James J. Hanks, Jr., Esq.

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

January 26, 2011

James J. Hanks, Jr., Esq.

Venable LLP

750 E. Pratt Street

Suite 900

Baltimore, MD 21202

Re:

The Adams Express Company — Omission of Shareholder Proposal

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8

Dear Mr. Hanks:

In a letter dated November 22, 2010, on behalf of The Adams Express Company

(“Fund”) you requested confirmation from the staff of the Division of Investment

Management that it would not recommend enforcement action to the Securities and

Exchange Commission if a shareholder proposal (“Proposal”) submitted by the Gramercy

Global Optimization Fund (“Proponent”) is omitted from the proxy materials for the next

scheduled shareholder meeting, which is expected to take place on March 22, 2011.

The Proposal states:

RESOLVED: The shareholders of The Adams Express Company (the “Fund”)

request the Board of Directors (the “Board”) to authorize the Fund to conduct a

self-tender offer for all outstanding shares of the Fund at net asset value (“NAV”)

or within 1% thereof (to cover expenses). If more than 50% of the Fund’s

outstanding shares are tendered, the tender offer should be cancelled and the Fund

should be liquidated or, at the discretion of the Board, merged or converted into

an open-end mutual fund.

You argue that the Proposal may be excluded: (1) pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(2)

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, because, it would, if implemented, require

the Fund to violate state and federal law; (2) pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(6), because the

Fund lacks the power and authority to implement the Proposal; (3) pursuant to Rule 14a8(i)(3), because the Proposal is inherently vague and indefinite and because it contains

false and misleading statements in violation of Rule 14a-9; and (4) pursuant to Rule 14a8(i)(4), because the Proposal is designed to result in a benefit to the Proponent which is

not shared by the other stockholders.

James J. Hanks, Jr., Esq.

January 26, 2011

Page 2

There appears to be some basis for your view that the Proposal may be excluded

under Rules 14a-8(i)(2) and 14a-8(i)(6). We note that, in the opinion of the Fund’s

counsel, the Board lacks authority to liquidate, merge, or convert the Fund and

implementation of these aspects of the Proposal would violate state law. It appears that

this defect could be cured, however, if the Proposal were revised to state that the Board

should take the steps necessary to liquidate, merge, or convert the Fund. Accordingly,

unless the Proponent provides the Fund with a proposal revised in this manner, within

seven calendar days after receiving this letter, we will not recommend enforcement action

to the Commission if the Fund omits the Proposal from its proxy materials in reliance on

Rules 14a-8(i)(2) and 14a-8(i)(6).

We are unable to concur in your view that the Proposal may be excluded under

Rule 14a-8(i)(3). We are unable to conclude that the Proposal is so inherently vague or

indefinite that neither the shareholders voting on the Proposal, nor the Fund in

implementing the Proposal, would be able to determine with any reasonable certainty

what actions or measures the Proposal requires.

There appears to be some basis for your view, however, that the language in the

supporting statement that “[t]he Board has the authority to cause the Fund to take the

actions proposed herein,” may be materially false or misleading under Rule 14a-9 and,

therefore, may be excluded pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(3). Accordingly, unless the

Proponent, within seven calendar days of receipt of this letter, revises the Proposal either

to delete this language or to clarify the Board’s authority, we would not recommend

enforcement action to the Commission if the Fund omits this language in reliance on Rule

14a-8(i)(3).

Finally, we are unable to concur in your view that the Fund may exclude the

Proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(4).

Attached is a description of the informal procedures the Division follows in

responding to shareholder proposals. If you have any questions or comments concerning

this matter, please call me at (202) 551-6945.

Sincerely,

John M. Ganley

Senior Counsel

Attachment

cc:

Gramercy Global Optimization Fund

· 750 E. PRATT STREET SUITE 900 BAlTIMORE. MD 21202

T 410.244.7400 F410.244.7742· www.Venable.com

November 22, 2010

VIA E-MAIL (shareho1derproposals@sec.gov)

Office of Legal and Disclosure

Division of Investment Management

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:

The Adams Express Company - Omission of the Stockholder Proposal

Submitted by Gramercy Global Optimization Fund

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are counsel to The Adams Express Company, a Maryland corporation

registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the" 1940 Act"), as a

closed-end management investment company ("Adams Express" or the "Fund"), in comiection

with a proposal and supporting statement (the "Proposal") received by the Fund on October 4,

2010, from Graniercy Global Optimization Fund (the "Proponent") for inclusion in the Fund's

proxy materials (the "Proxy Materials") for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders in 2011 (the

"Annual Meeting"), pursuant to Rule 14a-8 promulgated under the Securities Exch!Ulge Act of

1934, as amended. We hereby respectfully request confmnation from the staff (the "Stafr') of

the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") that no enforcement action will be

recommended ifthe Fund excludes the Proposal from the Proxy Materials.

The Fund currently expects the Annual Meeting to take place on March 22, 2011,

and it expects to file its Proxy Materials on or about February 14,2011. Pursuant to Rule 14a

80), the Fund, by separate letter, is contemporaneously advising the Proponent of the Fund's

intention to omit the Proposal from the Proxy Materials.

0,i

The Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A, requests, in relevant part, that the

Board ofDirectors ofAdams Express (the "Board") authorize a self-tender for 100% of the

outstanding shares of the Fund at or near net asset value ("NAV") on the condition that, if more

than 50% ofthe Fund's outstanding shares are tendered, the tender offer should be canceled and

(a) the Fund should be liquidated or (b), at the discretion of the Board, "merged" or "converted"

into an open-end fund and provides that the Board alone has the authority to take these actions.

The Fund believes that the Proposal may be excluded:

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(2), because it would, if implemented, require the

Fund to violate state and federal law;

BA0f276794

[

~overnber22,2010

Page 2

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(6), because the Fund lacks the power and

authority to implement the Proposal;

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(3), because the Proposal is inherently vague and

indefInite and because it contains false and misleading statements in violation of Rule 14a-9; and

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(4), because the Proposal is designed to resultin

a benefIt to the Proponent which is not shared by the other stockholders.

The Proposal

The Proposal reads, in full, as follows:

RESOLVED: The shareholders of The Adams Express Company

(the "Fund") request the Board of Directors (the "Board") to

authorize the Fund to conduct a self-tender offer for all outstanding

shares ofthe Fund at net asset value (''NAV") or within I% thereof

(to cover expenses). Ifmore than 50% of the Fund's outstanding

shares are tendered, the tender offer should be cancelled and the

Fund should be liquidated or, at the discretion of the Board,

merged or converted into an open-end mutual fund.

Shares of the Fund are trading at a double-digit discount to the value of the

assets owned by the Fund. The discount is, as of 09/30/1 0, over 15%. As

of 09/30/1 0, the total return on net asset value of the Fund's shares has had

mediocre perfonnance relative to the Standard & Poor's 500 Composite

Stock Index ("S&P500") over the last I-year, 3-year, and 5-year periods as

evidenced by Exhibit C. In fact, over the last 5 years, as of 09/30/1 0, the

Fund has returned 2.18% in contrast to 3.22% returned by S&P500 which

the Fund compares itself in the 06/30/1 0 semi-annual report.

The Board has the authority to cause the Fund to take the actions proposed

herein. A self-tender by the Fund would close the tradhtg discount and

allow participants to receive approximately 17% more than the price ofthe

shares as of 09/30/10. The legal structure of the Fund allows it to trade at

a discount to the assets it holds. A mere change in legal fonn would

reverse this discount and allow you to receive the difference.

In light of these facts, we think the Board should authorize the Fund to

conduct a self-tender offer for all outstanding shares at ~AV in order to

provide shareholders with the opportunity to receive full value for their

shares. Tender participation by a majority ofthe Fund's shareholders

would demonstrate insufficient shareholder support for continuing the

VENABLE:LP

~ovember22,20l0

Page 3

Fund in its closed-end fonnat. In that case, the tender offer should be

cance]]ed and the Fund should be liquidated or merged (or converted) into

an open-end fund.

Uyou agree that the Fund's persistent discount and mediocre t at best,

performance is unacceptable and would like to increase the value of

your shares and your return, please vote for this proposal. (Emphasis

original.)

II.

The Proposal May Be Excluded Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(2) Because It Would, if

Implemented t Cause the Fund to Violate Maryland Law and the 1940 Act

Rule 14a-8(i)(2) permits a company to omit a stockholder proposal that would, if

implemented, cause the company to violate any state, federal or foreign law to which it is

subject. The implementation of the Proposal would cause the Fund to violate Maryland law and

the 1940 Act. The Proposal, in part, requests that the Board authorize a self-tender for 100% of

the outstanding shares of the Fund at or near ~AV and states that, if more than 50% of the

Fund's outstanding ·shares are tendered, the Fund should be "liquidated" or, at the Board's

discretion, "merged" or "converted" into an open-end fund and that the Board alone has the

authority to take these actions.

After conducting a tender offer, as discussed above, the liquidation of the Fund

would necessarily involve the sale of all ofthe Fund's assets, which is governed by Section 3-105

of the Maryland General Corporation Law (the "MGCL"). Customarily, a liquidation also

involves the dissolution of a corporation under Section 3-403 ofthe MGCL. Contrary to the

statements of the Proponent, both the sale of all the Fund's assets and the dissolution ofthe Fund

require Board and stockholder approval.

- In addition to the conditional tender offer and subsequent liquidation, the Proposal

gives the Board the alternative, "in its discretion," after conducting the tender offer, to merge or

convert the Fund into an open-end fund. However, the Proposal fails to specifY how the

"conversion" would be effected. The MGCL does not specifically provide for "conversion" of a

closed-end fund into an open-end fund; rather, a "conversion" would require an amendment to

the Fund's charter (the "Charter")) or a consolidation, merger, share exchange or a transfer or

sale of assets. All ofthese actions would require the Board to consider and adopt a resolution

setting forth the proposed transaction, declare the advisability ofthe transaction and "direct that

the proposed transaction be submitted for consideration at either an annual or special meeting of

the stockholders." Then, pursuant to Section 3-105(e) oftheMGCL, the stockholders would

have to vote to approve the proposed transaction. If the "conversion" is accomplished by an

amendment to the Charter, Section2-604 of the MGCL would require the same statutory

procedures - namely, board and stockholder approval.

A copy of the Charter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

VENABLE~p

November 22,2010

Page 4

In each instance, the MGCL requires that the foregoing actions musi be

considered and approved by both the Board and the stockholders. Board approval alone is not

sufficient. Accordingly, the Proposal, if implemented, would cause the Fund to violate Maryland

law because it calls for the Board, after conducting the conditional tender offer, to unilaterally

without the statutorily required stockholder vote - amend the Charter; merge or consolidate the

Fund into an open-end fimd; sell all ofthe assets of, or dissolve, the Fund; or compel the Fund to

engage in a share exchange. A supporting opinion of Venable LLP with respect to matters of

Maryland law is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Unilateral Board action to implement the Proposal is also prohibited under the

1940 Act. Section5(a) of the 1940 Act divides management companies into closed-end funds

and open-end fimds. Under Section 5(a)(l), an open-end fund is defined as a "management

company which is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the

issuer." Section 5(a)(2) provides that a closed-end fund is "any management company other than

an open-end company." Under Section 13(a) of the 1940 Act, a registered investment company

may not change its subclassification under Section 5(a)(l) or (2) of the 1940 Act, unless

authorized by a majority of its voting securities. Because the "conversion" of the Fund to an

open-end fund would necessarily involve a change in the Fund's subclassification,

implementation of the Proposal by the Board, acting alone, would violate the 1940 Act. .

Exclusion of the Proposal on these grounds is consistent with prior Staff

positions. The Staff has detenninedthat a company may propedy exclude a stockholder· .

proposal recommending the board of directors to take an action that would result in the company

violating state law. For example, in Northrop Grumman Corporation (Feb. 29, 2008), a

stockholder submitted a proposal recommending that the bOard adopt cumulative voting - an

action requiring both board and subsequent stockholder approval. In response to Northrop's no

action request, the Staff held that there were grounds for excluding the stockholder's proposal

pursuant to, among others, Rule14a-8(iX2). See also Xerox Corporation (Feb. 23, 2004)

(perinitting exclusion of a stockholder proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(2) because it recommended

that the board amend the company's certificate of incorporation, which under state law could

only be done "upon authorization thereofby the board of directors initially, followed by approval

. thereof by the shareholders"); and Burlington Resources Inc. (Feb. 7,2003) (holding a

stockholder proposal - requesting that the board of directors amend the certificate Of

incorporation to reinstate the rights of the stockholders to take action by written consent and to

call special meetings - properly excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(2) because, if implemented, it

would cause the company to violate Delaware law).

III.

The Proposal May Be Excluded Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(6) Because the Fund

Lacks the Power and Authority to Implement the Proposal

Rule 14a-8(i)(6) pennits a company to exclude a stockholder proposal ifthe

company "lacks the power or authority to implement" such proposal. The Fund believes that it

does not have the power or authority to implement the Proposal. As discussed above, (l) the

.1I

November22,2010

PageS

MGCL does not permit the Board to implement the Proposal without a stockholder vote and (2)

the 1940 Act prohibits the Fund from "converting" to an open-end fund unless authorized by a

majority of its voting securities. Moreover~ the Charter does not (and, under the MCGL, may

not) vest in the Board the power to unilaterally implement the Proposal.

The stockholder voting provisions in the Charter are consistent with the approval

requirements of the MGCL described above. In addition to Board approval, Section 6.2 of the

Charter generally requires the affirmative vote ofthe holders of shares entitled to cast at least

two-thirds ofthe votes entitled to be cast on the matter to authorize any amendment to the

Charter to make the Fund's common stock a "redeemable security" or to convert, by merger or

otherwise, from a closed-end fund to an open-end fund. 2 Accordingly, without both Board and

stockholder approval, the Fund lacks the power to implement the Proposal. 3 A supporting

opinion of Venable LLP with respect to matters of Maryland law is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Exclusion of the Proposal on these grounds is consistent with prior Staff

positions. The Staffhas previously determined that a company may exclude a stockholder

proposal where, as here, the board lacks the power and authority to implement it. See Northrop

Grumman Corporation (Feb. 29,2008) (finding the proposal excludable pursuant to Rule 14a

8(i)(6) because it was not within the power of the company or the board to adopt cumulative

voting (a stockholder vote was required»; Burlington Resources Inc. (Feb. 7,2003) (holding the

proposal excludable because it was beyond the board's Power and authority to amend the

certificate of incorporation).

IV.

The Proposal MayBe Excluded Pursuant to Rule-t4a-8(i)(3) Because the Proposal is

Inherently Vague and Indefinite and Because it Contains False and Misleading

Statements in Violation of Rule 14a-9

The Staffhas stated that a stockholder proposal may be excluded where "the

resolution contained in the proposal is so inherently vague or indefinite that neither the

stockholders voting on the proposal, nor the company in implementing the proposal (if adopted),

would be able to determine with-any reasonable certainty exactly what actions or measures the

proposal requires." SEC StajJLega/ Bulletin No. 14B (CF) (2004). Further, the Staffhas held

that a proposal may be excluded for vagueness where "the standards under the proposal may be

subject to differing interpretations," Hershey Foods Corp. (Dec. 27, 1988), and where "any

2 While Section 6.2 of the Charter provides, under limited circumstances, that the stockholders may approve the

. open-ending of the Fund by the affinnative Yote of a majority of the votes entitled to be cast, stockholders are stilI

required to approve any proposal to open-end the Fund. In any event, the vote requirements under the Charter

would be substantially higher than those required to approve the Proposal (which is only a majority of votes cast).

3 Contrary to what the Proposal seeks, there is no way to disenfranchise the stockholders from voting rights on

extraordinary matters vested in them by the ] 940 Act, the MGCL and the Charter. While the Proposal refers to the

action as "[a] mere change in legal fonn," the ]940 Act, the MGCL and the Charter treat these matters as

extraordinary corporate actions.

November 22, 2010

Page 6

resultant action by the Company would have to be made without guidance from the proposal and,

consequently, in possible contravention of the intentions of the shareholders who voted on the

proposaL" Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. (Mar. 21, 1977). As further explained below, the Proposal

will result in material uncertainty (a) for the Board, in considering and determining whether to

recommend the Proposal; (b) for the stockholders,in considering and voting on the Proposal; and

(c), if approved by the stockholders, for. the Board, in implementing the Proposal.

The Proposal refers alternatively to a conditional tender offer of unknown size, a

liquidation, a merger and a "conversion" into an open.;end fund. Each of these alternatives or

combination of alternatives presents various possible outcomes, each with differing economic,

tax and other consequences. As a result, neither the Board nor the stockholders are able to know

with any reasonable certainty what they are being asked to do or to approve. For example, a

tender offer woUld result in an outflow of cash from the Fund in exchange for the purchase of

shares, thus increasing the percentage of ownership of the non-tendering stockholders but likely

also the expense ratio. A liquidation, on the other hand, typically (but not always) results in the

complete extinguishment of the Fund with no opportunity for any ofthe stockholders opposed to

liquidation to remain as stockholders and with the recognition of tax gain or loss, even for non

approving stockholders. But even that is uncertain because the cash proceeds from the sale of

the Fund's assets in a liquidation could be reinvested for other purposes. 4 Moreover, in a

liquidation, all of the Fund's securities would have to be sold, causing greater (perhaps far

greater) downward pressure on their prices than would result from a tender offer, which would

involve sale of something less than all ofthe Fund's securities.

Further, the reference to "merger" does not address whether the consideration to

be received by the stockholders ofthe Fund should be cash or stock (or something else) in the

successor fund. Again, significantly different consequences for the stockholders voting on the

Proposal would flow from the decision on the form of consideration used in the merger. The

indeterminacy ofthe Proposal is further compounded by the option to "convert" the Fund into an

open-end fund. A "conversion," a concept that, as discussed above, does not specifically exist

under the MGCL, requires amendment of the Charter; a merger, a consolidation, a share

exchange with an open-end fund or a sale ofassets; or some combination thereof. In a stock

merger and in a "conversion," the stOCkholders ofthe merging or "converting" fund remain

holders in the successor fund, as opposed to a liquidation or cash merger, where the interests of

all ofthe stockholders, including those who voted against the action, are completely

extinguished.

Thus, under Maryland law, there are no less than six different outcomes, each

with varying consequences, to effecting a tender offer and subsequent liquidation, merger or

4 In fact, it was in the context of a sale of assets that the Fund changed its operations from an express company to a

closed-end fund in 1929. Of course, de-registration as an investment company would require a vote of a majority of

the Fund's voting securities. As stated above, the Proponent completely ignores the requirement of a stockholder

vote under the 1940 Act.

I·

VENABLE:LP

November 22,2010

Page 7

. conversion ofthe Fund. TIris is significant because, without addressing which action the Board

should take, the Proposal leaves both to the stockholders in voting on the Proposal and to the

Board in implementing the Proposal (if adopted) the task of guessing whether the Proposal

intends for the Fund to liquidate (with its various options) or merge, or under the non-Maryland

recognized concept of "conversion," consolidate, engage in a share exchange, transfer assets,

amend the Charter, or some combination thereof, and thus is potentially confusing for both the

stockholders and the Board.

.,1

In sum, the Proposal presents the same type of situation in which the Staff has

concluded that "any action(s) ultimateIytaken by the Company upon implementation ofth[e]

proposal could be significantly different from the actions envisioned by the shareholders voting

on the proposal." See Occidental Petroleum Corp. (Feb. 11,1991),5

Rule 14a-8(i)(3) also permits a company to exclude a stockholder proposal from

its proxy materials if the proposal or supporting statement is contrary to any ofthe Commission's

proxy rules, including Rule 14a-9, which prohibits the inclusion of materially false or misleading

statements in proxy materials.

The Proposal flatly states that "the Board has the authority to cause the Fund to

take the actions proposed herein." As explained above, the Board does not have the power to

take the actions in the Proposal. Moreover, the Proponent repeatedly and erroneously suggests

that, after conducting a tender offer, the Board alone has the power to liquidate the Fund or

merge the Fund with, or convert the Fund into, an open-end fwid. The Proposal fails to

appreciate that the Board must first consider, approve and advise the action and then submit the

action to the Fund's stockholders for a vote at a meeting of stockholders. This is a material

omission and misstatement, as it (a) suggests that these actions are easier to achieve than in fact

they are and (b) completely ignores the duties of directors, set forth in Section 2-405.1 of the

MGCL, in considering any such action. Any implication or direct statement suggesting

stockholders do not have the right to vote on these actions, or that they. could be taken without

the time and expense of a proxy solicitation and stockholder vote, is false and misleading.

5 The Propos~l is distinguishable from Capital Senior Living Corporation (Mar. 23,2007), in which a stockholder

proposal recommended that the board "promptly engage an investment banking fmn and pursue a sale or liquidation

of the Corporation," In that situation, stockholders were being asked to vote on a proposal that would only begin a

process ("engage" and "pursue") that might lead to a liquidation or sale. By contrast, the Proposal is recommending

a fmal action by the Fund - to conduct a tender offer and subsequently liquidate, merge or convert the Fund - thus

providing the stockholders arid the Board with less opportunity to understand the action called for by the Proposal.

Moreover, as detailed above, the Proposal pennits - indeed, suggests - the transaction to be brought about in far

more fonns(and combinations of forms) - each with significantly different outcomes and consequently greater

uncertainty for the Board and stockholders - than was the case in Capital Senior Living Corporation.

November 22, 201 0

Page 8

. V.

The Proposal May Be Excluded Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(4) Because the Proposal is

Designed to Result in a Benefit to the Proponent That is Not Shared by the Other

Stockholders

I·

Rule 14a-8(i)(4) provides that a company may exclude a stockholder proposal

from a company's proxy statement ifthe proposal is designed to result in a benefit to the

proposing stockholder, or to further a personal interest ofthe proposing stockholder, which is not

shared by the other stockholders of the company. The Staffhas long recognized that Rule 14a

8(i)(4) was adopted in order to ellSl.ire "that the security holder proposal process would not be

abused by proponents attempting to achieve personal ends that are not necessarily in the common

. interest of the [company's] shareholders generally." Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20091

(Aug. 16, 1983). Otherwise, persons owning a minor stockholder interest in a company would

be permitted to advance their own personal interests at the expense of the company by forcing

inclusion oftheir proposals in the company's proxy materials.

The Proponent seeks to have the Board authorize the Fund to conduct a

conditional self-tender offer for all outstanding shares of the Fund at NAV or within 1% thereof.

If more than 50% of the outstanding shares are tendered, the Proponent wants the tender offer to

be canceled and the Fund liquidated or, at the option of the Board, merged or "converted" into an

open-end fund. Thus, under the Proposal, if implemented, the Proponent is attempting to seize a

benefit that is particular to the Proponent - a hedge fund that has been described as poised to

"squeeze profits il out of closed-end funds,6 through an increasingly aggressive investment

strategy 7 and an activist approach, 8 seeking to directly and personally benefit - while the rest of

the stockholders are coerced into voting to allow the tendering oftheir shares under the added

pressure of hoping to avoid a negative impact on their personal finances that could result from a

possible liquidation ofthe Fund or a fundamental change in its essential structure. Specifically,

the Proposal, if implemented, is designed to stampede stockholders, who otherwise would not

wish to tender their shares, into voting to be able to tender them out of fear of what they will

receive after the Proponent tenders its shares.

. In a 1999 survey, Adams Express found that approximately two-thirds of its

stockholders have held their shares for ten or more years and over 77% ofthe stockholders are

65 or older. These other stockholders who invested in the Fund did so with knowledge ofthe

discount at which the Fund's shares trade and, by implication, in agreement with the Fund's well

6 See Emma Trincal, New Hedge Fund Minds Gap, THE STREET (Oct. 19,2005, 11 :00 AM),

http://www.thestreet.com/story/l024802I/new-hedge-fund-minds-gap.html.

7 See Equity Optimization Strategy, GRAMERCY IS EMERGING MARKETS,

http://www.gramercy.comlInvestment_Themes/Optimization_Strategy.aspx (last visited Oct. 26,2010)

8 See Emma Trincal, New Hedge Fund Minds Gap, THE STREET (Oct. 19, 2005, 11 :00 AM),

http://www.thestreet.com/storyIl024802I/new-hedge-fund-minds-gap.html.

November 22, 2010

Page 9

known9 "conservative investment prulosophy."lO The Fund is managed with the expectation that

it will generate solid returns with lower-than-material risk for long-term investors. Investments

are made by the Fund with a focus on protecting stockholders' original investment and

generating dividends and capital gains for its investors. In the words ofDoug Ober, the

chairman and chief executive officer ofAdams Express: "A long-term investment strategy makes

more sense today thart ever, and continues to be the foundation of our fund's investment

management philosophy."l1 .

The implementation of the Proposal, while consistent with the Proponent's

announced investment strategy, would create a classic prisoner's dilemma for the other

stockholders: Once the Proponent tendered its shares, the Fund would be required to sell assets

to acquire the :Proponent's tendered shares (if less than 50% tendered). The Fund's sales of its

securities would tend to exert downward pressure on the prices ofthese securities, in turn

exerting downward pressure on the share price of the Fund. Stockholders other than the

Proponent would thus be forced to choose between holding their shares in the Fund at a lower

price or selling them to try to divest as many shares as they could before the price went still

lower, thus adding further downward pressure on the price of the Fund's securities and, in turn,

on the share price of the Fund itself. Worse, a smaller Fund would be likely to have a greater

expense ratio. Worse still, if the total shares tendered by the Proponent and other stockholders

reached 50% and the Fund were to be liquidated entirely, these pressures could be substantially

increased. If, instead, the Food "converted" to an open-end fund, the stockholders would lose the

benefits of investing in a closed-end fund with the Fund's stated investment objective, which the

stockholders presumably thought they would realize when they acquired their Fund shares. In

this light, it is likely that the majority of all stockholderS could actually be adversely affected by

the adoption of the Proposal. Accordingly, because the Proposal is designed to confer a benefit

on the Proponent that is not shared by the majority of all other stockholders of the Fund, the

Proposal should be excluded pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(4).

VI.

Request

While we recognize that the Staff, on occasion, will pennit proponents to revise

their proposals to correct errors that are "minor in nature and do not alter the substance of the

proposal;" the Fund believes, for the reaSons previously stated, that ifthe Proponent is allowed to

revise its Proposal, the Staff would be permitting the altemtion of the substance of the Proposal,

in contradiction of the Staffs long-standing practice. See StaffLegal Bulletin No. 148 (CF)

(2004).

? See The Adams Express Co., Certified Shareholder Report of Registered Management Investment Companies

(Form N-CSR) (July 23, 2010); see also ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY (last visited Oct. 26, 2010),

http://www.adamsexpress.com/.

10 ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY (last visited Oct 26, 2010).http;//www.adamsexpress.com/.

II ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY (last visited Oct. 26,2010), http;//www.adamsexpress.com/.

I!,

VENABLE~LP

November 22, 2010

Page 10

Pursuant to StaffLegal Bulletin No. 14D (CF), Shareholder Proposals (November

7, 2008), Question C, we have submitted this letter and the related exhibits to the Commission

via email to shareholderproposals@sec.gov.

If you have any questions regarding this matter or require additional information,

please contact the undersigned at (410) 244-7500 or Lawrence 1. Hooper, Jr., Vice President,

General Counsel and Secretary, Adams Express, at (410) 752-5900. Ifthe Staffdoes not agree

with the conclusions set forth in this letter, we respectfully request the opportunity to confer with

you before the determination ofthe Staffs final position.

Sincerely,

~~~~.~

James J. Hanks, Jr.

cc:

Lawrence 1. Hooper, Jr.

Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Adams Express

;

VENABLE:lP

Exhibit A

BA0J276794

EXHIBIT A

Proposal:

RESOL YED: The shareholders of The Adams Express Company (the "Fund") request

the Board of Directors (the "Board") to authotizethe Fund to conduct a self-,tender offer for all

outstanding shares of the Fund at net asset value (UNA Y") or within I o/l1thereof (to cover

expenses). If more than 50% of the Fund's outstanding shares are tendered) the tender offer

should be cancelled and the Fund should be liquidated or, at the discretion of the Board, merged

or converted into an open-end mutual fund.

Supporting Statement:

Shares of the Fund are trading at a double-digit discount to the value of the assets owned

by the Fund. The discount is, as of 09/30/10, over 15%. As of 9/30/J 0, the totall'etum on net

asset value of the Fund's shares has had mediocre performance relative to the Standard & Poor's

500 Composite Stock Index ( S&P500") over the last I-year) 3-year) and 5-year periods as

evidenced by Exhibit C. In fact, over the last 5 years, as of 9/30/l 0, the Fund has retumed 2.18%

in contrast to 3.22% retumed by S&P500 which the Fund compares itself in the 06/30110 semi

annual report.

The Board has the authority to cause the Fund to take the actions proposed herein. A self

tendel: by the Fund would close the trading discount and allow palticipants to receive

approximately 17% more than the price of the shares as of 9/30/10. 'Ine legal structure of the

Fund allows it to trade at a disC9unt to the assets it holds. A mere change in legal form would

reverse this discount and allow you to rcceive the differcnce.

In light of these facts, we think the Board should authOlize the Fund to conduct a self..

tender offer for all outstanding shares at NAY in order to provide shareholders with the

opportunity to receive full value for their shares. Tender participation by a majority of the Fund's

shareholders would dcmonstrate insuflicient shareholder support for contiJiuing the Fund in its

closed~end format. Tn that case, the tender offer should be cancelled and the Fund should be

liquidated or merged (or converted) into an open-end fund.

Tfyou agree that the Fund's persistent discount and mediocre, at best, performance

is unacceptable and would like to increase the value of your shares and your return, please

vote for this proposal.

VENABLE:LP

ExhibitB

BA01276794

750 E. PRATT STREET SUITE 900 BALTIMORE, MD 21202

T 410.244.7400 .F 410.244.7742 www.Venable.com

November 22,2010

The Adams Express Company

Seven St.Paul Street, Suite 1140

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Re:

The Adams Express Company - Omission of the Stockholder Proposal

Submitted by Gramercy Global Optimization Fund

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are Maryland counsel to The Adams Express Company, a Maryland

corporation (the "Fund"), in connection with certain matters of Maryland law arising out ofa

stockholder proposal (the "Proposal") submitted by Gramercy Global Optimization Fund for

inclusion in the Fund's proxy materials for the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Stockholders. We.

have been asked to consider whether (1) the Proposal, if implemented, would cause the Fund to

violate Maryland law and (2) the Fund lacks the power and authority to implement the Proposal.

In connection with our representation ofthe Fund, and as a basis for the opinion hereinafter set

forth, we have examined the charter (the "Charter") of the Fund, the Proposal and such matters of

law as we have deemed necessary or appropriate to issue this opinion.

The Proposal reads, in full, as follows:

RESOLVED: The shareholders of The Adams Express Company

(the "Fund") request the Board of Directors (the "Board") to

authorize the Fund to conduct a self-tender offer for all outstanding

shares of the Fund at net asset value ("NAV") or within 1% thereof

(to cover expenses). Ifmorethan 50% of the Fund's outstanding

shares are tendered, the'tender offer should be cancelled and the

Fund should be liquidated or, at the discretion ofthe Board,

merged or converted into an open-end mutual fund.

Shares of the Fund are trading at a double-digit discount to the value of the

assets owned by the Fund. The discount is, as of 09/30/1 0, over 15%. As

of 09/30/10, the total return on net asset value of the Fund's shares has had

mediocre performance relative to the Standard & Poor's 500 Composite

Stock Index ("S&P500") over the last I-year, 3-year, and 5-year periods as

evidenced by Exhibit C. In fact, over the last 5 years, as of 09/30/1 0, the

Fund has returned 2.18% in contrast to 3.22% returned by S&P500 which

the Fund compares itself in the 06/30/10 semi-aimua1 report.

The Board has the authority to cause the Fund to take the actions proposed

herein. A self-tender by the Fund would close the trading discount and

BAO-277304

VENABLE:LP

The Adams Express Company

November 22,2010

Page 2

allow participants to receive approximately 17% more than the price ofthe

shares as of 09/30/10. The legal structure of the Fund allows it to trade at

a discount to the assets it holds. A mere change in legal form would

reverse this discount and allow you to receive the difference.

In light of these facts, we think the Board should authorize the Fund to

conduct a self-tender offer for all outstanding shares at NAVin order to

provide shareholders with the opportunity to receive full value for their

shares. Tender participation by a majority of the Fund's shareholders

wouid demonstrate insufficient shareholder support for continuing the

Fund in its closed-end format. In that case, the tender offer should be

.cancelled and the Fund should be liquidated or merged (or converted) into

an open-end fund.

Uyou agree that the Fund's persistent discount and mediocre, at best,

performance is unacceptable and would like to increase the value of

your shares and your return, please vote for this proposal. (Emphasis

original.)

Violation of Law

The Proposal requests, in relevant part, that the Board of Directors (the "Board")

of the Fund authorize a self-tender for 100% of the outstanding shares of the Fund at or near net

,asset value, if more than 50% of the Fund's outstanding shares are tendered, the tender offer

should be cancelled, and {a) the Fund should be "liquidated" or (b), at the discretion of the

Board, "merged" or "converted" into an open-end fund and provides that the Board alone has the

authority to take these actions. As more fully discussed below, in the case of each of a

Ii.. . .

er or conversion, the Board oi.Dir~£~9Js. (the "Board") o.fthe

Fund

is required,

.. __

un~d-Gene

orporationl&_~J1Pe.~MQ~1"), t~~PP~2X~.!h._~_p~~posed action,

declare it advisable and then submit it to the stockholders for consideration at an annuwof-- 7

special meeting and the stockholders are required to approve the action. In view of the board

approval and stockholder voting requirements oftheMGCL, the Board may not unilaterally

liquidate the Fund or merge or convert the Fund to an open-end fund. If the Board were to

unilaterally approve and carry out the liquidation or the merger or conversion of the Fund,the

Fund would violate the MGCL. Thus, because the MGCL does not vest in a corporation the

power to act in a manner inconsistent with law; the Fund lacks the power and authority under

Maryland law to implement the Proposal.

BAQ-277304

~.'

------~

VENABLE:LP.

The Adams Express Company

November 22, 2010

Page 3

Liquidation

To liquidate the FUnd as contemplated by the Proposal, the Fund would be

required to sell all of its assets, payoff its debts and obligations and make one or more cash

distributions to its stockholders. The liquidation ofthe Fund involves the sale of alII ofthe

Fund's assets outside the ordinary course of business? Section 3-105(b) and (e) of the MGCL,

respectively, provide that a Maryland corporation may transfer all or substantially all of its assets

only if (1) the board approves the sale, declares the sale advisable and submits the proposed sale

·to the stockholders for consideration at an annual or special meeting and (2) the stockholders

approve the proposed sale. 3

Moreover, a liquidation customarily involves the statutory dissolution of a

corporation. While the Proposal is unclear, ifit is contemplated that the liquidation of the Fund

would be followed by the dissolution of the Fund, such an action would be governed by Section

3-403 of the MGCL. As with a sale of assets, the dissolution of a Maryland corporation under

Section 3-403 requires (1) the board ofdirectors to approve the dissolution, declare the

dissolution advisable and direct that the proposed dissolution be submitted to the stockholders

for consideration at an annual or special meeting and (2) the stockholders to approve the

dissolution.4

• .

Merger

The merger ofa Maryland corporation is governed by Section 3-105 ofthe

MGCL. With respect to a merger into an open-end fund, as contemplated by the Proposal, the

approvals required under Section 3-105 are the same as for a liquidation. Section 3-105 requires

(l) the board of directors to approve the merger, declare the merger advisable and direct that the

proposed merger be submitted to the stockholders for consideration at an annual or special

meeting and (2) the stockholders to approve the merger.

Conversion

While the MGCL does not have speCific provisions governing the "conversion tl of

a corporation, a closed-end fund could become an open-end fund through a share exchange,

J Section 1-101 (y) ·of the MGCL provides that "'transfer of assets' mean[s) to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise

transfer all or substantially all of the assets ofa corporation."

2 See MGCL Section 3-1 04(a)(I), which provides that a "[t]ransfer of assets by a corporation in the ordinary course

of business actually conducted by it" does not require a stockholder vote or the filing of Articles of Transfer.

3 The requirements ofSection 3-105 are subject to certain exceptions, not relevant for the purposes ofthis opinion,:

including certain exceptions for open-end funds.

4 See MGCL Section 3-403.

BAo-277304

The Adams Express Company

November 22, 2010

Page 4

consolidation, merger or a transfer or sale ofassets. 5 Section 3-105 governs consolidations and

share exchanges and, in this context, provides that consolidations and share exchanges are

subject to the same board approval and stockholder voting requirements as a liquidation or

merger as described above.

A closed-end fund could also become an open-end fund by amending its charter,

inter alia, to make its shares redeemable at the option ofthe stockholders. Section 2-604 ofthe

MGCL governs the type of charter amendments that would be necessary for the "conversion" of

the Fund to an open-end fund. 6 Like the MGCL provisions governing liquidation, merger,

consolidation, share exchange and dissolution, Section 2-604 requires (I) the board of directors

to approve the proposed amendment, declare the amendment advisable and direct that the

proposed .amendment be submitted to the stockholders for consideration at an annual or special

meeting and (2) the stockholders to approve the proposed charter amendment. 7

The statutory framework of the MGCL for the approval of extraordinary actions

has long been upheld by Maryland courts. 8

II.

Lack of Power or Authority

Section 2-103 ofthe MGCL sets forth the general powers of a Maryland

corporation. Section 2-103 does not specifically address liquidations, mergers or conversions.

However, in addition to specific enumerated powers, SectIon 2-103(16) provides that a

corporation may" [e]xercise generally the powers set forth in its charter and those granted by

law." Section 2-103(17) states that a corporation may "[d]o every other Act not inconsistent with

law.which is appropriate to promote and attain the purposes set forth in the charter." (Emphasis

added.) In other words, a corporation does not have the power to do what it is prohibited from

doing by law or in its charter. As discussed above, under the MGCL it is impermissible for the

Fund to liquidate or merge or convert into an open-end ftmd by unilateral Board action. The

Charter has similar limitations on disenfranchising stockholders.

The vote required under the MGCL for stockholders to approve a dissolution,

charter amendment, merger, sale of all or substantially all of the assets, consolidation or share

exchllDge is the affirmative vote of stockholders entitled to cast two-thirds ofthe votes entitled to

~ As previously discussed, a sale or transfer of assets and a merger require both board and stockholder approval.

6 The MGCL does provide some exceptions to stockholder approval of charter amendment (e.g., change in the name

of the corporation, changes in the name or other designation of a class or series of stock, changes to the par value of

stock, change to the aggregate number of shares of stock of the corpOration or of any class or series). None of these

exceptions apply to the transactions described in the Proposal.

7 See MGCL Section 2-604.

8 See In re May Oil Burner Corp., 38 F. Supp. 516, 519-20 (D. Md.1941); Downing Dev. Corp. v. Brazelton. 253

Md. 390, 395-96,252 A.2d 849, 852-53 (1969); Prince George's Country Club Y. Edward R. Carr, Inc., 235 Md.

591,596,202 A.2d 354, 356 (1964).

BAo-277304

. The 4-daIils Express Company

November 22,2010

PageS

be cast on the matter. 9 However, the MGCL permits a Maryland corporation to provide in its

charter for the approval of these matters by a lesser percentage, but not less than a majority of all

of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, or a greater percentage. IO The Charter provides that·

certain Charter amendments may be approved by the holders of a majority of votes entitled to be

cast. Section 6.2 ofthe Charter also provides, subject to exceptions not relevant for this opinion:

The affirmative vote ofthe holders of[: (i)] two:"thirds of the votes

entitled to be cast on the matter shall be required to authorize a .

merger, consolidation .. ,or sale of substantially all iofthe assets

of the Corporation .... [(ii)] shares entitled to cast at leasttwo

thirds of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter ... shall be

necessary to effect: Any amendment to the charter oithe

Corporation to make the Corporation's Common Stock a

'redeemable security' or to convert the Corporation, whether by

merger or otherwise, from a 'closed-end company' to an 'open end

company' ....

While the MGCL allows flexibility on the percentage of votes required to approve

a matter, the MGCL does not permit the actions described in the Proposal (liquidation, merger,

conversion) without a stockholder vote. Unlike the Proposal itself, which only needs to be .

approved by a majority of votes cast, any of the actions ultimately contemplated by the Proposal

. require a vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. J 1 Because the

Proposal requests that the Board carry out these actions without a stockholder vote, the Proposal

would cause the Fund to violate both the MGCL and Article VI ofthe Charter. Because the

implementation of the Proposal would cause the Fund to violate both the MGCL and its Charter,

the Fund lacks the power and authority to implement the Proposal.

Based upon the foregoing analysis and subject to the limitations, assumptions and

qualifications set forth herein, it is our opinion that (1) the Proposal would, if implemented,

cause the Fund to violate Maryland law and (2) the Fund lacks the power and authority to

implement the Proposal.

The foregoing opinion is limited to the MGCL, and judicial interpretations

thereof, in effect on the date hereof and we do not express any opinion herein concerning any law

other than the MGCL. Furthermore, the foregoing opinion is limited to the matters specifically

set forth therein and no other opinion shall be inferred beyond the matters expressly stated. We

9 See MGCL Section 3-105, Section 3-403 and Section 2-604.

10 See MGCL Section 2-104(b)(4) and (5).

II Under limited circumstances, not relevant to this opinion, Section 6.2 ofthe Charter does allow approval

matters by the shares entitled to cast a majority of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter.

BA().217304

of these

The Adams Express Company

November 22,2010

Page 6

assume no obligation to supplement this opinion if any provision ofthe MGCL, or any judicial

interpretation of any provision of the MGCL, changes after the date hereof.

The opinion presented in this letter is solely for your use in connection with the

Proposal and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity, or by you for any other

purpose, without our prior written consent. However, we consent to inclusion of this opinion

with a request by you to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commissiontl)for

concurrence by the Commission with your decision to exclude the Proposal from.the proxy

materials for your next annual meeting of stockholders.

Very truly yours,

BAO-277304

Exhibit C

BA0/276794

THE ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT

FIRST:

The Adorns Express Compony, a Maryland corporation (the

"Corporation"), deshes to amend and restllte its charter os cunently in effect and as hereinafter

emended.

SECOND:

The following provisions nre all the provisions of the charter

CIllTently in etfcctaoo as hereinafter amended:

ARTICLE I

NAME

The name oftbe corporation (the "Corporation") is:

The Adams Express Company

ARTJCLEIJ

PURPOSE

The purposes for which the Corporation is fonned are to cOnduct and can}' on the

business of II closed-end management invesbllent compony registered under the Inveslment

Company Act of J940, as amended (Ihe "1940 Act"), and 10 engage in any other lawful act or

activity for which corporations may be organi:r.ed under the general laws ofthe State ofMaryland

as now or hereafter in force.

ARTICLEI1J

PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN STATEANDRESJDENT AGENT

The address oflhe principal office oflhe Corporation in this State is 7 S1. Paul

Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. The name and addres.q _of the resident agenl ofthe

Corporation are Lawrence L. Hooper, Jr., 7 Sr. Paul StI'Cet, Suite 1140, Baltimore. Maryland

21202.

IlAI)(1746971?

---------------- -

---------

-------_._---

ARTJCLEIV

PROVlS10NS FOR DEFINING. LlMJTING

AND REGULATING CERTAIN POWERS OF THE

CORPORATION AND OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS

&:clion 4.1

Numbq and ElectiQn QfDircctQrs. The business and affairs Qf the

Corpomtion shall be mllnllged under the din:clioll oftheBOllrd of DirectQrs. The number of

directOts Qf the Corporation is 10, which number may be increased or decreased only by the BQard

ofDircctors pursuant to the Bylaws, but shall never be less than three. The names ofthe directorS

who shall serve until their successors ~re duly e/ccted and qualify are:

Enrique R. Ar7.llC

Thomas H. Lenagh

Phyllis O. Bonanno

Kathleen T. McGahran

Daniel E. Emerson

Douglas G. Dber

Frederic A. Escherich

John J. Roberts

Rogel' W. Gale

Craig R. Smith

P\lrsullnt tQ the CQrporatiQn's election 10 be subject IQ Section 3-804(b) and (c) of

the Marylllnd General CQrporation LIIw (tho "MGCL"). but subject to applicable requirements of

the 1940 Act lind except as may be provided by the Board of Directors i':l setting the telms Df IIny

class or series QfPreferrcd Stock (as hereinafter defined), any and all vlIcancies on the Board Qf

Directors may be filled only by the affirmative vole of a majolily of the remaining directDrs in .

office, even iflhe remaining dircctors do not constilUle a qoorum. and any director elected 10 fin

a vacancy sholl serve fQr Ibe remainder Qfthe fuJI tOO11 ofthe dircctorship in which such vacaney

occurred end until a successor is duly. eJected and qualifies..

BAOiI7469719

The Bylaws of the Corporation may provide for the election of a director by a

plurality of all the votes cast inthe election ofa director. a majority or other percentage of all the

votes entitled to be cost in the election ofa director or by any other vote, in any case as specified

in the By11lws and as may vary as specified in the Bylaws depending upon whether the election of

directors is contested.

Section 4.2

Authorization by Board of Stock Issuance. The Board ofDirectors

may authorizo the issuance from time to time ofshares ofstock ofthc Corporation ofany class or

series, whether now or hereafter authorized, or secutities or rights convertible into shores of its

stocl< ofony class.or series. whether now or hereafter authorized; for such consideration. if anY.

as the Boan! ofDirectors may deem advisable (or without considerati~n in the case ofa stock

split or stock dividend). subject to such restrictions or limitations, ifany, as may be set forth in

the chal1er or the Bylaws.

Section 4.3

Quorum. The presence in person or by proxy of the holders ofshares

ofstock ofthe Corporation entitled tl> CllSt a majority ofthe votes entitled to be CDst on a mailer

(witho\lt regard to clnss}shall constitute· a quorum at any meeting ofstockholders with respect to

such malter, except With respect to lJriy such matter that, underapplicllble shitutes'or regulatory

requirements or the charter. requires approval by a separate voto oflbe holders ofone or more

classes 'ofmock, in whi,ch casc the presence In person or by proxy ofthe holdCfS ofshal'C.'l entitled

to casla mnjolity of the votes entitled to be cast by each such closs on such a matter shall

constilute a quorum. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Bylaws mllY provide for a greater or

lesser quorum requirement provided thaI such requirement ~hilll not be less tbnn one-third nor

more thall two-thirds of the votes entitled 10 be cast on a ma!lcr(without regard to class).

nAclI1741l97,<J

Section 4.4

Preemptive Rig,!lts. Except as may be provided by the Board of

Directors in setting the tetms Of classified or reclassified shares ofstock pursuant to Article V of

the charter or as may otherwise be provided by contract, no holder of shares ofstock oftbe

Corporation shaU, as such holder, have any preetnptive right to purchase or subscribe for any

additional shares ofstock ofthe Corporation or any other security ofthe Corporation that it may

issue or sell.

Section 4.5

Determinations by Board. Any determination as to any ofthe

following matters, made in good faith by or pursuant to the direction ofthe Board ofDirectors

consistent with the charter, shall be final and conclusive and shall be binding upon the

Corpol'iltion and every holder ofshares ofits stock: the amount oftbe net income ofthe

Corporation for any period and the amount of assets at any lime legally Ilvailable for the payment

ofdividends, redemption ofits stock or the payment of othel' distributions on it~ stock; the

amount of paid-in surplus, net assets;otber surphls, annual or other cash flow, net profit, net

assets in excess of capital, undivided profits or excess ofprollts over losses on sales ofassets; the

amount, purpose, time ofcreation, increase or decrease, alteration or cancellation ofany reserves

or charges lind the propriety thereof(whether or not any obligation Or liability for which such

re.~ervos or chargel1 shall have been created shall have been paid or discharged); any

interpretation of the terms, preferences, conversion or other lights, voting powers or rights,

restJictions, limitations a.~ 10 dividends or other distributions, qua Ii tlcations or terms or

conditions ofredemplion ofany class or series ofstock of the Corporation; the fair value, or any

sale, bid or asked price to be applied in determining the fair value, of any asset owned or held by

the Corpornlionor ofany shares ofstock of the Corporation; the number ofshares ofstock of allY

ClllSS or series oftho Corporation; any matter relating to the acquisition, holding and disposition

P1I0l174~971?

i·

ofany llllSets by the Corporation; ~ any other matter relating to the business and affairs ofthe

Corporation or required or pennitted by applicable law, the charter or Bylaws or otherwise to be

determimd by the Board ofDireclors.

ARTICLE V

STOCK

Section 5.1

Authorized Shares. The Corporation has IlUthOrity to issue

160,000,000 shares ofstock, consisting of I50,000,000 shares ofCommon Stock, $.00I par

value per share (the "Common Stock"), and 10,000,000 shares ofPreferred Stock, $.001 par

value per share (the "Preferred Stock"). The IIggTCgpte par value of all authorized shares ofstock

having par vuluc is $160,000. If shares ofone class or series ofstock are classified or

reclassified into shares ofanother class or series ofstock pursuant to this Article V, the number

ofauthorized shares oflbc formcr class or series shllll be automatically decreased and the number

ofshares ofthe latter class or serie.~ shan be lIutomatically increased, in CIIch case by the number

ofshares so classified or reclassified, so tbat the aggregate number ofshllres ofstock of all

classes or series that the Corporation has authority to issue shall not be more than the toull

number ofshares ofstock set forth in the first sentence ofthis paragraph. A majority of the

entire Board ofDircctors, without any lIetion by the stockholders ofthe Corporation, may amend

the charter from time to time toincrc8se or decrease the aggregate number ofshares of slock or

the number ofshares ofstock ofany class or series that the Corporation has authority to issue.

Section 5.2

COJDIDgnStock. The Board ofDircctors may reclassify any unissued

ShUTes of Common Stock from lime to. time in one or more classes or series of stock.

B1I01l7469719

Section 5,3

Preferred Stock. The Board of Directors may classify any unissued

shares ofstock and reclassify any previously classified but unissued sheres of stock of any class

or series from time to time, in one or more classes or senesof stock, including Preferred Stock.

Section S.4

Classified or Reclassified Shares. Prior to issuan~ of classified or

reclassified shares or any class or series, the Board of Directors by resolution shall: (a) designate

that class or series to distinguish it from all other classes and series of stock ofthe Corporation;

(b) specify the number ofshares to be included in the class or series; (c) set or change, subjcct to

the express terms ofmly class or series ofstock ofthe Corporation outstanding at the time, the

preferences; conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions,limitlltions as to dividends or

other distn'butions, qualifications and terms and conditions ofredemption for each class or series;

and (d) cause the Corporation to file articles supplementary with the State DepmmcDt of

Assessments and Taxation of Maryland ("SDAT'). Any of the tel1Tls ohny class or series of

stock set or changed pursuant to clause (c) of tbis Section 5.4 may be made dependent upon facts

or events ascertainable outside the charter (including determinations by the Board ofDirectors or

other facts or events within the control of the Corporation) llnd may vary mnong holders thereof:

provided thnt the manner in which such facts, events or variations shall operate upon the telms of

such class or series ofstock is clearly and expressly set forlh in the 1111icles supplementary or

other clJarter document filed wiih the SDAT.

Section 5.5

Charter and Bylaws. The rights of all stockholders and the terms of

all stock arc subject to the provisions ofthe charter and the Bylaws. The Board ofDirectors of

the Corporation shall have the exclusive power to make, alter, amend or repeal the Bylaws..

B1I01I74!fl71?

ARTICLE VI

AMENDMENTS; CERTAIN EXTRAORDJNARYTRANSACfJONS

Section 6.1

Amendments Generally. The Corporotion rescrve3 the right from

time to time to make any amendment to its charter, now or hereafter authorized by law, including

any amendment altering Ihe lerms or contnJet rights, as expressly set forth in the charter, ofDny

shares ofoutstanding stock. All rights and powers confwed by the charter on stockholders,

directors and officers are granted subject to this reservation.

Section 6.2

Approval of Certain ExtnJordinary Actions and Charter Amendments.

(a) The affirmative vote ofthe holders of two-thirds oftile

votes entitled to be cast on the maUer shall be required to lIUthorizc a merger, consolidation,

share exchange, dissolution or sale ofsubslantially all oftlle assets of the Corporation. Except as

provided in subsection (b) ofthis Section 6.2, the affinnative vote of the holders of a majority of

the votes entitled 10 be cast shall be sufficient to authorize any amendment 10 Ihe charter, ellcept

that the affirmative vote of two-thirds ofthc shares ofstock entitled to be cast shall be required to

authorize any amendment reducing the vote ofshares required by the first sentence ofthis

Section 6.2.

(b) The affirmative'Yote ofthe holders ofshares entitled to

cast at least two-thirds ofthe yotes entitled to be cast on the maller, each class voting as a

separate class. shall be necessary to effect:

(i) Any llmendment to the charter ofthe

Corporation to make the Corporation's Common Stock II "redeemable security" or to convert the

Corporation, whether by merger or otherwise. from II "closed-end company" to an "open-end

company" (as such lerms arc defined in the 1940 Act);

and

(ii) Any amendment to Section 4.1, Section 6.1,

this Section 6.2(1,) or 6.2(c);

provided. however, that, If the Continuing Directors (as defined herein), by II vote of

at least two-thirds ofsuch Continuing Directors, in llddition to approvill by the Board of

Directors, approve suCh amendment, the affitmative vote of the holders of a majority ofthe voteS

entitled to be cast shall be sufficient to approve such matter.

(i) the directors identified in Section 4.1, (il) the directors whose nomination for election by the

stockholders or whose election by the directors to fill vacancies is approved by a majority of the

directors identified in Section 4.1, who are on the Board at the time ofthe Ilomination or eJection,

liS applicable, or (iii) any successor directors whose nominatioll for election by the stockholders

or whose eJection by the directors to till vllcancies is approved by II majority of the Continuing

Directors or successor Continuing Directors, who are on the B()ard at the time ofthe nomination

or election, lIS appli911ble.

ARTICLEvn

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; INDEMNIFICATION AND ADVANCE OF

EXPENSES

·1

Section 7.1

Limitation ofLiability. To the fullest extent that applicable Juw

(including the MGCL and the 1940 Act), as in effect from time to time, permits the Iimi!lllioll or

elimination oft.he liability ofdirectors and officers, no director 01' officer of the Corporation shall

be liable to the Corporation or to its stockholders for money damages. No amendment to or

repeal ofthis Article shnllapply to or have llnyefTect Oil the liability or alleged liability ofany

BAOII7469719

,,!

director OT officer ofthe Corpomtion for or with respect to any acts or omissions of such director

or officer occurring prior to such amendinent or repeal,

Section 7.2

Indemnification and Advance ofExpenses. The Corpomtion shall

indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by IlPplicable hlw (including the MGCL and the 1940

Act), as in effect from time to time, any person who was or is involved in any mPllnCT (including.

J! .

without limitation, lIS a party Or a witness), or is threatened to be made so involved, in any

investigation, claim, action, suit or proceeding, whether criminal, civil, administrative or

investigative, by reason of the fact that such person or such person's testator or inteslale is or was

a director or officer OT, lit the option of the Boai'd of Directors in any particular Cll8C, on employee

or agent, ofthe COJPOTlltion or serves or served at the request of the Corporation any other

enterprise as a director, officer, parmer or trustee, or, at the option.oflhe Board of Directors in

lIDy pnrticular case, an employee or agent. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable JIIW

.,I

(inclUding the MGCL and the 1940 Act), as in effect from time to time, expenses incurred by any

such person in connection with any such investigation, claim, action, suit or proceeding shall be

;

pQid or reimbursed by the Corporatioll promplly upon receipt by it of an undertaking ofsuch

person 10 repay such expenses if it shall uitimlllely be deleonined that such persoll is not entitled

10 be indemnified by the Corporation. The rights.providedlO IIny director or officer by this

Article shall be enforceable against lhe Corporation .by any such director or aUiter, who shall be

presumed to have relied upon it in serving or continuing to serve os a direclor or office!' as

provided above. No amendment to 01' repeal of Ihis Article shall impair the rights of any person

arising at any tillie with respect to events.oCCUlTing prior to such amendment or repeal.

Section 7.3

1940 Act. The provisions ofthis Article VJJ shaJl be subject to the

1940 Act.

Section 7.4

Amendment or Repeal. Neither the amendment nor repelIl ofthis

Arti~le YIl, nor the adoption or amendment ohny other provision of the cooner or Bylaws

inconsistent with this Article YIl, shall apply to or affect in any respect the applicability of the

preceding sections of this Article YII with respect to any act or failure to act which occurred prior

to such amendment, repeal or adoption.

:rI:llRQ: The amendment to and restatement oflbe charter as hereinabove set forth

was approved by a majorily

ofthe entire Bo;ml ofDirectors and approved by the stockholders of

.- .;.. ".

the Corporation as requited by law.,

FOURTH: The cummt address ofthe principal office ofthe Corporation is as set

forth in Article III ofthe foregoing amendment and restatement ofthe charter.

'FIFTH: The name and address ofthe Corporation's current resident 81,'Cnt is as set

forth in Article III of the foregoing amendment lind restatement of the chllrter.

m2ITH: The number ofdirectors ofthe Corporation and the names oflhose

currently in office are as set forth in Article IV of the foregoing amendment and restatement of

the charter.

SEVENTH:

The total number of shllres of stock which the CorpOl11tioll hud

authority to issue immediately prior to this amendment and restatement was 160.000,000,

consisting of 150,000,000 shares ofCommon Stock. $1 .OO'par value per share and 10,000,000

shares ofPreferred Stock, no par villue per share. The aggregate par value of all shares of stock.

hnving par value was S150,000.000.

EIGHTH: The total number ofshol'es ofstoek which Ihe Corporation has authoritY

to issue pUI'SUllnt to the toregoing amendment and restatement of the charter is 160,000,000,

con.~i3tjng of J50,000,000 shares ofCommon Stock, $.001 par value per share, and 10.000,000

shares of Preferred Stock. $.001 par value per share. The aggregale pllr value ofall aUlhorized

shares of stacie baving par value is S160,OOO.

i·

NINTH: The undersigned President acknowledges these Articles of Amendment

and Restatement to be the corporate act of the Corporation and, as to all mailers or facts required

10 be verified under oath, the undersigned President acknowledges that, to the best ofhis

knowledge, infonnation and belief, these matters and fact~ are true in 1111 malerial respects lind

that this statement is made under the penal lies for peljury.

(SIGNATURE PAG~ FOU.QWS]

;

""011746'17/'1

rN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Corporatilln hilll caused tf~e Articles of Amendment

and Restutement to be signed in ils name lind on its behalf by its President Dnd attested to by its

Secretary on this

311 day of November. 2006.

nIB ADAMS EXPRESS

COMPANY

ATTEST:

Lawrence L. Hoopel):

Sccrl:lary

/.j;

B y : . · . "( v/-A...&' _(SEAL)

Jo 'II M. Trota

Prcsidcni

8"1lI17~97t'l

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.