failed to remediate known on-going material weaknesses in the company’s internal controls for more than a year.

·

If the company has not yet had a full year to remediate the concerns since the time they were identified.

·

If the company has taken adequate steps to remediate the concerns cited, which would typically include removing or replacing the responsible executives, and if the concerns are not re-occurring.

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis audit committee members if the company has failed to disclose auditors’ fees and has not provided an auditor ratification or remuneration proposal for shareholder vote.

 

Problematic Actions

When the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends withholding support due to assessment that a director acted in bad faith or against shareholder interests in connection with a major transaction, such as a merger or acquisition, or due to other material failures or problematic actions, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the merits of the director’s performance, rationale, and disclosure provided.  

 

WITHHOLD support from directors when the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends withholding support due to the board unilaterally adopting by-law amendments that have a negative impact on existing shareholder rights or functions as a diminution of shareholder rights.  Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if all directors are under consideration.

 

If the Proxy Advisory Firm cites concerns regarding actions in connection with a director’s service on another board, vote FOR the director if the company has provided adequate rationale regarding the appropriateness of the director to serve on the board under consideration.

 

When the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends withholding support from any director due to share pledging concerns, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the pledged amount, unwind time, and any historical concerns being raised.  Responsibility will be assigned to the pledgor, where the pledged amount and unwind time are deemed significant and, therefore, an unnecessary risk to the company.  

 

Vote FOR directors for whom scandals or internal controls concerns have been raised unless:

·

The scandal or shortfall in controls took place at the company, or an affiliate, for which the director is being considered;

·

Culpability can be attributed to the director (e.g., director manages or audits the relevant function); and

·

The director has been directly implicated, with resulting arrest and criminal charge or regulatory sanction.

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Anti-Takeover Measures

If the company implements excessive anti-takeover measures, including failure to remove restrictive poison pill features or to ensure a pill’s expiration or timely submission to shareholders for vote, unless a company has implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of its poison pill, WITHHOLD support from the board chair or, if not standing for election, the lead director.  If neither is standing for election, WITHHOLD support from all continuing directors.

 

If the company has failed to opt out of a law requiring companies to implement a staggered board structure, WITHHOLD support from the board chair, or if not standing for election, lead director; or if neither is standing for election, WITHHOLD support from all continuing directors.

 

Board Responsiveness

 

If the company has failed to implement a majority-approved shareholder proposal, vote FOR the directors if the shareholder proposal has been reasonably addressed or the Funds’ Guidelines or voting record did not support the relevant proposal or issue.  WITHHOLD support from the board or relevant committee chair, or, if not standing for election, from all continuing directors, if the shareholder proposal at issue is supported under these Guidelines and the board has not disclosed a credible rationale for not implementing the proposal.

 

v

In the U.S., proposals seeking shareholder ratification of a poison pill may be deemed reasonably addressed if the company has implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of the pill.

 

If the board has not acted upon a director not receiving shareholder support representing a majority of the votes cast at the previous annual meeting, consider directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.  Vote FOR directors when:

·

The issue relevant to the majority negative vote has been adequately addressed or cured, which may include disclosure of the board’s rationale; or

·

The Funds’ Guidelines or voting record do not support the relevant proposal or issue causing the majority negative vote.

 

v

If the above provisions have not been satisfied, WITHHOLD support from the chair of the nominating committee, or if not standing for election, consider other directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Board–Related Proposals

 

Classified/Declassified Board Structure

Vote AGAINST proposals to classify the board unless the proposal represents an increased frequency of a director’s election in the staggered cycle (e.g., seeking to move from a three-year cycle to a two-year cycle).  Vote FOR proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

 

Board Structure

Vote FOR management proposals to adopt or amend board structures or policies, except consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the board is not majority independent, corporate governance concerns have been identified, or the proposal may result in a material reduction in shareholders’ rights.

 

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to impose new board structures or policies, except consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the board is not majority independent and corporate governance concerns have been identified.  

 

Board Size

Vote FOR proposals seeking a board range if the range is reasonable in the context of market practice and anti-takeover considerations, without also seeking to remove shareholder approval rights.

 

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

Proposals on director and officer indemnification and liability protection should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, using Delaware law as the standard.  

 

Vote against proposals to limit or eliminate entirely directors’ and officers’ liability in connection with monetary damages for violating the duty of care.  

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Vote against indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond legal expenses to acts that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation, such as negligence.  

 

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection (International)

Vote in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards for indemnification and liability protection for officers and directors, voting AGAINST overly broad provisions.

 

Discharge of Management/Supervisory Board Members (International)

Vote FOR management proposals seeking the discharge of management and supervisory board members (including when the proposal is bundled), unless concerns are raised about the past actions of the company’s auditors or directors, or legal or regulatory action is being taken against the board by other shareholders.  

 

Vote FOR such proposals in connection with remuneration practices otherwise supported under these Guidelines or as a means of expressing disapproval of broader practices of the company or its board.    

 

Establish Board Committee

Vote FOR shareholder proposals that seek creation of an audit, compensation, or nominating/governance committee of the board, unless the committee in question is already in existence or the company claims an exemption of the listing exchange (e.g., committee functions are served by a majority of independent directors).

 

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requesting creation of additional board committees or offices, except as otherwise provided for herein.

 

Filling Board Vacancies / Removal of Directors

Vote AGAINST proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

 

Vote FOR proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.

 

Vote AGAINST proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

 

Vote FOR proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

 

Stock Ownership Requirements

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

 

Term Limits / Retirement Age

Vote FOR management proposals and AGAINST shareholder proposals limiting the tenure of outside directors or imposing a mandatory retirement age for outside directors (unless the proposal seeks to relax existing standards).  

 

2-

Compensation

 

Frequency of Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

Vote FOR proposals seeking an annual say on pay, and AGAINST those seeking less frequent.

 

Proposals to Provide an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Canada)

Vote FOR, with a preference for an ANNUAL vote.

 

Executive Pay Evaluation

 

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Remuneration Reports

Vote FOR management proposals seeking ratification of the company’s executive compensation structure unless the program includes practices or features not supported under these Guidelines, and the proposal receives a negative recommendation from the Proxy Advisory Firm.  

 

Listed below are examples of compensation practices and provisions, and respective consideration treatment under the Guidelines, factoring in whether the company has provided reasonable rationale/disclosure for such factors or the proposal as a whole.

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

·

Single Trigger Equity Provisions

·

Short-Term Investment Plans where the board has exercised discretion to exclude extraordinary items.

·

Retesting in connection with achievement of performance hurdles

·

Permit repricing of stock options, or any form or alternative to repricing, without shareholder approval.

·

Include provisions that permit repricing, replacement, or exchange transactions that do not meet recommended criteria.

·

Give the board sole discretion to approve option repricing, replacement, or exchange programs.

·

Long-Term Incentive Plans where executives already hold significant equity positions.

·

Long-Term Incentive Plans where the vesting or performance period is too short or stringency of the performance criteria is called into question.

·

Pay Practices (or combination of practices) that appear to have created a misalignment between CEO pay and performance with regard to shareholder value.

·

Long-Term Incentive Plans that lack an appropriate equity component (e.g., “cash-based only”).

·

Excessive levels of discretionary bonuses, recruitment awards, retention awards, non-compete payments, severance/termination payments, perquisites (unreasonable levels in context of total compensation or purpose of the incentive awards or payouts).

 

Vote AGAINST:

·

Provisions that permit repricing, replacement, buy back, or exchange options.  (Note: cancellation of options would not be considered an exchange unless the cancelled options were re-granted or expressly returned to the plan reserve for reissuance.)

·

Single Trigger Cash Severance Provisions in new or materially amended plans, contracts, or payments that do not require an actual change in control in order to be triggered, or such provisions that are maintained in agreements previously opposed by a Fund.

·

Named executives officers have material input into setting their pay.

·

Short-Term Incentive Plans where treatment of payout factors has been inconsistent (e.g., exclusion of losses but not gains).

·

For companies in international markets, plans provide for contract or notice periods or severance/termination payments that exceed market practices, e.g., relative to multiple of annual compensation.

 

Golden Parachutes

Votes with respect to Golden Parachutes should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.  Features that will be considered include:

·

Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance.

·

Excessive payout.

·

Recent material amendments or new agreements that incorporate problematic features.

·

CEO/NEO remains employed by merged/acquired company.

 

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

 

Equity Compensation

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis compensation and employee benefit plans, or the issuance of shares in connection with such plans.  Vote the plan or issuance based on factors and related vote treatment under the Executive Pay Evaluation section above or based on circumstances specific to such equity plans as follows:

 

Vote AGAINST if:

·

The plan exceeds recommended cost (U.S. or Canada).

·

A cost or dilution assessment may not be possible due to the method of disclosing shares allocated to the plan(s).

·

The plan exceeds recommended burn rates and/or dilution limits, including cases in which dilution cannot be fully assessed (e.g., due to inadequate disclosure).

·

There are deep or near-term discounts (or the equivalent, such as dividend equivalents on unexercised options) to executives or directors.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Misalignment between CEO Pay and Performance

Vote AGAINST if the plan:

·

provides for retirement benefits or equity incentive awards to outside directors if not in line with market practice.

·

permits financial assistance to executives, directors, subsidiaries, affiliates, or related parties that is not in line with market practice.

·

allows for an overly liberal change in control definition.  (This refers to plans that would reward recipients even if the event does not result in an actual change in control or results in a change in control but does not terminate the employment relationship.)

·

allows for post-employment vesting or exercise of options if deemed inappropriate.

·

allows plan administrators to make material amendments without shareholder approval.

 

Amendment Procedures for Equity Compensation Plans and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) (Toronto Stock Exchange Issuers)

Vote AGAINST if the amendment procedures do not preserve shareholder approval rights.

 

Stock Option Plans for Independent Internal Statutory Auditors (Japan)

Vote AGAINST.

 

Matching Share Plans

Vote AGAINST if the matching share plan does not meet recommended standards, considering holding period, discounts, dilution, participation, purchase price, or performance criteria.

 

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Voting decisions are generally based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals.

 

Capital Issuances in Support of Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Voting decisions are generally based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals.

 

OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals

Plans Intended to Qualify for Favorable Tax Treatment under Section 162(m) of OBRA

Vote AGAINST if a potential recipient under the plan(s) sits on the committee that exercises discretion over the related compensation awards.  Vote FOR plans in cases where the only concern cited is lack of board independence, provided that the board meets the independence requirements of the relevant listing exchange.  Consider other concerns CASE-BY-CASE.

 

Amendments that Place a Cap on Annual Grants or Amend Administrative Features to Comply with Section 162(m) of OBRA

Vote FOR.

 

Amendments to Add Performance-Based Goals to Comply with Section 162(m) of OBRA

Vote FOR, unless the amendments are clearly inappropriate.

 

Amendments to Increase Shares and Retain Tax Deductions under OBRA

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans to Exempt the Compensation from Taxes under Section 162(m) of OBRA

Vote FOR, with primary consideration given to management’s assessment that such plan meets the requirements for exemption of performance-based compensation.  However, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when broader compensation concerns exist.

 

Director Compensation

 

Non-Executive Director Cash Compensation

Factor in the merits of the rationale and disclosure provided.  Vote FOR if the amount is not excessive, there is no evidence of abuse, the recipient’s overall compensation appears reasonable, the administrating committee meets exchange or market standards for independence, and other significant market standards are met.  Otherwise, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Non-Executive Director Equity Compensation

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Bonus Payments (Japan)

Vote FOR if all payments are for directors or auditors who have served as executives of the company, and AGAINST if any payments are for outsiders.  

 

Bonus Payments – Scandals

Vote AGAINST bonus proposals for a retiring director or continuing director or auditor when culpability can be attributed to the nominee.

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis bundled bonus proposals for retiring directors or continuing directors or auditors when culpability cannot be attributed to all nominees.

 

Severance Agreements

Vesting of Equity Awards upon Change in Control

Vote FOR management proposals seeking a specific treatment (e.g., double trigger or pro-rata) of equity that vests upon change in control, unless evidence exists of abuse in historical compensation practices.  

 

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals regarding the treatment of equity if:

·

The change in control cash severance provisions are double-triggered; and

·

The company has provided a reasonable rationale regarding the treatment of equity.

 

Executive Severance or Termination Arrangements, Including those Related to Executive Recruitment or Retention  

Vote FOR such compensation arrangements if:

·

The primary concerns raised would not result in a negative vote, under these Guidelines, on a management say on pay proposal, the relevant board or committee member(s);

·

The company has provided adequate rationale and/or disclosure; or

·

Support is recommended as a condition to a major transaction such as a merger.

 

Single Trigger Cash Severance Provisions

Vote AGAINST new or materially amended plans, contracts, or payments that include single trigger change in control cash severance provisions or do not require an actual change in control in order to be triggered.  

 

Compensation-Related Shareholder Proposals

 

Double Triggers

Vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking double triggers on change in control cash severance provisions.  

 

Executive and Director Compensation

Unless evidence exists of abuse in historical compensation practices, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that seek to impose new compensation structures or policies.

 

Holding Periods

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring mandatory periods for officers and directors to hold company stock.

 

Submit Severance and Termination Payments for Shareholder Ratification

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to submit executive severance agreements for shareholder ratification, if such proposals specify change in control events, Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans, or deferred executive compensation plans, or if ratification is required by the listing exchange.

 

3-

Audit-Related

 

Auditor Ratification

Vote FOR management proposals to ratify auditors except in such cases as indicated below..

 

In the U.S. and Canada, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the Proxy Advisory Firm cites poor

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

accounting practices including if the company has failed to disclose a categorical breakdown of the auditors’ fees.

 

For all other markets, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if:

·

The Proxy Advisory Firm raises questions of disclosure or auditor independence; or

·

Total fees for non-audit services exceed 50 percent of the total auditor fees (including audit-related fees, and tax compliance and preparation fees if applicable) and the company has not provided adequate rationale regarding the non-audit fees.  (For purposes of this review, fees deemed to be reasonable, non-recurring exceptions to the non-audit fee category (e.g., significant, one-time events such as those related to an IPO) will be excluded).

 

Vote AGAINST if the company has failed to disclose auditors’ fees.

 

Vote FOR shareholder proposals asking the company to present its auditor annually for ratification.

 

Remuneration of Auditors

Vote FOR, unless there is evidence of excessive compensation relative to the size and nature of the company.

 

Auditor Independence

Consider shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services (or capping the level of non-audit services) on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Audit Firm Rotation

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals asking for mandatory audit firm rotation.

 

Indemnification of Auditors

Vote AGAINST the indemnification of auditors.

 

Independent Statutory Auditors (Japan)

Vote AGAINST if the candidate is affiliated (e.g., if the nominee has worked a significant portion of his career for the company, its main bank, or one of its top shareholders.)

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis bundled slates of directors.

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis cases where multiple slates of statutory auditors are presented.

 

Vote AGAINST incumbent directors at companies implicated in scandals or exhibiting poor internal controls.

 

Statutory Auditors Remuneration

Vote FOR as long as the amount is not excessive (e.g., significant increases should be supported by adequate rationale and disclosure), there is no evidence of abuse, the recipient’s overall compensation appears reasonable, and the board and/or responsible committee meet exchange or market standards for independence.

 

4-

Shareholder Rights and Defenses

 

Advance Notice for Shareholder Proposals 

Vote FOR management proposals related to advance notice period requirements, provided that the period requested is in accordance with applicable law and no material governance concerns have been identified in connection with the company. 

 

Corporate Documents / Article and Bylaw Amendments 

Vote FOR if the change or policy is editorial in nature or if shareholder rights are protected. 

 

Vote AGAINST if it seeks to impose a negative impact on shareholder rights or diminishes accountability to shareholders.

 

With respect to article amendments for Japanese companies: 

·

Vote FOR management proposals to amend a company’s articles to expand its business lines in line with its current industry; consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the new business line is completely unrelated or not disclosed.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

·

Vote FOR management proposals to amend a company’s articles to provide for an expansion or reduction in the size of the board, unless the expansion/reduction is clearly disproportionate to the growth/decrease in the scale of the business or raises anti-takeover concerns.

·

If anti-takeover concerns exist, vote AGAINST management proposals, including bundled proposals, to amend a company’s articles to authorize the Board to vary the annual meeting record date or to otherwise align them with provisions of a takeover defense.

·

Follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s guidelines with respect to management proposals regarding amendments to authorize share repurchases at the board’s discretion, voting AGAINST proposals unless there is little to no likelihood of a creeping takeover or constraints on liquidity (free float of shares is low), and where the company is trading at below book value or is facing a real likelihood of substantial share sales; or where this amendment is bundled with other amendments which are clearly in shareholders’ interest.

 

Majority Voting Standard

Vote FOR proposals seeking election of directors by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast in connection with a meeting of shareholders, provided they contain a plurality carve-out for contested elections, and provided such standard does not conflict with law in which the company is incorporated.

 

Vote FOR amendments to corporate documents or other actions promoting a majority standard.  (See also Section 8. Mutual Fund Proxies.)

 

Cumulative Voting

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to restore or permit cumulative voting.

 

Vote AGAINST management proposals to eliminate cumulative voting if the company:

·

Is controlled;

·

Maintains a classified board of directors; or

·

Maintains a dual class voting structure.

 

Proposals may be supported irrespective of classified board status if a company plans to declassify its board or adopt a majority voting standard.

 

Confidential Voting 

Vote FOR management proposals to adopt confidential voting. 

 

Vote FOR shareholder proposals that request companies to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators, and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: 

·

In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy.

·

If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place.

·

If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived.

 

Fair Price Provisions 

Consider proposals to adopt fair price provisions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. 

 

Vote AGAINST fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares. 

 

Poison Pills 

Votes will be cast in a manner that seeks to preserve shareholder value and the right to consider a valid offer, voting AGAINST management proposals in connection with poison pills or anti-takeover activities (e.g., disclosure requirements or issuances, transfers, or repurchases)  that can reasonably be construed as an anti-takeover measure, based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals. . 

 

DO NOT VOTE AGAINST director remuneration in connection with poison pill considerations raised. 

 

Vote FOR shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification, or to redeem its pill in lieu thereof, unless: 

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

·

Shareholders have approved adoption of the plan;

·

A policy has already been implemented by the company that should reasonably prevent abusive use of the pill; or

·

The board had determined that it was in the best interest of shareholders to adopt a pill without delay, provided that such plan would be put to shareholder vote within twelve months of adoption or expire, and if not approved by a majority of the votes cast, would immediately terminate.

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill. 

 

Proxy Access 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to provide shareholders with access to management’s proxy material in order to nominate their own candidates(s) to the board, factoring in considerations such as whether significant or multiple corporate governance concerns have been identified. 

 

Vote FOR management proposals also supported by the Proxy Advisory Firm. 

 

Quorum Requirements 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to lower quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding. 

 

Reincorporation Proposals 

Consider proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.  

 

Vote FOR management proposals not assessed as: 

·

A potential takeover defense; or

·

A significant reduction of minority shareholder rights that outweigh the aggregate positive impact, but if so assessed, weighing management’s rationale for the change.

 

Vote FOR management reincorporation proposals upon which another key proposal, such as a merger transaction, is contingent if the other key proposal is also supported. 

 

Vote AGAINST shareholder reincorporation proposals not also supported by the company. 

 

Shareholder Advisory Committees 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee. 

 

Right to Call Special Meetings 

Consider management proposals to permit shareholders to call special meetings on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.  

 

Vote FOR shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings when either of the following applies: 

·

Company does not currently permit shareholders to do so;

·

Existing ownership threshold is greater than 25 percent; or

·

Sole concern relates to a net-long position requirement.

 

Written Consent 

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking the right to act by written consent if the company: 

·

Permits shareholders to call special meetings;

·

Does not impose supermajority vote requirements on business combinations/actions (e.g., a merger or acquisition) and on bylaw or charter amendments; and

·

Has otherwise demonstrated its accountability to shareholders (e.g., the company has reasonably addressed majority-supported shareholder proposals).

 

Consider management proposals to eliminate the right to act by written consent on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting FOR if the above conditions are present. 

 

Vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking the right to act by written consent if the above conditions are not present. 

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

State Takeover Statutes 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to opt-in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions). 

 

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement 

Vote AGAINST proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote and FOR proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements; except,

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the company has shareholder(s) with significant ownership levels and the retention of existing supermajority requirements would protect minority shareholder interests. 

 

Time-Phased Voting 

Vote AGAINST proposals to implement, and FOR proposals to eliminate, time-phased or other forms of voting that do not promote a one share, one vote standard. 

 

White Squire Placements 

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to require approval of blank check preferred stock issues for other than general corporate purposes. 

 

5-

Capital and Restructuring

 

Consider management proposals to make changes to the capital structure not otherwise addressed under these Guidelines on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation unless a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s) is utilized.

 

Vote AGAINST proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board.

 

Capital

 

Common Stock Authorization

Consider proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.  The Proxy Advisory Firm’s proprietary approach of determining appropriate thresholds will be utilized in evaluating such proposals.  In cases where the requests are above the allowable threshold, a company-specific qualitative review (e.g., considering rationale and prudent historical usage) will be utilized.

 

Vote FOR proposals within the Proxy Advisory Firm’s allowable thresholds, or those in excess but meeting Proxy Advisory Firm’s qualitative standards, to authorize capital increases, unless the company states that the stock may be used as a takeover defense.  

 

Vote FOR proposals to authorize capital increases exceeding the Proxy Advisory Firm’s thresholds when a company’s shares are in danger of being delisted or if a company’s ability to continue to operate as a going concern is uncertain.

 

Notwithstanding the above, vote AGAINST:

·

Proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of a class of stock if the issuance which the increase is intended to service is not supported under these Guidelines (e.g., merger or acquisition proposals).

·

Nonspecific proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board.

 

Dual Class Capital Structures

Vote AGAINST:

·

Proposals to create or perpetuate dual class capital structures (e.g., exchange offers, conversions, and recapitalizations) unless supported by the Proxy Advisory Firm (e.g., utilize a one share, one vote standard, to avert bankruptcy or generate non-dilutive financing, or not designed to increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder).

·

Proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of stock that has superior voting rights in companies that have dual class capital structures.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

However, consider such proposals CASE-BY-CASE if:

·

Bundled with favorable proposal(s);

·

Approval of such proposal(s) is a condition of such favorable proposal(s); or

·

Part of a recapitalization for which support is recommended by the Proxy Advisory Firm or relevant Investment Professional(s).

 

Consider management proposals to eliminate or make changes to dual class capital structures on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation.

 

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to eliminate dual class capital structures unless the relevant Fund owns a class with superior voting rights.

 

General Share Issuances / Increases in Authorized Capital (International)

Consider specific issuance requests on a Case-by-Case basis based on the proposed use and the company’s rationale.

 

Voting decisions to determine support for requests for general issuances (with or without preemptive rights), authorized capital increases, convertible bonds issuances, warrants issuances, or related requests to repurchase and reissue shares, will be based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s assessment.

 

Preemptive Rights

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights or management proposals that seek to eliminate them.  In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, consider the size of a company and the characteristics of its shareholder base.

 

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

Vote FOR management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock, unless doing so raises other concerns not otherwise supported under these Guidelines.

 

Preferred Stock

Utilize the Proxy Advisory Firm's approach for evaluating issuances or authorizations of preferred stock, taking into account the Proxy Advisory Firm's support of special circumstances, such as mergers or acquisitions, as well as the following criteria:

 

Consider proposals to increase the number of shares of preferred stock authorized for issuance on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.  This approach incorporates both qualitative and quantitative measures, including a review of:

·

Past performance (e.g., board governance, shareholder returns and historical share usage); and

·

The current request (e.g., rationale, whether shares are blank check and declawed, and dilutive impact as determined through the Proxy Advisory Firm’s model for assessing appropriate thresholds).

 

Vote AGAINST proposals authorizing the issuance of preferred stock or creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock).

 

Vote FOR proposals to issue or create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense or not utilize a disparate voting rights structure.  

 

Vote AGAINST where the company expressly states that, or fails to disclose whether, the stock may be used as a takeover defense.

 

Vote FOR proposals to authorize or issue preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred shares after analyzing the number of preferred shares available for issue given a company’s industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Preferred Stock (International)

Voting decisions should generally be based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach, including:

·

Vote FOR the creation of a new class of preferred stock or issuances of preferred stock up to 50 percent of issued capital unless the terms of the preferred stock would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders.

·

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible preferred stock as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets the Proxy Advisory Firm’s guidelines on equity issuance requests.

·

Vote AGAINST the creation of:

(1) a new class of preference shares that would carry superior voting rights to the common shares, or

(2) blank check preferred stock, unless the board states that the authorization will not be used to thwart a takeover bid.

 

Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting to have shareholder ratification of  blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business,.

 

Share Repurchase Programs

Vote FOR management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms, but vote AGAINST plans with terms favoring selected parties.

 

Vote FOR management proposals to cancel repurchased shares.

 

Vote AGAINST proposals for share repurchase methods lacking adequate risk mitigation or exceeding appropriate volume or duration parameters for the market.

 

Consider shareholder proposals seeking share repurchase programs on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, giving primary consideration to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).

 

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

Vote FOR management proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the increase in authorized shares falls within the Proxy Advisory Firm’s allowable thresholds.

 

Reverse Stock Splits

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals to implement a reverse stock split.

 

In the event that the split constitutes a capital increase effectively exceeding the Proxy Advisory Firm’s allowable threshold because the request does not proportionately reduce the number of shares authorized, consider management’s rationale and/or disclosure, voting FOR, but not supporting additional requests for capital increases on the same agenda.

 

Allocation of Income and Dividends (International)

With respect to Japanese companies, consider management proposals concerning allocation of income and the distribution of dividends, including adjustments to reserves to make capital available for such purposes, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendations to support such proposals unless:

·

The dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation; or

·

The payout is excessive given the company’s financial position.

 

Vote FOR such management proposals by companies in other markets.

 

Vote AGAINST proposals where companies are seeking to establish or maintain disparate dividend distributions between stockholders of the same share class (e.g., long-term stockholders receiving a higher dividend ratio (“Loyalty Dividends”)).

 

In any market, in the event multiple proposals regarding dividends are on the same agenda, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternatives (International)

Vote FOR most stock (scrip) dividend proposals, but vote AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.

 

Tracking Stock

Consider the creation of tracking stock on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, giving primary consideration  to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).

 

Capitalization of Reserves (International)

Vote FOR proposals to capitalize the company’s reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase the par value of shares, unless concerns not otherwise supported under these Guidelines are raised by the Proxy Advisory Firm.

 

Debt Instruments and Issuance Requests (International)

Vote AGAINST proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board to issue or set terms for debt instruments (e.g., commercial paper).

 

Vote FOR debt issuances for companies when the gearing level (current debt-to-equity ratio) is between zero and 100 percent.  

 

Vote AGAINST proposals where the issuance of debt will result in the gearing level being greater than 100 percent, or for which inadequate disclosure precludes calculation of the gearing level, unless the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such requests results in support of the proposal.

 

Acceptance of Deposits (India)

Voting decisions generally based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals.

 

Debt Restructurings

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan.

 

Financing Plans (International)

Vote FOR the adoption of financing plans if they are in the best economic interests of shareholders.

 

Investment of Company Reserves (International)

Consider proposals on a case-by-case basis.

 

Restructuring

 

Mergers and Acquisitions / Corporate Restructurings

Vote FOR a proposal not typically supported under these Guidelines if a key proposal, such as a merger transaction, is contingent upon its support and a vote FOR is recommended by the Proxy Advisory Firm or relevant Investment Professional(s).

 

Votes will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with voting decisions based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals if no input is provided by the relevant Investment Professional(s).

 

Waiver on Tender-Bid Requirement (International)

Consider proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if seeking a waiver for a major shareholder or concert party from the requirement to make a buyout offer to minority shareholders, voting FOR when little concern of a creeping takeover exists and the company has provided a reasonable rationale for the request.

 

Related Party Transactions (International)

Vote FOR approval of such transactions unless the agreement requests a strategic move outside the company’s charter, contains unfavorable or high-risk terms (e.g., deposits without security interest or guaranty), or is deemed likely to have a negative impact on director or related party independence.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

6-

Environmental and Social Issues

 

Environmental and Social Proposals

Boards of directors and company management are responsible for guiding the corporation in connection with matters that are most often the subject of shareholder proposals on environmental and social issues.  Such matters may include:  

·

Ensuring that the companies they oversee comply with applicable legal, regulatory and ethical standards;

·

Effectively managing risk, and

·

Assessing and addressing matters that may have a financial impact on shareholder value.

 

The Funds will vote in accordance with the board’s recommendation on such proposals based on the guidelines below.

 

The Funds will vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to:

 

·

Dictate corporate conduct;

·

Impose excessive costs or restrictions;

·

Duplicate policies already substantially in place; or

·

Release information that would not help a shareholder evaluate an investment in the corporation as an economic matter.

 

Certain instances will be considered CASE-BY-CASE.  If it appears that both:

(1)

The stewardship has fallen short as evidenced by the company’s failure to align its actions and disclosure with market practice and that of its peers; or the company’s having been subject to significant controversies, litigation, fines, or penalties in connection with the relevant issue; and

(2)

The issue is material to the company.

 

Approval of Donations (International)

Vote FOR proposals if they are for single- or multi-year authorities and prior disclosure of amounts is provided.  Otherwise, vote AGAINST such proposals.

 

7-

Routine/Miscellaneous

 

Routine Management Proposals

Consider proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends voting AGAINST.

 

Authority to Call Shareholder Meetings on Less than 21 Days’ Notice

For companies in the United Kingdom, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in whether the company has provided clear disclosure of its compliance with any hurdle conditions for the authority imposed by applicable law and has historically limited its use of such authority to time-sensitive matters.

 

Approval of Financial Statements and Director and Auditor Reports (International)

Vote AGAINST if there are concerns regarding inadequate disclosure, remuneration arrangements (including severance/termination payments exceeding local standards for multiples of annual compensation), or consulting agreements with non-executive directors.

 

Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if there are other concerns regarding severance/termination payments.

 

Vote AGAINST if there is concern about the company’s financial accounts and reporting, including related party transactions.

 

Vote AGAINST board-issued reports receiving a negative recommendation from the Proxy Advisory Firm due to concerns regarding independence of the board or the presence of non-independent directors on the audit committee.  

 

Vote FOR if the only reason for a negative recommendation by the Proxy Advisory Firm is to express disapproval of broader practices of the company or its board.

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Other Business

Vote AGAINST proposals for Other Business, unless the company has provided adequate disclosure regarding the matters to be raised under Other Business.  Consider such instances CASE-BY-CASE.  

 

Adjournment

These items often appear on the same agenda as a primary proposal, such as a merger or corporate restructuring.

·

Vote FOR when the primary proposal is also supported.

·

If there is no primary proposal, vote FOR if all other proposals are supported and AGAINST if all other proposals are opposed.

·

Consider other circumstances on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Changing Corporate Name

Vote FOR proposals requesting a change in corporate name.

 

Multiple Proposals

Multiple proposals of a similar nature presented as options to the course of action favored by management may all be voted FOR, provided that:

·

Support for a single proposal is not operationally required;

·

No one proposal is deemed superior in the interest of the Fund(s); and

·

Each proposal would otherwise be supported under these Guidelines.

 

Vote AGAINST any proposals that would otherwise be opposed under these Guidelines.

 

Bundled Proposals

Vote FOR if all of the bundled items are supported by these Guidelines.

 

Vote AGAINST if one or more items are not supported by these Guidelines, and if the Proxy Advisory Firm deems the negative impact, on balance, to outweigh any positive impact.

 

Moot Proposals

This instruction is in regard to items for which support has become moot (e.g., an incentive grant to a person no longer employed by the company); WITHHOLD support if recommended by the Proxy Advisory Firm.

 

8-

Mutual Fund Proxies

 

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

Vote FOR the establishment of new classes or series of shares.

 

Hire and Terminate Sub-Advisors

Vote FOR management proposals that authorize the board to hire and terminate sub-advisors.

 

Master-Feeder Structure

Vote FOR the establishment of a master-feeder structure.

 

Establish Director Ownership Requirement

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals for the establishment of a director ownership requirement.

 

All other matters should be examined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

 

 

Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines for the Voya Funds and Advisors

 

Exhibit 1 – Proxy Group

 

Name	Title or Affiliation
Stanley D. Vyner	Chief Investment Risk Officer and Executive Vice President, Voya Investments, LLC
Julius A. Drelick III, CFA	Senior Vice President, Head of Fund Compliance, Voya Funds Services, LLC
Kevin M. Gleason	Senior Vice President, Voya Investment Management LLC; and Chief Compliance Officer of the Voya Family of Funds,
Todd Modic	Senior Vice President, Voya Funds Services, LLC and Voya Investments, LLC; and Chief Financial Officer of the Voya Family of Funds
Maria Anderson	Vice President, Fund Compliance, Voya Funds Services, LLC
Sara Donaldson	Proxy Coordinator for the Voya Family of Funds and Vice President, Proxy Voting, Voya Funds Services, LLC
Harley Eisner	Vice President, Financial Analysis, Voya Funds Services, LLC
Evan Posner, Esq.	Vice President and Counsel, Voya Family of Funds
Andrew Schlueter	Vice President, Mutual Funds Operations, Voya Funds Services LLC
Kristin Lynch*	Assistant Vice President, Office of the Chief Compliance Officer, Voya Investment Management LLC

 

Effective as of May 21, 2015

 

*Non-voting member

 

 

Item 8.

Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

 

(a) (1) Portfolio Management. The following individuals share responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio:

 

Martin Jansen is a Portfolio Manager at Voya Investment Management responsible for the Voya Global Value Advantage strategy, infrastructure, industrials and materials fund and the international high dividend income fund and has extensive experience running international value strategies. Previously, he was responsible for managing the transition of the U.S. equity trading facility and U.S. equity assets from former parent, ING Group in The Hague to ING Aeltus. Martin joined the firm to co-manage U.S. equity portfolios and was named head of the U.S. equity team in 1999. Prior to joining the firm, Martin was responsible for the U.S. equity and venture capital portfolios at a large corporate Dutch pension fund. He received a BComm and an MBA from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

 

Brian Madonick is an analyst on the value team at Voya Investment Management covering the industrials sector. Brian also serves as a portfolio manager for the infrastructure development fund and the mid cap value advantage strategy. Prior to joining the firm, Brian spent four years as the industrials analyst at U.S. Trust. Prior to U.S. Trust, he was a senior analyst at Bear Stearns covering aerospace and defense for the #1 ranked team per Institutional Investor magazine. Brian received a BA from Binghamton University.

 

 

Joseph Vultaggio is an analyst on the international value team, covering the industrials sector at Voya Investment Management. Joseph also serves as a portfolio manager for the infrastructure, industrials and materials fund. Prior to joining the firm, he received a BS degree in finance from Trenton State College and an MBA in finance at Rutgers Graduate School of Management.

 

Paul Zemsky is the Chief Investment Officer for Multi-Asset Strategies and Solutions (MASS) at Voya Investment Management. He is responsible for the firm’s suite of value-added, customized products and solutions that are supported by asset allocation, manager research, quantitative research, portfolio implementation and multi-manager capabilities. Prior to joining the firm, he co-founded CaliberOne Private Funds Management, a macro hedge fund. Paul began his career at JPMorgan Investment Management, where he held a number of key positions, including head of investments for over $300 Billion of Fixed Income assets. Paul is a member of the firm’s Management Committee and a board member of Pomona capital. He holds a dual degree in finance and electrical engineering from the Management and Technology Program at the University of Pennsylvania and holds the Chartered Financial Analyst^® designation.

 

(a) (2) (i-iii) Other Accounts Managed

 

The following table shows the number of accounts and total assets in the accounts managed by the portfolio managers of the Sub-Adviser as of February 29, 2016, unless otherwise noted:

 

Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund (IDE)

 

 

IDE		Mutual Funds Registered Investment Companies								Trusts, Sep Accts and Stable Value Other Pooled Investment Vehicles and Alternative								Other Accounts, VIM, Managed
Portfolio Manager		Number of Accts				Total Assets				Number of Accts				Total Assets				Number of Accts				Total Assets
Brian Madonick			1			$	269,214,371
Joseph Vultaggio			1			$	269,214,371
Paul Zemsky			49			$	15,094,095,541				110			$	3,013,574,213.56
Martin Jansen			4			$	1,339,310,529												4			$	145,078,882

 

 

(a) (2) (iv) Conflicts of Interest

 

A portfolio manager may be subject to potential conflicts of interest because the portfolio manager is responsible for other accounts in addition to the Fund. These other accounts may include, among others, other mutual funds, separately managed advisory accounts, commingled trust accounts, insurance, wrap fee programs and hedge funds. Potential conflicts may arise out of the implementation of differing investment strategies for the portfolio manager’s various accounts, the allocation of investment opportunities among those accounts or differences in the advisory fees paid by the portfolio manager’s accounts.

 

A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s responsibility for multiple accounts with similar investment guidelines. Under these circumstances, a potential investment may be suitable for more than one of the portfolio manager’s accounts, but the quantity of the investment available for purchase is less than the aggregate amount the accounts would ideally devote to the opportunity. Similar conflicts may arise when multiple accounts seek to dispose of the same investment.

 

A portfolio manager may also manage accounts whose objectives and policies differ from those of the Fund. These differences may be such that under certain circumstances, trading activity appropriate for one account managed by the portfolio manager may have adverse consequences for another account managed by the portfolio manager. For example, if an account were to sell a significant position in a security, which could cause the market price of that security to decrease, while the Fund maintained its position in that security.

 

A potential conflict may arise when a portfolio manager is responsible for accounts that have different advisory fees — the difference in the fees may create an incentive for the portfolio manager to favor one account over another, for example, in terms of access to particularly appealing investment opportunities. This conflict may be heightened where an account is subject to a performance-based fee.

 

As part of its compliance program, Voya IM has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to address the potential conflicts of interest described above. Finally, a potential conflict of interest may arise because the investment mandates for certain other accounts, such as hedge funds, may allow extensive use of short sales which, in theory, could allow them to enter into short positions in securities where other accounts hold long positions. Voya IM has policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit and monitor short sales by the other accounts to avoid harm to the Fund.

 

(a) (3) Compensation

 

Compensation consists of: (i) a fixed base salary; (ii) a bonus, which is based on Voya IM performance, one-, three-, and five-year pre-tax performance of the accounts the portfolio managers are primarily and jointly responsible for relative to account benchmarks, peer universe performance, and revenue growth and net cash flow growth (changes in the accounts' net assets not attributable to changes in the value of the accounts' investments) of the accounts they are responsible for; and (iii) long-term equity awards tied to the performance of our parent company, Voya Financial, Inc. and/or a notional investment in a pre-defined set of Voya IM sub-advised funds.

 

Portfolio managers are also eligible to receive an annual cash incentive award delivered in some combination of cash and a deferred award in the form of Voya stock. The overall design of the annual incentive plan was developed to tie pay to both performance and cash flows, structured in such a way as to drive performance and promote retention of top talent. As with base salary compensation, individual target awards are determined and set based on external market data and internal comparators. Investment performance is measured on both relative and absolute performance in all areas.

 

The measures for each team are outlined on a “scorecard” that is reviewed on an annual basis. These scorecards measure investment performance versus benchmark and peer groups over one-, three-, and five-year periods; and year-to-date net cash flow (changes in the accounts' net assets not attributable to changes in the value of the accounts' investments) for all accounts managed by each team. The results for overall Voya IM scorecards are typically calculated on an asset weighted performance basis of the Investment professionals' performance measures for bonus determinations are weighted by 25% being attributable to the overall Voya IM performance and 75% attributable to their specific team results (65% investment performance, 5% net cash flow, and 5% revenue growth).

 

Voya IM's long-term incentive plan is designed to provide ownership-like incentives to reward continued employment and to link long-term compensation to the financial performance of the business. Based on job function, internal comparators and external market data, employees may be granted long-term awards. All senior investment professionals participate in the long-term compensation plan. Participants receive annual awards determined by the management committee based largely on investment performance and contribution to firm performance. Plan awards are based on the current year's performance as defined by the Voya IM component of the annual incentive plan. Awards typically include a combination of performance shares, which vest ratably over a three-year period, and Voya restricted stock and/or a notional investment in a predefined set of Voya IM sub-advised funds, each subject to a three-year cliff-vesting schedule.

 

If a portfolio manager's base salary compensation exceeds a particular threshold, he or she may participate in Voya's deferred compensation plan. The plan provides an opportunity to invest deferred amounts of compensation in mutual funds, Voya stock or at an annual fixed interest rate. Deferral elections are done on an annual basis and the amount of compensation deferred is irrevocable.

 

(a) (4) Ownership of Securities

 

The following table shows the dollar range of shares of the Trust owned by each team member as of February 29, 2016, including investments by their immediate family members and amounts invested through retirement and deferred compensation plans.

 

Ownership:

 

Portfolio Manager		Dollar Range of Trust Shares Owned
Jody Hrazanek		None
Brian Madonick		None
Joseph Vultaggio		None
Paul Zemsky		None
Steven Wetter		None

 

Item 9.

Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers

 

NONE.

 

Item 10.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

 

N/A.

 

Item 11.

Controls and Procedures.

 

(a)

Based on our evaluation conducted within 90 days of the filing date, hereof, the design and operation of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to the certifying officers by others within the appropriate entities, particularly during the period in which Forms N-CSR are being prepared, and the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures allow timely preparation and review of the information for the registrant’s Form N-CSR and the officer certifications of such Form N-CSR.

 

(b)	There were no significant changes in the registrant’s internal controls that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 

Item 12. Exhibits.

 

(a) (l)

Code of Ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is filed and attached hereto as EX-99.CODE ETH.

 

(a) (2)

A separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant as required by Rule 30a-2 under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2) is attached hereto as EX-99.CERT.

 

(b)	The officer certifications required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are attached hereto as EX-99.906CERT.

 

 (3)  Not applicable.

 

(c)	Notices to the registrant's common shareholders in accordance with the order under Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act granting an exemption from Section 19(b) of the 1940 Act and Rule 19b-1 under the 1940 Act, dated August 16, 2011.1

 

(c)(1) 2nd Qtr 2015

(c)(2) 3rd Qtr 2015

(c)(3) 4th Qtr 2015

(c)(4) 1st Qtr 2016

 

1

The Fund has received exemptive relief from the Securities and Exchange Commission permitting it to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to its outstanding common stock as frequently as twelve times each year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or in accordance with the terms of its outstanding preferred stock. This relief is conditioned, in part, on an undertaking by the Fund to make the disclosures to the holders of the Fund's common shares, in addition to the information required by Section 198(a) of the 1940 Act and Rule 19a-1 thereunder. The Fund is likewise obligated to file with the SEC the information contained in any such notice to shareholders and, in that regard, has attached hereto copies of each such notice made during the period.

 

 

  

SIGNATURES

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 

(Registrant): Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials

 

By:	/s/ Shaun P. Mathews
	Shaun P. Mathews
	President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: May 6, 2016

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

 

By:	/s/ Shaun P. Mathews
	Shaun P. Mathews
	President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: May 6, 2016

 

By	/s/ Todd Modic
	Todd Modic
	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

Date: May 6, 2016