UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Check the appropriate box:

Hercules Capital, Inc.
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

 

400 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 310
Palo Alto, California 94301
(650) 289-3060

NOTICE OF 2017 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
HERCULES CAPITAL, INC.

	By Order of the Board,
	General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary

PROXY STATEMENT—TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY INFORMATION

This summary provides highlights about Hercules Capital, Inc., and information contained elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider when deciding how to vote your shares. The “Company,” “Hercules,” “HTGC,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Hercules Capital, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries and its affiliated securitization trusts on or after February 25, 2016 and “Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc.” and its wholly owned subsidiaries and its affiliated securitization trusts prior to February 25, 2016 unless the context otherwise requires.

About Hercules and 2016 Financial Highlights

We are a specialty finance company focused on providing senior secured venture growth loans to high-growth, innovative venture capital-backed companies in a variety of technology, life sciences and sustainable and renewable technology industries.

2016 Company Highlights

The Company had an exceptional year in 2016 in key financial and non-financial areas. Our select financial performance achievements are below, which also highlights the growth and success of our Company. Our 2016 financial and non-financial highlights are as follows:

Key Performance Highlights

Total Shareholder Return % (TSR)^(b) vs. BDCs & INDEXES

Delivering Strong Shareholder Returns

DELIVERING STRONG AND CONSISTENT FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

MAINTAINING A PREMIUM TO NAV

PORTFOLIO GROWTH WITH UNDERWRITING DISCIPLINE

HERCULES’ INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO: Year-End 2016

2016 Peer Group Analysis

As of October 31 2016, the Company outperformed most of its Peer Group (defined on page 34) over the one-, three- and five-year period as follows:

* Data source: S&P Capital IQ and reflects the most recent four quarters and TSR available as of 10/31/16.

Voting Matters and Recommendations

Board Nominees

AC = Audit Committee CC = Compensation Committee NGCG = Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

M = Member C = Committee Chairman

(1) Under the rules and regulations of the SEC and the listing standards of New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”).

(2) If elected, Mr. Titinger will serve as chairperson of the Compensation Committee.

Corporate Governance Highlights

Executive Compensation

Consistent with our Board’s recommendation and our stockholders’ preference, we submit an advisory vote to approve our executive compensation (otherwise known as “say-on-pay”) on an annual basis. Accordingly, we are seeking your approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation for our NEOs, as further described in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this Proxy Statement. In addition, we are also seeking a vote, on an advisory basis, as to whether an advisory vote should occur every one, two or three years. We are required by applicable law to seek shareholder input on “say on pay” frequency this year.

2016 Executive Compensation Highlights

For a summary of our 2016 executive compensation and key features of our executive compensation programs, please refer to the Executive Summary of the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this Proxy Statement on page 30.

Auditor Matters

We are seeking your ratification of PwC as our independent public accounting firm for the 2017 fiscal year. The following table summarizes the fees billed, or expected to be billed, by PwC for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016, (please refer to the proposal on page 56):

For 2016, 93.3% of the 2016 fees represented audit and audit-related fees.

General Information

For general information regarding our Proxy Statement, please review the questions and answers at the end of our Proxy Statement. For questions in which you require additional information, please call us at (650) 600-5405 or send an e-mail to Melanie Grace, Secretary, at mgrace@htgc.com.

You may cast your vote in any of the following ways:

Internet Visit www.proxyvote.com. You will need the 16-digit control number included in the proxy card, voter instruction card or notice.	QR Code You can scan the QR Code on your proxy card to vote with your mobile phone.	Phone Call 1-800-690-6903 or the number on your voter instruction form. You will need the control number included in your proxy card.	Mail Send your completed and signed proxy card or voter instruction form to the address on your proxy card or voter instruction form.	In Person Attend the meeting in person.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table sets forth, as of October 30, 2017, the beneficial ownership of each current director, each nominee for director, our NEOs, each person known to us to beneficially own 5% or more of the outstanding shares of our common stock, and our executive officers and directors as a group.

Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules of the SEC. Common stock subject to options or warrants that are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of October 30, 2017 are deemed to be outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding such options or warrants. Such shares, however, are not deemed outstanding for the purposes of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. Percentage of ownership is based on 84,162,661 shares of common stock outstanding as of October 30, 2017.

Unless otherwise indicated, to our knowledge, each stockholder listed below has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares beneficially owned by the stockholder, except to the extent authority is shared by their spouses under applicable law. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of all executive officers and directors is c/o Hercules Capital, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 310, Palo Alto, California 94301.

Our directors are divided into two groups—interested directors and independent directors. Interested directors are “interested persons” as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act, and independent directors are all other directors.

The following table sets forth as of October 30, 2017, the dollar range of our securities owned by our directors and executive officers.

PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The Board unanimously recommends that you vote FOR the nominees for director
(Item 1 on your proxy card)

General

The Board currently consists of eight directors and is divided into three classes. Each class of the Board serves a staggered three-year term. Our Class I directors, whose terms expire at the annual meeting, are Robert P. Badavas and Susanne D. Lyons.

There are two nominees to Class I of the Board this year — Messrs. Badavas and Titinger. Ms. Lyons has decided not to stand for re-election in 2017. The nomination of Messrs. Badavas and Titinger to stand for election at the annual meeting has been recommended by the NCG Committee and has been approved by the Board. Messrs. Badavas and Titinger, if elected, will serve for a three-year term expiring at the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or until their successor is duly elected and qualified, or until their earlier death, resignation or removal from the Board.

Messrs. Badavas and Titinger are not being nominated as a director for election pursuant to any agreement or understanding between such person and Hercules. Messrs. Badavas and Titinger have indicated their willingness to continue to serve if elected and have consented to be named as nominees. Messrs. Badavas and Titinger are not an “interested person” of Hercules, as such term is defined under the 1940 Act.

Director Qualifications

The Board recognizes that it is important to assemble a body of directors that, taken together, has the skills, qualifications, experience and attributes appropriate for functioning as a Board, and working with management, effectively. The NCG Committee is responsible for maintaining a well-rounded and diverse Board that has the requisite range of skills and qualifications to oversee the Company effectively. The NCG Committee has not established a minimum qualification for director candidates. Our Board does not have a specific diversity policy, but considers diversity of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, cultural background and professional experiences in evaluating candidates for Board membership. The diversity of background and experience includes ensuring that the Board includes individuals with experience or skills sufficient to meet the requirements of the various rules and regulations of the NYSE and the SEC, such as the requirements to have a majority of independent directors and an Audit Committee Financial Expert. However, in light of our business, the primary areas of experience and qualifications sought by the NCG Committee in incumbent and director candidates include, but are not limited to, the following:

For each director, we have highlighted certain key areas of experience that qualify him or her to serve on the Board in each of their respective biographies below beginning on page 14.

A stockholder can vote for or withhold his, her or its vote for the nominees. In the absence of instructions to the contrary, it is the intention of the persons named as proxies to vote such proxy FOR the election of the nominees named in this Proxy Statement. If the nominees should decline or be unable to serve as a director, it is intended that the proxy will be voted for the election of the person nominated by our Board as a replacement. Our Board has no reason to believe that the nominees will be unable or unwilling to serve.

Required Vote

This proposal requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a plurality of the shares of stock outstanding and entitled to vote thereon. Stockholders may not cumulate their votes. If you vote “withhold authority” with respect to a nominee, your shares will not be voted with respect to the person indicated. Because directors are elected by a plurality of the votes, an abstention will have no effect on the outcome of the vote and, therefore, is not offered as a voting option for this proposal.

Broker Non-Votes

Broker non-votes are votes cast for shares held by a broker or other nominee for which the nominee has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner and does not have discretionary authority to vote the shares on non-routine proposals. Proposal 1 is a non-routine matter. As a result, if you hold shares in “street name” through a broker, bank or other nominee, your broker, bank or nominee will not be permitted to exercise voting discretion with respect to Proposal 1, the election of directors. Therefore, if you do not vote and you do not give your broker or other nominee specific instructions on how to vote for you, then your shares will have no effect on Proposal 1.

Information about the Directors and Executive Officers

For each director, we have highlighted certain key areas of experience that qualify him or her to serve on the Board in each of their respective biographies below.

Director Nominees Biographies

The biographical information for the director nominees are as follows:

Mr. Badavas, 64, retired in August, 2016 as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PlumChoice, a venture-backed technology, software and services company (since December 2011). He has served as a director on our Board since March 2006 and his term expires in 2017.

Mr. Titinger, 56, currently serves as Principal and Founder of Titinger Consulting (since 2016), a private consulting and advisory service provider focusing on strategy development and execution, board governance, operational transformations, and culture changes.

Independent Director Biographies

The biographical information for each of the independent directors is as follows:

Mr. Fallon, 56, currently serves as Chief Executive Officer of Infinera Corporation (since 2010) and a member of Infinera’s board of directors (since 2009). He has served as a director on our Board since July 2014 and his term expires in 2018.

Mr. Koenig, 59, currently serves as Founder and CEO of FoodyDirect.com, (since 2011), an online marketplace that features foods from the top restaurants, bakeries and artisan purveyors around the country. He has served as a director on our Board since October 2017.

Mr. Woodward, 76, has extensive experience and qualifications in banking and financial services. He has served as a director on our Board since February 2004 and his term expires in 2018.

Mr. Hoffman, 68, is retired from KPMG LLP after 26 years as a partner and senior executive with that firm. He has served as a director on our Board since April 2015 and his term expires in 2019.

Ms. Woo Ho, 70, is a retired senior executive who has held top management roles at some of the largest commercial banks in America, including Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank and United Commercial Bank. She has served as a director on our Board since October 2016 and her term expires in 2019.

Interested Director Biographies

The biographical information for the interested director is as follows:

Mr. Henriquez, 54, is a co-founder of Hercules and has been our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since 2004 and our President (since 2005) and his term expires in 2019.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Our business, property and affairs are managed under the direction of our Board. Members of our Board are kept informed of our business through discussions with our chairman and chief executive officer, our chief financial officer, our chief investment officer, our general counsel, and our other officers and employees, and by reviewing materials provided to them and participating in meetings of our Board and its committees.

Because our Board is committed to strong and effective corporate governance, it regularly monitors our corporate governance policies and practices to ensure we meet or exceed the requirements of applicable laws, regulations and rules, and the NYSE’s listing standards. The Board has adopted a number of policies to support our values and good corporate governance, including corporate governance guidelines, Board committee charters, insider trading policy, code of ethics, code of business conduct and ethics, and related person transaction approval policy. The Board has approved corporate governance guidelines that provide a framework for the operation of the Board and address key governance practices. Examples of our corporate governance practices include:

Our Board will continue to review and update the corporate governance guidelines, corporate governance practices, and our corporate governance framework, including the potential expansion of the size of our Board.

Board Leadership Structure

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Our Board currently combines the role of chairman of the Board with the role of chief executive officer, coupled with a lead independent director position to further strengthen our governance structure. Our Board believes this provides an efficient and effective leadership model for our company. Combining the chairman and chief executive officer roles fosters clear accountability, effective decision-making, and alignment on corporate strategy. Since 2004, Mr. Henriquez has served as both chairman of the Board and as our chief executive officer. Mr. Henriquez is an interested director.

No single leadership model is right for all companies at all times. Our Board recognizes that depending on the circumstances, other leadership models, such as a separate independent chairman of the Board, might be appropriate. Accordingly, our Board periodically reviews its leadership structure.

Moreover, our Board believes that its governance practices provide adequate safeguards against any potential risks that might be associated with having a combined chairman and chief executive officer. Specifically:

Lead Independent Director

Our Board has instituted the lead independent director position to provide an additional measure of balance, ensure our Board’s independence, and enhance its ability to fulfill its management oversight responsibilities. Allyn C. Woodward, Jr. currently serves as our lead independent director. The lead independent director:

Having a combined chairman and chief executive officer, coupled with a substantial majority of independent, experienced directors, including a lead independent director with specified responsibilities on behalf of the independent directors, provides the right leadership structure for our company and is best for us and our stockholders at this time.

Board Oversight of Risk

While day-to-day risk management is primarily the responsibility of our management team, our Board, as a whole and through its committees, is responsible for oversight of the risk management processes.

Our Audit Committee has oversight responsibility not only for financial reporting with respect to our major financial exposures and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures, but also for the effectiveness of management’s enterprise risk management process that monitors and manages key business risks facing our company. In addition to our Audit Committee, the other committees of our Board consider the risks within their areas of responsibility. For example, our Compensation Committee considers the risks that may be posed by our executive compensation program.

Management provides regular updates throughout the year to our Board regarding the management of the risks they oversee at each regular meeting of our Board. Also, our Board receives presentations throughout the year from various department and business group heads that include discussion of significant risks as necessary. Additionally, our full Board reviews our short and long-term strategies, including consideration of significant risks facing our business and their potential impact.

During 2016, in addition to unanimous written consents, the Board held the following meetings:

Each director makes a diligent effort to attend all Board and committee meetings, as well as our annual meeting of stockholders. All directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board and of the respective committees on which they served. Each of our then-serving directors attended our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders in person.

Board Committees

Our Board has established an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, and a NCG Committee. A brief description of each committee is included in this Proxy Statement and the charters of the Audit, Compensation, and NCG Committees are available on the Investor Relations section of our website at http://investor.htgc.com/corporate-governance.cfm.

As of the date of this Proxy Statement, the members of each of our Board Committees are as follows (the names of the respective committee chairperson are bolded and noted with a “C”.):

Each of our directors who sits on a committee satisfies the independence requirements for purposes of the rules promulgated by the NYSE and the requirements to be a non-interested director as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act. Mr. Badavas, Chairman of the Audit Committee and Messrs. Hoffman and Koenig, members of the Audit Committee, are each an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by applicable SEC rules.

Committee Governance

Each committee is governed by a charter that is approved by the Board, which sets forth each committee’s purpose and responsibilities. The Board reviews the committees’ charters, and each committee reviews its own charter, on at least an annual basis, to assess the charters’ content and sufficiency, with final approval of any proposed changes required by the full Board.

Committee Responsibilities and Meetings

The key oversight responsibilities of the Board’s committees, and the number of meetings held by each committee during 2016, are as follows:

Director Independence

The NYSE’s listing standards and Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act require that a majority of our Board and every member of our Audit, Compensation, and NCG Committees are “independent.” Under the NYSE’s listing standards and our corporate governance guidelines, no director will be considered to be independent unless and until our Board affirmatively determines that such director has no direct or indirect material relationship with our company or our management. Our Board reviews the independence of its members annually.

In determining that Ms. Woo Ho and Messrs. Badavas, Woodward, Fallon, Hoffman, Koenig and Titinger are independent, our Board, through the NCG Committee, considered the financial services, commercial, family and other relationships between each director and his or her immediate family members or affiliated entities, on the one hand, and Hercules and its subsidiaries, on the other hand.

Communication with the Board

We believe that communications between our Board, our stockholders and other interested parties are an important part of our corporate governance process. Stockholders with questions about Hercules are encouraged to contact Michael Hara, Investor Relations at (650) 433-5578. However, if stockholders believe that their questions have not been addressed, they may communicate with our Board by sending their communications to Hercules Capital, Inc., c/o Melanie Grace, Secretary, 400 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 310, Palo Alto, California 94301. All stockholder communications received in this manner will be delivered to one or more members of our Board.

Mr. Woodward currently serves as the lead independent director, and he presides over executive sessions of the independent directors. Parties may communicate directly with Mr. Woodward by sending their communications to Hercules Capital, Inc., c/o Melanie Grace, Secretary at the above address. All communications received in this manner will be delivered to Mr. Woodward.

All communications involving accounting, internal accounting controls and auditing matters, possible violations of, or non-compliance with, applicable legal and regulatory requirements or our code of ethics, or retaliatory acts against anyone who makes such a complaint or assists in the investigation of such a complaint, will be referred to Melanie Grace, Secretary. The communication will be forwarded to the chair of our Audit Committee if our secretary determines that the matter has been submitted in conformity with our whistleblower procedures or otherwise determines that the communication should be so directed.

The acceptance and forwarding of a communication to any director does not imply that the director owes or assumes any fiduciary duty to the person submitting the communication, all such duties being only as prescribed by applicable law.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Our code of business conduct and ethics requires that our directors and executive officers avoid any conflict, or the appearance of a conflict, between an individual’s personal interests and the interests of Hercules. Pursuant to our code of business conduct and ethics, which is available on our website at http://investor.htgc.com/corporate-governance.cfm, each director and executive officer must disclose any conflicts of interest, or actions or relationships that might give rise to a conflict, to our Audit Committee. Certain actions or relationships that might give rise to a conflict of interest are reviewed and approved by our Board.

Availability of Corporate Governance Documents

To learn more about our corporate governance and to view our corporate governance guidelines, code of business conduct and ethics, and the charters of our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and NCG Committee, please visit the Investor Relations page of our website at http://investor.htgc.com/corporate-governance.cfm, under “Corporate Governance.” Copies of these documents are also available in print free of charge by writing to Hercules Capital, Inc., c/o Melanie Grace, Secretary, 400 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 310, Palo Alto, California 94301.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

All members of our Compensation Committee are independent directors and none of the members are present or past employees of the Company. No member of our Compensation Committee: (i) has had any relationship with the Company requiring disclosure under Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, referred to as the Exchange Act; or (ii) is an executive officer of another entity, at which one of our executive officers serves on the Board.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

We have established a written policy to govern the review, approval and monitoring of transactions involving the Company and certain persons related to Hercules. As a BDC, the 1940 Act restricts us from participating in transactions with any persons affiliated with Hercules, including our officers, directors, and employees and any person controlling or under common control with us.

In order to ensure that we do not engage in any prohibited transactions with any persons affiliated with Hercules, our officers screen each of our transactions for any possible affiliations, close or remote, between the proposed portfolio investment, Hercules, companies controlled by us and our employees and directors. We will not enter into any agreements unless and until we are satisfied that no affiliations prohibited by the 1940 Act exist or, if such affiliations exist, we have taken appropriate actions to seek Board review and approval or exemptive relief from the SEC for such transaction.

SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

We believe, based on a review of Forms 3, 4 and 5 and any amendments thereto filed with the SEC and other information known to us, that during fiscal year 2016, our directors, officers (as defined in the rules under Section 16 of the Exchange Act), and any greater than 10% stockholders have complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements in a timely manner.

INFORMATION ABOUT EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO ARE NOT DIRECTORS

Our executive officers perform policy-making functions for us within the meaning of applicable SEC rules. They may also serve as officers of our other subsidiaries. There are no family relationships among our directors or executive officers.

The following information outlines the name and age of our executive officers (as of the date of this Proxy Statement) and his or her principal occupation with the Company, followed by the biographical information of each of such executive officer:

Executive Biographies

Mr. Manuel A. Henriquez’ biography can be found under “Interested Director” biographies on Page 21.

David Lund joined us in 2017 as Interim Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Lund has over 30 years of experience in finance and accounting serving companies in the technology sector. Mr. Lund oversees the financial and accounting functions of the Company.

Scott Bluestein joined us in 2010 as Chief Credit Officer. He was promoted to Chief Investment Officer in 2014. Mr. Bluestein is responsible for managing the investment teams and investments made by the Company.

Melanie Grace joined us in 2015 as General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary. She has over 17 years of experience representing public and private companies in securities, compliance and transactional matters. Ms. Grace oversees the legal and compliance function for the Company and serves as secretary for the Company and select subsidiaries.

Gerard R. Waldt, Jr. joined us in 2016 as Assistant Controller and in 2017 became Corporate Controller and Interim Chief Accounting Officer. He is responsible for the financial and regulatory reporting, financial planning and analysis, and financial systems design and implementation.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

The Compensation Discussion and Analysis discusses our 2016 executive compensation program, as it relates to the following executive officers:

We refer to Messrs. Henriquez, Harris, Bluestein and Olson and Ms. Grace as our “named executive officers,” or “NEOs”.

Executive Summary

Under the oversight of our Compensation Committee, the Company’s executive compensation program is designed to attract, incent and retain talented individuals who are critical to our continued success and our corporate growth and who will deliver sustained strong performance over the longer term. Our executive compensation program is designed to motivate the Company’s executive officers to maintain the financial strength of the Company while avoiding any inappropriate focus on short-term profits that would impede the Company’s long-term growth and encourage excessive risk-taking.

In 2016, the Company continued to review and enhance our compensation practices in accordance with our executive compensation philosophy. The review considered both compensation levels and company performance over a one-, three-, and five-year period from 2012 to 2016 (the “Performance Periods”). (See “Compensation Philosophy and Objectives” below). The Company believes that compensation paid to our NEOs for 2016 was commensurate with the Company’s overall absolute performance as well as our performance relative to peers during the relevant Performance Periods. The 2016 compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee considered the fact that our performance relative to a peer group of companies was above the median, and in most cases above the 75^th percentile, measured using:

The Company’s incentive compensation practices are significantly limited by the requirements imposed on us as an internally managed Business Development Company (“BDC”) pursuant to the 1940 Act. (See “Limitations Imposed by the 1940 Act Relating to Implementation of Non-Equity Incentive Plans” below). These are regulatory limitations related to our corporate structure that are relatively unique and do not apply to most other publicly-traded companies. As discussed further below, our NEOs were compensated to reflect the Company’s performance during the relevant Performance Periods (See “Performance Highlights and Assessment of Company Performance” below) as well as individual performance.

In addition to key factors involved in the 2016 decisions made by the Compensation Committee, we continue to maintain the enhancements to our executive officer compensation program that we adopted in 2016, such as our clawback policy for all Section 16 officers and consideration of a mix of corporate and individual performance factors for our NEOs. In addition, the Compensation Committee did not grant restricted stock awards in 2017. Rather, the Compensation Committee granted restricted stock units with an additional one-year deferral period following the last vesting date. We believe these restricted stock unit awards assist the Company in retaining NEOs. In 2017, the Company entered into retention awards with Messrs. Henriquez, Harris and Bluestein which provide for certain benefits upon certain terminations of employment.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

The primary principle of our compensation program is to engage and align a substantial portion of executive compensation to the financial strength, long-term profitability, and risk management of the Company and to the creation of long-term stockholder value.

As an internally managed BDC, the Company’s compensation program is designed to encourage the NEOs to think and act like stockholders. The structure of the NEOs’ compensation program is designed to encourage and reward the following factors, among other things:

We believe that our continued success during 2016, despite strong competition for top-quality executive talent in the commercial and venture lending industry, was attributable to our ability to attract, motivate and retain the Company’s outstanding executive team using both short- and long-term incentive compensation programs.

The Company’s compensation objectives are achieved through its executive compensation program, which for 2016 consisted of the following:

The compensation program is designed to reflect best practices in executive compensation:

Executive Compensation Governance

The Company’s executive compensation program is supported by strong corporate governance and Board-level oversight. The Compensation Committee provides primary oversight of our compensation programs, including the design and administration of executive compensation plans, assessment and setting of corporate performance goals, as well as individual performance metrics, and the approval of executive compensation. In addition, the Compensation Committee retains an independent compensation consultant, and where appropriate, discusses compensation-related matters with our CEO, as it relates to the other NEOs. The Compensation Committee developed our 2016 compensation program, and the compensation paid to our NEOs during and in respect of 2016 was approved by the Compensation Committee as well as all of our independent directors.

The Compensation Committee operates pursuant to a charter that sets forth its mission, specific goals and responsibilities. A key component of the Compensation Committee’s goals and responsibilities is to evaluate, approve and/or make recommendations to our Board regarding the compensation of our NEOs, and to review their performance relative to their compensation to assure that they are compensated in a manner consistent with the compensation philosophy discussed above.

The Compensation Committee has not established a policy or target for the allocation between cash and non-cash or short-term and long-term compensation. Rather, the Compensation Committee undertakes a subjective analysis in light of the principles described herein and, in connection with its analysis, reviews and considers information provided by independent compensation consultants and surveys to which the Company subscribes to determine the appropriate level and mix of base compensation, performance-based pay, and other elements of compensation.

In addition, the Compensation Committee evaluates and makes recommendations to our Board regarding the compensation of the directors for their services. Annually, the Compensation Committee:

The Compensation Committee periodically reviews our compensation programs and equity incentive plans to ensure that such programs and plans are consistent with our corporate objectives and appropriately align our NEOs’ interests with those of our stockholders. The Compensation Committee also administers our stock incentive program. The Compensation Committee may not delegate its responsibilities discussed above.

Subsequently, the Compensation Committee engaged Frederic W. Cook & Co. to provide the following services to the Committee:

The Compensation Committee's executive compensation determinations are subjective and the result of the Compensation Committee's business judgment. Its determinations are informed by the experiences of its members and the peer group data provided by its independent compensation consultant. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee does not target a percentile within its peer group. Instead, it uses the data as a reference point in determining the types and amounts of compensation provided by the Company.

Competitive Benchmarking Against Peers

To determine the competitiveness of executive compensation levels, the Compensation Committee analyzes a group of internally managed BDCs, financial services companies and real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) as set forth below (the “Peer Group”). The Peer Group is viewed as reflecting the labor market for our officer and employee talent, has a similar investor base, and, like the Company, the BDCs and REITs are pass-through entities with the majority of earnings required to be distributed to shareholders as a dividend. The Compensation Committee does not specifically benchmark the compensation of our NEOs against that paid by other companies. During 2016, the Compensation Committee, based on the advice of F.W. Cook, reviewed the peer group used in connection with prior compensation decisions. Based on this review, and the advice of F.W. Cook, the Compensation Committee updated our Peer Group to better align it to our business. Our Peer Group was used as a factor in determining the annual cash bonus awards made with respect to 2016 (but paid in 2017), along with the various performance metrics outlined below under “Performance Highlights and Assessment of Company Performance,” as well as the further considerations further described below under “Annual Cash Bonus Awards”. The Peer Group data used in such determination was for the period January 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016 and the other performance metrics referred to below are presented as of the fiscal year ended 2016.

As of October 31, 2016, which is the period the Compensation Committee reviewed our Peer Group, the Company outperformed most of its Peer Group over the one-, three- and five-years (“Peer Group Performance”) as follows:

* Data source: S&P Capital IQ and reflects the most recent four quarters and TSR available as of 10/31/16.

The Company believes that compensation paid to our NEOs for 2016 was commensurate with the Company’s overall absolute performance as well as our performance relative to the Peer Group during the relevant Performance Periods. The 2016 compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee considered the fact that our performance relative to the Peer Group was above the median, and in most cases above the 75th percentile, measured using Return on Average Assets, Return on Equity, Return on Investment Capital and Total Shareholder Return during the trailing one-, three-, and five-years as indicated in the chart above.

Our Regulatory Status and Limitations Imposed by the Investment Company Act of 1940

We are an internally-managed, non-diversified, closed-end investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business development company, referred to as a BDC, under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, referred to as the 1940 Act. As a BDC, we are required to comply with certain regulatory requirements, including the 1940 Act, rules promulgated under the 1940 Act, and exemptive orders issued to us by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. We refer to these requirements, rules and exemptive orders as the 1940 Act Requirements. Among other things, these 1940 Act Requirements:

Why is this important to the Company’s executive compensation? The 1940 Act Requirements that restrict the Company to sponsoring either an equity incentive plan or a “profit sharing plan” limit the Company’s use of formulas or non-discretionary objective performance goals or criteria in its incentive plans. This means that the Compensation Committee is not permitted to use a nondiscretionary formulaic application of any performance criteria for corporate and individual goals to determine compensation. Rather, the Compensation Committee must take into consideration all factors and use its discretion to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for our NEOs. The Compensation Committee’s objective is to work within this regulatory framework to maintain and motivate pay-for-performance alignment, to establish appropriate compensation levels relative to our Peer Group and to implement compensation best practices.

2016 Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation

At our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, our advisory vote on say-on-pay received support from our stockholders (89.4% of votes cast). The Company believes that the continuing dialogue with our stockholders on company performance, compensation and other governance matters is important. In advance of our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, management engaged in numerous direct dialogues with our largest institutional shareholders, as well as a number of other institutional shareholders, to gain broad-based and/or specific insights into the Company’s overall performance, operating expenses, including executive compensation and corporate governance practices. In addition, we invited each of our institutional stockholders holding more than 1% of the Company’s stock to speak directly with management specifically on executive compensation and corporate governance practices.

The Company anticipates continuing our stockholder engagement efforts following the 2017 annual meeting and in advance of our future annual meetings.

Peformance Highlights and Assessment of Company Performance

In determining the compensation for our NEOs, the Compensation Committee evaluates our performance relative to our Peer Group (See “Competitive Benchmarking Against Peers” above), as well as Company-specific absolute performance factors over the relevant Performance Periods. In 2016, relative and company-specific factors included:

Assessment of Company Performance

In determining annual compensation for our NEOs, the Compensation Committee analyzes and evaluates the individual achievements and performance of our NEOs as well as the overall relative and absolute operating performance and achievements of the Company. We believe that the alignment of (i) our business plan, (ii) stockholder expectations and (iii) our employee compensation is essential to long-term business success and the interests of our stockholders and employees and to our ability to attract and retain executive talent, especially in a competitive environment for top-quality executive talent in the venture debt industry.

Our business plan involves taking on credit risk over an extended period of time, and a premium is placed on our ability to maintain stability and growth of net asset values as well as continuity of earnings growth to pass through to stockholders in the form of recurring dividends over the long term. Our strategy is to generate income and capital gains from our

investments in the debt with warrant securities, and to a lesser extent direct equity, of our portfolio companies. This income supports the anticipated payment of dividends to our stockholders. Therefore, a key element of our return to stockholders is current income through the payment of dividends. This recurring payout requires a methodical asset acquisition analyses as well as highly active monitoring and management of our investment portfolio over time. To accomplish these functions, our business requires implementation and oversight by management and key employees with highly specialized skills and experience in the venture debt industry. A substantial part of our employee base is dedicated to the generation of new investment opportunities to allow us to sustain dividends and to the maintenance of asset values in our portfolio. In addition to the performance factors above, the Company considered the following Company-specific performance factors over the relevant Performance Periods: overall credit performance, performance against annual gross funding goals, overall yields, efficiency ratios, total and net investment income and realized and unrealized gains and losses.

Elements of Executive Compensation and 2016 Compensation Determinations

Base Salary

We believe that base salaries are a fundamental element of our compensation program. The Compensation Committee establishes base salaries for each NEO to reflect (i) the scope of the NEO’s industry experience, knowledge and qualifications, (ii) the NEO’s position and responsibilities and contributions to our business growth and (iii) salary levels and pay practices of those companies with whom we compete for executive talent.

The Compensation Committee considers base salary levels at least annually as part of its review of the performance of NEOs and from time to time upon a promotion or other change in job responsibilities. During its review of base salaries for our executives, the Compensation Committee primarily considers: individual performance of the executive, including leadership and execution of strategic initiatives and the accomplishment of business results for our company; market data provided by our compensation consultant; our NEOs total compensation, both individually and relative to our other NEOs; and for NEOs other than the CEO, the base salary recommendations of our CEO.

Annual Cash Bonus Awards

The Compensation Committee, together with input from our CEO, developed a specific bonus pool for the 2016 operating year to be available for our annual cash bonus program. The amount determined to be available for our annual cash program was dependent upon many factors, including those outlined previously under “Performance Highlights and Assessment of Company Performance.”

The Compensation Committee designs our annual cash bonuses to motivate our NEOs to achieve financial and non-financial objectives consistent with our operating plan. The Compensation Committee generally targets cash bonuses to 50% to 100% of an NEO’s base salary; however, such bonus amounts may exceed these targets in the event of exceptional company and individual performance.

Bonuses are not formulaic to comply with the 1940 Act regulations that govern our business as an internally managed BDC and have restrictions on setting compensation to specific financial measurements. As a result, the Compensation Committee considers overall business performance factors and individual factors, including CEO feedback, when determining the size of individual NEO bonuses. Accordingly, should actual company and NEO performance exceed

expectations, the Compensation Committee may adjust individual cash bonuses to take such superior performance into account. Conversely, if company and NEO performance is below expectations, the Compensation Committee will consider such performance in determining the NEO’s actual cash bonus.

In evaluating the performance of our NEOs to arrive at their 2016 cash bonus awards, the Compensation Committee considered the performance factor achievements discussed above under “Performance Highlights and Assessment of Company Performance,” and the Compensation Committee specifically compared our performance and the returns of our stockholders against the performance and shareholder returns of other BDCs. In particular, the Committee considered our high relative total shareholder return and return on invested capital relative to peer group benchmarks, which was above the 75^th percentile over the last year, as this shows the success for shareholders and of the core business mission of allocating equity and debt capital efficiently for a high risk-adjusted return.

When sizing our cash bonus pool and allocating bonus awards, the total compensation paid to our NEOs and other employees is evaluated against the expense ratios of other BDCs. With respect to 2016, company-wide compensation expense as a percentage of average assets among the peers in the Peer Group was considered. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, the ratio of our compensation expense divided by total revenue was below the median of the our Peer Group.

Based on the foregoing considerations and analysis, and after due deliberation, the Compensation Committee awarded our current NEOs the following annual cash bonuses with respect to 2016.

Long-Term Equity Incentive Compensation

2004 Equity Incentive Plan

Our long-term equity incentive compensation is designed to develop a strong linkage between pay and our strategic goals and performance, as well as to align the interests of our NEOs, and other executives and key employees, with those of our stockholders by awarding long-term equity incentives in the form of stock options, restricted stock and/or restricted stock units. These awards are made pursuant to our Equity Plan, which permits options, restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards.

We believe that annual equity grants, in the form of restricted stock awards or restricted stock units, to our NEOs are a critical part of our compensation program as they allow us to:

We believe that these annual equity grants motivate performance that is more consistent with the type of return expectations that we have established for our stockholders. Accordingly, the Company awards restricted stock award grants to our NEOs. These grants typically vest over three years.

Grant Practices for Executive Officers

Annual equity compensation grants to executive officers have typically been granted in the first quarter of the year. The Company does not grant stock options to executive officers. As a result, there were no option grants to our NEOs in 2016.

Restricted Stock Units

In 2017, the Compensation Committee did not grant restricted stock awards to NEOs. Rather, in January 2017, the Compensation Committee granted restricted stock units to the NEOs. With respect to the restricted stock units, the Compensation Committee assessed each current NEO’s individual performance for 2016, our overall company performance in 2016 (including the performance factors detailed above under “Performance Highlights and Assessment of Company Performance” and “Annual Cash Bonus Awards”) and the levels of equity compensation paid by other companies with whom we compete for executive talent. Based on this assessment, the Compensation Committee determined that the following restricted stock units be granted to our current NEOs with respect to 2016, in the amounts and on the dates set forth below to reward them for services performed in 2016. These restricted stock units vest as to one-third of the shares underlying the awards on the first anniversary of the grant date, and they vest as to the remaining shares in equal quarterly installments over the next two years. Settlement of the restricted stock units is deferred following vesting and the restricted stock units will not be settled until the earliest to occur of (1) January 24, 2021, (2) the death or disability of the NEO, (3) the separation from service of the NEO, or (4) a change in control of the Company. Each restricted stock unit will entitle the holder to dividend equivalents in the form of the Company’s common stock, which dividend equivalent payments will be settled on the date the related restricted stock unit is settled. We believe these restricted stock unit awards assist the Company in retaining the NEOs.

Other Elements of Compensation

Retention Agreements

In October 2017, Messrs. Henriquez, Harris and Bluestein entered into retention agreements with the Company pursuant to which, if (1) the Executive’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or by the Executive for good reason, or (2) the Company becomes an externally managed BDC and the new external advisor does not make a written offer of employment to the Executive or makes a written offer of employment to the Executive that is not on similar terms to the Executive’s current employment with the Company (including, without limitation, authority, responsibilities, base salary, annual bonus opportunity, long term incentive opportunity and retention benefits) and the Executive does not accept such offer then, subject to the Executive’s execution of a release of claims in favor of the Company, each of Mr. Henriquez and Mr. Bluestein shall be entitled to receive the following benefits:

In November 2017, Mr. Harris and the Company mutually agreed to enter into a separation agreement, which provides that the Company will pay Mr. Harris a monetary sum equivalent to six months gross base salary plus up to an additional six months subject to Mr. Harris certifying he is not employed and is actively seeking employment during such time. In addition, the Company will reimburse Mr. Harris for health insurance premiums for him and his eligible dependents under COBRA for a period of up to twelve months subject to the same qualifications applicable to payments based on his gross base salary. The separation agreement also contains certain additional provisions that are customary for agreements of this type, including confidentiality, non-solicitation, and non-disparagement covenants, as well as a general release of the Company against certain claims. The separation agreement supersedes the terms of Mr. Harris’ retention agreement, under which he would have received (a) a lump sum payment in an amount equal to 1.5 times the sum of (i) annual base salary and (ii) an amount equal to the three-year average annual bonus actually earned by and paid to Mr. Harris for the three full performance periods immediately prior to the termination date; (b) any unpaid annual bonus earned with respect to a prior performance period and not yet paid as the date of termination; (c) a pro rata annual bonus with respect to the performance period in which termination of employment occurs, (d) (x) continued vesting of outstanding equity awards for 1.5 years in the case of a termination not in connection with a change in control of the Company or (y) full vesting of outstanding equity awards in the case of a termination in connection with a change in control of the Company and (e) reimbursement of the full amount of COBRA premiums for Mr. Harris and his eligible dependents for 18 months following termination of employment.

Corporate Goals

For 2016, the Compensation Committee developed corporate goals that were required to be achieved for executive officers to receive up to 50% of their incentive compensation. These goals included operational performance as well as performance relative to the Peer Group. While the criteria may not be weighted, the Compensation Committee took into consideration each of these factors to determine whether the executive officers are eligible for up to 50% of the proposed incentive compensation. The Compensation Committee believes that the corporate goals applicable to all executive officers create an alignment not only with shareholders but also to the Company’s business strategy and performance goals.

Defined Individual Goals

For 2016, the Compensation Committee developed individual goals for the CEO. In addition, the CEO and each NEO developed individual goals for the NEOs and such goals were approved by the Compensation Committee. Each set of individual goals are unique to the executive officer’s responsibilities and position within the Company. While each of the factors may not be weighted, the Compensation Committee took into consideration each of these factors to determine whether the executive officers are eligible for up to 50% of the executive officer’s incentive compensation.

Pay-for-Performance Alignment

The Company believes that there exists an alignment between the compensation of our NEOs and our performance over the relevant Performance Periods. As noted above, a broad range of individual performance factors and company performance factors are analyzed each year, including total shareholder return relative to our Peer Group, and, in 2016, analysis of relative ROAA, ROE, and ROIC versus the compensation peers over one-, three-, and five-years to measure short-, medium-, and long-term performance. The objective in analyzing these key performance factors is to align NEO compensation to our performance relative to our Peer Group and our absolute corporate performance.

The Company’s annual bonus and equity awards constitute an effective mix of short- and long-term compensation components and reflect key measures of our performance and the returns enjoyed by our stockholders. Consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy, the Compensation Committee will make future compensation decisions taking into account our absolute and relative performance, and, if our future performance were to fall significantly below our peers, the Compensation Committee would consider adjusting NEO compensation prospectively.

Total Compensation Expense Relative to other Internally Managed BDCs

In determining annual bonus awards, the total compensation paid to our NEOs and other employees against the expense ratios of other internally managed BDCs, as well as a comparison to total SG&A for select externally managed BDCs, was considered.

Internal Pay Equity Analysis

Our compensation program is designed with the goal of providing compensation to our NEOs that is fair, reasonable, and competitive. To achieve this goal, the Company believes it is important to compare compensation paid to each NEO not only with compensation in our Peer Group, as discussed above, but also with compensation paid to each of our other NEOs. Such an internal comparison is important to ensure that compensation is equitable among our NEOs.

As part of the Compensation Committee’s review, we made a comparison of our CEO’s total compensation paid for the period ending October 31, 2016 against that paid to our other NEOs during the same year. Upon review, the Compensation Committee determined that our CEO’s compensation relative to that of our other NEOs was appropriate because of his level and scope of responsibilities, expertise and performance history, and other factors deemed relevant by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee also reviewed the mix of the individual elements of compensation paid to our NEOs for this period, the individual performance of each NEO and any changes in responsibilities of the NEO.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

The Company maintains stock ownership guidelines, which are outlined in our corporate governance guidelines, because we believe that material stock ownership by our executives plays a role in effectively aligning the interests of these employees with those of our stockholders and strongly motivates our executives to build long-term shareholder value. Pursuant to our stock ownership guidelines, each member of senior management is required to beneficially own at least two times the individual’s annual salary in Company common stock, based on market value, within three years of joining the Company. Our Board may make exceptions to this requirement based on particular circumstances; however, no exceptions have been made for our current NEOs. Messrs. Henriquez, Bluestein and Harris⁽¹⁾ have met their minimum guidelines.

The Compensation Committee’s review of the CEO’s stock ownership in the fourth quarter of 2016 showed that he owns shares worth more than 20x his annual base salary.

Tax and Accounting Matters

Stock-Based Compensation. We account for stock-based compensation, including options and shares of restricted stock granted pursuant to our Equity Plan and 2006 Non-Employee Director Plan in accordance with the requirements of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification (“FASB ASC”) Topic 718. Under the FASB ASC Topic 718, we estimate the fair value of our option awards at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton option-pricing model, which requires the use of certain subjective assumptions. The most significant of these assumptions are our estimates on the expected term, volatility and forfeiture rates of the awards. Forfeitures are not estimated due to our limited history but are reversed in the period in which forfeiture occurs. As required under the accounting rules, we review our valuation assumptions at each grant date and, as a result, are likely to change our valuation assumptions used to value stock-based awards granted in future periods. We estimate the fair value of our restricted stock awards based on the grant date market closing price.

Deductibility of Executive Compensation. When analyzing both total compensation and individual elements of compensation paid to our NEOs, the Company considers the income tax consequences to the Company of its compensation policies and procedures. In particular, the Company considers Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), which limits the deductibility of non-performance-based compensation paid to certain of the NEOs to $1,000,000 per affected NEO. The Compensation Committee intends to balance its objective of providing compensation to our NEOs that is fair, reasonable, and competitive with the Company’s ability to claim compensation expense deductions. Our Board believes that the best interests of the Company and our stockholders are served by executive compensation programs that encourage and promote our principal compensation philosophy, enhancement of shareholder value, and permit the Compensation Committee to exercise discretion in the design and implementation of compensation packages. Accordingly, we may from time to time pay compensation to our NEOs that may not be fully tax deductible, including certain bonuses and restricted stock. Stock options granted under our stock plan are intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code. The Company will continue to review its executive compensation plans periodically to determine what changes, if any, should be made as a result of any deduction limitations.

Clawback Policy for Section 16 Officers

In 2016, the Board adopted a clawback policy for all Section 16 officers. This was an enhancement to the Company’s then-existing clawback policy for the CEO and CFO pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. With respect to the Company’s clawback policy, the Company has

Pursuant to our clawback policy, for payments that are predicated on financial results augmented by fraud, embezzlement, gross negligence or deliberate disregard of applicable rules resulting in significant monetary loss, damage or injury to the Company (“Excess Compensation”), the Compensation Committee has the authority to seek repayment of any Excess Compensation, including (1) cancellation of unvested, unexercised or unreleased equity incentive awards; and (2) repayment of any compensation earned on previously exercised or released equity incentive awards whether or not such activity resulted in a financial restatement.

The Compensation Committee will have sole discretion under this policy, consistent with any applicable statutory requirements, to seek reimbursement of any Excess Compensation paid or received by the Section 16 officer for up to a 12-month period prior to the date of the Compensation Committee action to require reimbursement of the Excess Compensation. Any clawback of Excess Compensation must be based upon fraud adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction or a financial restatement. Further, following a restatement of our financial statements, we will recover any compensation received by the CEO and CFO that is required to be recovered by Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley.

For purposes of this policy, Excess Compensation will be measured as the positive difference, if any, between the compensation earned by a Section 16 officer and the compensation that would have been earned by the Section 16 officer had the fraud, embezzlement, gross negligence or deliberate disregard of applicable rules resulting from significant monetary loss, damage or injury to the Company not occurred.

Risk Assessment of the Compensation Programs

Our Board believe that risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for our employees are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company has designed our compensation programs, including our incentive compensation plans, with specific features to address potential risks while rewarding employees for achieving long-term financial and strategic objectives through prudent business judgment and appropriate risk taking. We use common variable compensation designs, with a significant focus on individual contributions to our performance and the achievement of absolute and relative corporate objectives, as generally described in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

The Compensation Committee and the Board reviewed our compensation programs to assess whether any aspect of the programs would encourage any of our employees to take any unnecessary or inappropriate risks that could threaten the value of the Company. The Company has designed our compensation programs to reward our employees for achieving annual profitability and long-term increase shareholder value.

Our Board recognizes that the pursuit of corporate objectives possibly leads to behaviors that could weaken the link between pay and performance, and, therefore, the correlation between the compensation delivered to employees and the long-term return realized by stockholders. Accordingly, our executive compensation program is designed to mitigate these possibilities and to ensure that our compensation practices are consistent with our risk profile. These features include the following:

Additionally, the Company performed an assessment of compensation-related risks for all of our employees. Based on this assessment, we concluded that our compensation programs do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. In making this evaluation, the Company reviewed the key design elements of our compensation programs in relation to industry “best practices,” as well as the means by which any potential risks may be mitigated. In addition, management completed an inventory of incentive programs below the executive level and reviewed the design of these incentives and concluded that such incentive programs do not encourage excessive risk-taking.

Compensation Committee Report

We have reviewed and discussed the foregoing Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based on our review and discussions with management, we recommend to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement for the 2016 annual meeting of Hercules Capital, Inc.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Susanne D. Lyons, Chair
Allyn C. Woodward, Jr.
Doreen Woo Ho

The information contained in the report above shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act except to the extent specifically incorporated by reference therein.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

Summary Compensation Table