TAMPA, FLORIDA – MAY 21, 2013 – In the Q&A portion of today’s annual meeting at JPMorgan Chase, CEO Jamie Dimon stated that “he doesn’t know the specifics of PetroChina,” a company widely recognized as contributing to the genocide in Sudan. Despite Dimon’s lack of knowledge, JPMorgan has opposed the genocide-free investing proposal which has been voted on at the last three shareholder’s meetings and which cites PetroChina specifically. Lead Independent Director Lee Raymond, in response to a second question, said, “I echo” Dimon, then declined to comment further.  JPMorgan has a $2 billion dollar investment in PetroChina while claiming that “its business practices reflect its support and respect for …the prevention of crimes against humanity.”

“It is astounding that Mr. Dimon and Mr. Raymond are unaware of the widely-recognized view that PetroChina, as Sudan’s largest business partner, is clearly linked to the ongoing government-sponsored genocide in Sudan, given that our genocide-free investing proposal has been on the ballot at JPMorgan for three years and that JPMorgan is a signatory to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment,” states Eric Cohen, chairperson of Investors Against Genocide. “The fact that Mr. Dimon and Mr. Raymond are not taking the problem of investments in PetroChina seriously while maintaining a $2 billion investment in the company shows a callous disregard for the important responsibility their company has to align investors with the broader objectives of society.”

As a signatory to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, JPMorgan has agreed to “incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis” and to “better align investors with broader objectives of society.

“JPMorgan Chase maintains that its business practices reflect its support and respect for the prevention of crimes against humanity, yet the company continues to own large positions in PetroChina, a company widely recognized as the largest business partner of the government of Sudan which is currently bombing, starving, and displacing massive numbers of its own civilians in several regions, and whose president is wanted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,” stated Cohen. “This year marks ten years of the genocide in Darfur, and it is the third year that JPMorgan has opposed genocide-free investing. Sadly, JPMorgan has now increased its position in the worst company tied to genocide to 7% of the outstanding shares.  As a result, people investing with JPMorgan are still inadvertently linked to companies tied to the atrocities in Sudan.”

According to preliminary results announced at the meeting, 8.1% of shareholders voted in favor of the genocide-free investing shareholder proposal despite voting dominated by large asset managers who typically vote in favor of management’s recommendations. In presenting the proposal at the annual meeting, Cohen asked company representatives, “How can a company that accepts these responsibilities fail to act against genocide 68 years after the end of the Holocaust and 19 years after the genocide in Rwanda?”

At the May 2012 vote at JPMorgan Chase, institutional supporters of the genocide-free investing proposal included T. Rowe Price, CalPERS, CalSTRS, Connecticut State Pension, Florida State Board of Administration, New York State Common Retirement Fund, NYCERS, Ohio State Teachers Retirement System (STRS Ohio), AFSCME, Christian Brothers Investment Services, and many others.

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) owns over four billion dollars worth of PetroChina (NYSE:PTR) and Sinopec (NYSE:SNP), companies widely recognized as contributing to the genocide in Sudan. Nearly half a million people in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions of Sudan currently are facing relentless aerial attacks, violent displacement, and starvation due to the Sudanese government’s ongoing military assaults.  Ongoing government-sponsored genocide and mass-atrocities in Darfur and other regions of Sudan has spanned more than two decades and resulted in the death of over 2.5 million innocent civilians.

“The vast majority of Americans want their investments to be genocide-free,” says Cohen. According to a market research study conducted by KRC Research in 2010, 88% of Americans would like their mutual funds to be genocide-free.

In June 2012, shareholders approved a similar genocide-free investing proposal at the ING Emerging Countries Fund in June 2012 by a wide margin with 59.8% of votes in favor of the proposal and only 10.7% opposed. Further, a US SIF report, “2012 Report on Sustainable and Responsible Investing Trends in the United States,” supports the importance of Sudan-related investment policies as a key shareholder concern. Most strikingly, the report found that Sudan is the top ESG consideration for institutional investors.

The genocide-free investing shareholder proposal requests “Shareholders request that the Board institute transparent procedures to avoid holding or recommending investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.”

Investors Against Genocide withdrew its shareholder proposal at TIAA-CREF when it adopted a public policy against investments tied to genocide. TIAA-CREF subsequently divested holdings in oil companies that are helping to support the genocide in Darfur, Sudan.  American Funds divested its holdings in PetroChina following a well-publicized shareholder vote on genocide-free investing there.

####

Investors Against Genocide is a citizen-led initiative, dedicated to convincing mutual funds and other investment firms to make an ongoing commitment to genocide-free investing. Investors Against Genocide works with individuals, financial firms, pension and endowment managers and government officials to encourage investment firms to change their investing strategy to avoid investments in companies that substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity. Investors Against Genocide is staffed by volunteers and is a project of the Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization, incorporated in the state of Massachusetts. For more information, visit www.investorsagainstgenocide.org.

Contact – Susan Morgan – 617-797-0451

Banking giant facing pressure from faith-based activists
by Daniel Brooksbank | April 11th, 2013

A proposal on political lobbying tabled by Sister Nora Nash of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia will be voted on at investment bank JP Morgan Chase’s annual general meeting (AGM) next month.

Sr. Nora, known for her high profile engagements with Goldman Sachs and Chevron amongst others, is lead proponent of the motion alongside Walden Asset Management and a range of faith investors on behalf of the Allen Hancock Revocable Living Trust.

The resolution calls for the bank to prepare an annual report disclosing company policy and procedures on lobbying and requests a list of lobbying payments. It also seeks the disclosure of “membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organisation that writes and endorses model legislation”. The banking giant holds its AGM on May 21 in Tampa, Florida.

The motion also focuses on the bank’s membership of business lobby group the Chamber of Commerce. “The Chamber actively lobbies against legislation and regulation on climate change while the bank has a strong environmental policy. Contradictions like this pose reputational risks for the company,” the proponents say in a supporting statement.

Lawyers for JP Morgan at O’Melveny & Myers had sought to exclude the proposal from its AGM agenda, arguing that it duplicated an earlier proposal filed by Domini Social Investments and others. But Domini’s General Counsel Adam Kanzer withdrew that proposal on March 12, paving the way for the company to include Nash’s proposal.

“We are grateful for the progress that JP Morgan Chase has made in addressing some disclosure with regard to lobbying but we encourage more public disclosure,” Sr. Nora wrote to the bank’s Corporate Secretary Anthony Horan in November.

The bank will also face a proposal from the AFSCME [American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] Pension Plan, which is calling for an independent chairman.

There is also a resolution on genocide-free investing tabled by William Rosenfeld, which highlights the bank membership of the PRI Initiative. A similar proposal gained 59.2% support in 2012.

The union-linked CtW [Change to Win] Investment Group is also focusing on JP Morgan. It has dropped a proposal at rival Goldman Sachs calling for an independent chairman after engagement with the company and will now focus its energies on the JP Morgan board.

It all comes as the bank’s Chairman and Chief Executive Jamie Dimon issued a further apology to shareholders for last year’s multi-billion-dollar “London Whale” trading scandal in his latest annual letter to shareholders. J.P.Morgan proxy

• Shareholder meeting for 6 Fidelity funds with voting on genocide-free investing is scheduled for May 14, 2013.
  • Biotechnology Portfolio (FBIOX)
  • Chemicals Portfolio (FSCHX)
  • Computers Portfolio (FDCPX)
  • Health Care Portfolio (FSPHX)
  • Real Estate Investment Portfolio (FRESX)
  • Telecom and Utilities (FIUIX)
• Public opinion and pressure is one of the most important factors in effecting long-term change. Tell Fidelity and other financial firms to adopt a genocide-free investing policy. Sign the petition …
• The resolved section of the proposal states:

Shareholders request that the Board institute transparent procedures to prevent holding investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.

• The full text of the proposal:

WHEREAS:

Fidelity has released no genocide-free investing policy to prevent investments in companies that contribute to genocide.

It may at any time increase such holdings or involve new mutual funds. As a result, individuals, through their mutual funds, may inadvertently invest in companies helping to fund genocide because of investment decisions made by Fidelity.

We believe that:

1) Investors do not want their pensions and family savings connected to genocide.
a) Reasonable people may disagree about what constitutes socially responsible investing, but few people want their savings connected to genocide.
b) In the face of the most extreme human rights crises investment companies share responsibility, along with government, to act.
c) In KRC Research’s 2010 study, 88% of respondents said they would like their mutual funds to be genocide-free.
d) Millions of people have voted for shareholder proposals similar to this one, submitted by supporters of Investors Against Genocide, despite active management opposition.

2) This problem is particularly important to shareholders because Fidelity:
a) Has, for years, been a large holder of PetroChina, which, through its closely related parent, China National Petroleum Company, is internationally recognized as the worst offender helping fund the Government of Sudan’s genocide in Darfur.
b) Actively opposed earlier shareholder requests for genocide-free investing.
c) Continued to buy shares of problem companies even after becoming aware of the investment’s connection to the Darfur genocide.
d) Claimed to have a policy addressing extreme human rights issues, but has taken no action to avoid problem investments.

3) A policy against investments in genocide must:
a) Be clear and transparent.
b) Apply today and to any future genocide.
c) Prevent purchasing shares of companies known to substantially contribute to genocide.
d) Require corrective action for existing problem investments. If the fund holds problem companies and can effectively influence their behavior, then time-limited engagement may be appropriate. If not, the problem investments should be sold.

4) There are no sound financial, fiduciary, or legal reasons that prevent the fund from having a policy against investments in genocide, as TIAA-CREF demonstrated in 2009.
a) Ample competitive investment choices exist, even with index funds.
b) Avoiding a small number of problem companies need not have a significant effect on performance, as shown in Gary Brinson’s classic asset allocation study.
c) Even the most conservative legal concerns can be addressed by a small change to the prospectus.
d) Management can easily obtain independent assessments of problem companies and their connection to genocide.

5) Investor pressure can help influence foreign governments, as in South Africa. Similarly, divestment pressure on Talisman Energy helped end the conflict in South Sudan.

RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that the Board institute transparent procedures to prevent holding investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.

• Fidelity’s full statement of opposition:

The Funds’ Board of Trustees recommends that you vote “AGAINST” this proposal.

Fidelity, as investment adviser to the Fund, seeks to achieve the best investment results for the Fund consistent with the stated investment policies of the Fund. In doing so, Fidelity is obligated to limit the Fund’s investments to holdings that are lawful under the laws of the United States. The Board of Trustees has procedures in place to review Fidelity’s performance as investment adviser to the Fund, including the Fund’s compliance with all applicable laws.

United States law prohibits investments in companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan. FMR is committed to complying fully with these investment sanctions and any additional investment sanctions that the United States government might enact with respect to companies doing business in Sudan or any other country.

The Board of Trustees recognizes and respects that investors, including those investing in this Fund, have other investment opportunities open to them should they wish to avoid investments in certain companies or countries. Shareholders of the Fund, however, have chosen to invest in this Fund based on its specific stated investment policies. If adopted, this proposal would limit investments by the Fund that would be lawful under the laws of the United States. For this reason, the Board of Trustees recommends that you vote “AGAINST” this proposal.

Proxy voting in 2009

• Votes on genocide-free investing were recorded for 6 Fidelity funds in 2009, with favorable votes ranging from 16.6% to 23.4%.
• Details on the voting results are here.

Proxy voting in 2008

• Votes on genocide-free investing were recorded for 14 Fidelity funds in 2008, with favorable votes ranging from 19.50% to 31.44%.
• Details on the voting results are here.

By Beagan Wilcox Volz April 2, 2013

Fidelity faces an anti-genocide shareholder proposal on six of its mutual funds at a May 14 shareholder meeting.

But the firm will omit the proposal for two other funds because the individuals who submitted the item in 2009 and 2010 no longer hold shares, disqualifying the proposal from being put up for a vote, according to a letter Fidelity submitted to the SEC in January.

The shareholder proposal is part of a campaign by advocacy group Investors Against Genocide that has targeted numerous fund groups, including American Funds, Artisan, ING, JPMorgan, Putnam and Vanguard.

In March, shareholders at Franklin Resources, advisor to the Franklin Templeton funds, rejected the proposal. Management at the firm had recommended that shareholders vote against it.

Asset managers and their funds have generally recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal because they say it would interfere with the investment policies of their funds.

The proposal typically requests that the board of the fund at issue put in place procedures “to prevent holding investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity.”

The six Fidelity funds with the item up for a vote include the Real Estate Investment Portfolio, Telecom and Utilities Fund, Biotechnology Portfolio, Chemicals Portfolio, Computers Portfolio and Health Care Portfolio.

Fidelity has recommended that fund shareholders vote against the proposal.

“Fidelity, as investment advisor to the fund, seeks to achieve the best investment results for the fund consistent with the stated investment policies of the fund,” according to the firm’s response to the proposal in its proxy statement.

“In doing so, Fidelity is obligated to limit the fund’s investments to holdings that are lawful under the laws of the United States. The board of trustees has procedures in place to review Fidelity’s performance as investment advisor to the fund, including the fund’s compliance with all applicable laws.”

The majority of shareholders of 21 Fidelity funds voted against the proposal in 2008. The proposal was also shot down by a majority of shareholders of 13 Fidelity funds in 2009, according to the Investors Against Genocide website.

Yet the proposal may appear on the proxy statement of numerous other Fidelity funds in the future. In fact, the proposal is pending for 41 Fidelity funds, although votes are not scheduled, according to the advocacy group’s website.

Related Content

• March 14, 2013 Franklin Shareholders Reject Anti-Genocide Push
• July 2, 2012 ING Fund Approves Anti-Genocide Plank
• March 30, 2012 Anti-Genocide Activists Target JPMorgan Holders

“The problem is that they’re not making an effort to avoid even the most obvious cases [of companies linked to genocide], and they’re resistant to any policy that would ask them to apply even their own judgment on the matter,” says Eric Cohen, chairman of Investors Against Genocide.

“That’s why we continue to campaign against Fidelity.”

Cohen says that the group asks its volunteers to submit the proposal to numerous funds so that more than one person has the proposal pending for the same fund.

Even though volunteers intend to hold on to the fund shares, he says, there are only so many years one can do that before rebalancing the portfolio or taking other actions. Consequently, it is common for some proponents of the proposal to no longer hold shares when the issue comes up for vote.

In preparation for a May 14 shareholder meeting of two funds — the Natural Resources Portfolio and the Electronics Portfolio — Fidelity says it found that the individuals who made the proposal no longer owned the fund shares.

The SEC issued a brief no-action letter approving Fidelity’s reasoning for omitting the proposal from the proxy statement for those two funds.

Mutual funds generally are not required to hold annual shareholder meetings, says Joshua Deringer, partner at Drinker Biddle. As a result, fund shareholders have fewer opportunities to get their proposals on the ballot.

Fund shareholders typically vote with their feet, however, Deringer adds.

Indeed, Fidelity seems to allude to this in its response to the shareholder proposal.

“The board of trustees recognizes and respects that investors, including those investing in this fund, have other investment opportunities open to them should they wish to avoid investments in certain companies or countries,” it reads.

“Shareholders of the Fund, however, have chosen to invest in this fund based on its specific stated investment policies.”

In July 2012, shareholders of an ING fund approved the proposal; the firm had taken a neutral stance on it. The proposal has not been approved by a majority of shareholders of any other fund.

• 8.7% of shareholders at Franklin Resources, parent company of Franklin Templeton mutual funds, voted in favor of the genocide-free investing proposal coordinated by Investors Against Genocide. Votes against the proposal represented 83.89% of the votes with 7.44% of shareholders abstaining.
• Read the press release about the vote.
• Read the presentation of the genocide-free investing proposal at the Franklin Resources 2013 annual meeting. The proposal was presented by Armen Carapetian, Chair of the Armenian National Committee of America San Francisco Bay Area Chapter.
• Read the proxy materials for the voting at Franklin Resources, the parent company of Franklin Templeton funds, at the annual meeting on March 13, 2013.
• Read the whitepaper on Genocide-free Investing: 2013 Proxy Votes at JPMorgan Chase and Franklin Resources.
• Read the open letter sent to executives at Franklin Templeton asking the company to voluntarily adopt the proposed genocide-free investing policy. The letter was signed by 35 local and national human rights and religious groups and joined by genocide and corporate governance scholars.
• Read the press release about the opportunity for shareholders to vote on genocide-free investing on the Franklin Resources proxy ballot.

Proxy voting in 2013 at Franklin Templeton funds

• Templeton Emerging Markets (EMF) voted 19.9% in favor of genocide-free investing on March 1, 2013
• Templeton Global Income (GIM) voted 17.2% in favor of genocide-free investing on March 1, 2013

by Robert Kropp

Investors Against Genocide calls on Franklin Templeton to adopt a policy against investing in companies whose operations contribute to genocide.

SocialFunds.com — Franklin Resources, the parent company of the mutual fund family Franklin Templeton, doesn’t face shareowner resolutions very often. In fact, a resolution filed this year by Investors Against Genocide (IAG) is the first in at least 19 years, and may well be the first ever.

The mutual fund company owns seven percent of the outstanding shares in PetroChina, the oil and gas company whose operations contribute to the genocidal campaign of Omar al-Bashir’s government. “Ongoing government-sponsored genocide in Sudan has spanned more than two decades and resulted in the death of over 2.5 million innocent civilians,” IAG stated.

The resolution filed by IAG and its shareowner allies requested that the mutual fund’s board of directors “institute transparent procedures to avoid holding or recommending investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.”

Franklin Resources held a general meeting yesterday, where 8.7% of shareowners—nearly 15 million votes—supported the proposal. If abstentions and broker non-votes were excluded, the percentage of votes supporting the proposal would be substantially higher. In any case, under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules the percentage in favor was easily high enough for the resolution to be included on the company’s next proxy ballot.

Despite their financial power and influence, accounting for almost $12 trillion in assets under management, mutual funds are not legally bound by SEC regulations requiring corporations to hold annual general meetings at which resolutions can be introduced and voted on by shareowners.

The vote total is especially striking given that three senior executives at Franklin Resources collectively own 32% of the company’s outstanding shares. Despite a letter sent by 35 local and national human rights and religious groups, along with genocide and corporate governance scholars, to the three executives, urging them to support the proposal, the company recommended that shareowners vote against it. “We believe that fostering economic and business development through investment can often help in achieving reforms,” the company stated.

Speaking in favor of the proposal at the meeting, Armen Carapetian of the Armenian National Committee of America took issue with the company’s argument. “In some cases, that statement would be correct,” Carapetian said. “However, it is inappropriate and certainly does not apply to the genocidal regime in Sudan that has resisted international condemnation for 10 years and continues its genocide and crimes against humanity against its own people in Darfur and recently in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile states.”

In 2012, after the board of ING Emerging Countries Fund took a neutral position on a similar proposal, almost 60% of shareowners voted in favor of it. And in 2009 the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), a $400 billion financial services firm, divested its holdings in four of the five major Asian state-owned oil companies with significant operations in Sudan.

According to IAG, four financial firms—JPMorgan Chase, Fidelity, Vanguard, and Franklin Templeton—together have holdings of $9 billion in PetroChina, Sinopec, and other oil companies whose payments to al-Bashir’s government help fund ongoing crimes against humanity.

The 2012 Report on Sustainable and Responsible Investing Trends in the US from US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment found that more than $1.63 trillion in institutional assets are invested according to policies relating to Sudan. A 2010 study by KRC Research reported that 88% of respondents want their mutual funds to be genocide-free, and 84% said they would withdraw investments from financial institutions that do business with companies that support genocide.

SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA – MARCH 15, 2013 – On Wednesday, shareholders at Franklin Resources, parent company of Franklin Templeton mutual funds, voted for the first time on a genocide-free investing proposal coordinated by Investors Against Genocide. The proposal is the first shareholder proposal to appear on the company’s annual proxy ballot in nineteen years and possibly the first ever. It requests “that the Board institute transparent procedures to avoid holding or recommending investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.” Votes in favor of the proposal represented 8.7% of the votes cast, with 7.4% of shareholders abstaining and 83.9% voting against the proposal.

Franklin Resources recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal, strongly tilting the bias of the votes. The company is predominately owned by institutional shareholders that almost always vote according to management’s recommendations. Additionally, senior executives of the company, Charles Johnson, Rupert Johnson and Gregory Johnson, collectively own 32% of the outstanding shares, representing nearly half of the votes against the proposal.

“Americans, once they become aware of this problem, do not want their pensions and family savings connected to genocide,” states Eric Cohen, chairperson of Investors Against Genocide.  “While financial institutions may oppose it, ordinary investors who see the proposal will vote their values and support genocide-free investing.  We look forward to future votes at Franklin Resources.” According to a market research study conducted by KRC Research in 2010, 88% of Americans would like their mutual funds to be genocide-free.

In presenting the proposal at the shareholders meeting, Armen Carapetian, Chair of the Armenian National Committee of America San Francisco Bay Area Chapter stated, “Franklin Templeton’s recommendation against the proposal states that ‘fostering economic and business development through investment can often help in achieving reforms.’ In some cases, that statement would be correct. However, it is inappropriate and certainly does not apply to the genocidal regime in Sudan that has resisted international condemnation for ten years and continues its genocide and crimes against humanity against its own people in Darfur and recently in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile states.”

Carapetian was accompanied by Rubina Karapetyan, a straight A eighth grade student from KZV Armenian School in San Francisco. Rubina’s grandfather escaped the genocide waged by Ottoman Turkey in 1915, where 1.5 million Armeninan men, women, and children, including Rubina’s great-grandfather, were killed.

An increasing number of institutions have made the decision to vote in support of genocide-free investing. For example, last year’s vote on genocide-free investing at JPMorgan Chase, drew support from T. Rowe Price, CalPERS, CalSTRS, Connecticut State Pension, Florida State Board of Administration, New York State Pension, NYCERS, Ohio State Teachers Retirement System, AFSCME, and Christian Brothers Investment Services, among many others.

A new US SIF report, “2012 Report on Sustainable and Responsible Investing Trends in the United States,” supports the importance of Sudan-related investment policies as a key shareholder concern. Most strikingly, the report found that Sudan is the top socially responsible consideration for institutional investors.

Franklin Resources (NYSE:BEN) owned 1,479,642,253 shares of PetroChina, as of December 2011. That holding amounted to 7% of the shares outstanding of PetroChina, a company widely recognized as contributing to the genocide in Sudan. Currently, half a million people in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions of Sudan are facing relentless aerial attacks, violent displacement, and starvation due to the Sudanese government’s ongoing military assaults. Ongoing government-sponsored genocide in Sudan has spanned more than two decades and resulted in the death of over 2.5 million innocent civilians.

On January 24, 2013, 37 local and national human rights and religious groups sent an open letter to Charles Johnson, Rupert Johnson and Gregory Johnson. The letter was signed by local groups such as the Archdiocese of San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition, as well as national groups such as American Jewish World Service, the Enough Project, the Armenian National Committee of America, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. It was also signed by notable genocide and corporate governance scholars.

Shareholders approved a similar genocide-free investing proposal at the ING Emerging Countries Fund in June 2012 by a wide margin with 59.2% of votes in favor of the proposal and only 10.8% opposed.  Unlike Franklin Resources, ING took a neutral position on the proposal allowing the views of individual shareholders to be represented without the disadvantage of institutional bias.

Investors Against Genocide withdrew its shareholder proposal at TIAA-CREF when it adopted a public policy against investments tied to genocide. TIAA-CREF subsequently divested holdings in oil companies helping to support the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. American Funds divested its holdings in PetroChina following a well-publicized shareholder vote on genocide-free investing.

####

Investors Against Genocide is a citizen-led initiative, dedicated to convincing mutual funds and other investment firms to make an ongoing commitment to genocide-free investing. Investors Against Genocide works with individuals, financial firms, pension and endowment managers and government officials to encourage investment firms to change their investing strategy to avoid investments in companies that substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity. Investors Against Genocide is staffed by volunteers and is a project of the Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization, incorporated in the state of Massachusetts. For more information, visit www.investorsagainstgenocide.org.

Original PDF here.

March 15, 2013, 05:00 AM By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal

Shareholders with Franklin Resources shot down a proposal from one of their own Wednesday that would have pulled funds out of companies that contribute to genocide.

Shareholder Armen Carapetian, chair of the Armenian National Committee of America San Francisco Bay Area chapter, presented the proposal at the company’s annual shareholder meeting in San Mateo Wednesday.

He requested “that the board institute transparent procedures to avoid holding or recommending investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.”

Carapetian was accompanied by Rubina Karapetyan, an eighth grade student from KZV Armenian School in San Francisco. Rubina’s grandfather escaped the genocide waged by Ottoman Turkey in 1915, where 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children, including Rubina’s great-grandfather, were killed.

Only 8.7 percent of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, however, as nearly 84 percent voted against it, according to IAG.

The proposal was the first shareholder proposal to appear on the company’s annual proxy ballot in 19 years, said Susan Morgan, IAG’s co-founder.

Morgan was not too discouraged by the “no” vote, however, as it was the first time shareholders even had a chance to consider such a proposal.

Franklin Resources is the parent company of Franklin Templeton Investments, with headquarters in San Mateo. The company’s board had recommended to shareholders to vote against the proposal, according to IAG.

Before the vote, Carapetian said: “Franklin Templeton’s recommendation against the proposal states that ‘fostering economic and business development through investment can often help in achieving reforms.’ In some cases, that statement would be correct. However, it is inappropriate and certainly does not apply to the genocidal regime in Sudan that has resisted international condemnation for 10 years and continues its genocide and crimes against humanity against its own people in Darfur and recently in the Nubu Mountains and Blue Nile states.”

Shareholders approved a similar genocide-free investing proposal at the ING Emerging Countries Fund in June 2012 with 59.2 percent of votes in favor of the proposal and only 10.8 percent opposed, according to IAG.

The ING board took a neutral position on the proposal which helped it succeed, according to IAG.

IAG is staffed by volunteers and is a project of the Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur Inc., a nonprofit agency.

For more information visit www.investorsagainstgenocide.net.

silverfarb@smdailyjournal.com
(650) 344-5200 ext. 106