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

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.     )

 Filed by the Registrant   x
 Filed by a Party other than the Registrant   o
 
 Check the appropriate box:

 o   Preliminary Proxy Statement
 o  Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
 x   Definitive Proxy Statement
 o   Definitive Additional Materials
 o   Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY


(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):

 x   No fee required.
 o   Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.

       1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:


       2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:


       3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):


       4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:


       5) Total fee paid:


       o   Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.


       o   Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

       1) Amount Previously Paid:


       2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:


       3) Filing Party:


       4) Date Filed:


SEC 1913 (11-01)Persons who are to respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number.


 

Notice of 20092010 Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement
March 9, 20098, 2010
Dear Shareholder:
You are cordially invited to attend our annual meeting of shareholders on Monday, April 20, 2009,19, 2010, at the Lilly Center Auditorium, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, at 11:00 a.m. EDT.
The notice of meeting and proxy statement that follow describe the business we will consider at the meeting. Your vote is very important. I urge you to vote by mail, by telephone, or on the Internet in order to be certain your shares are represented at the meeting, even if you plan to attend.
Please note our procedures for admission to the meeting described on page 4.
I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
-s- John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
­ ­
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy materials for the shareholder meeting to be held April 20, 2009:19, 2010: The annual report and proxy statement are available athttp://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2008.pdflillyar2009.pdf
­ ­
Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders
April 20, 200919, 2010
The annual meeting of shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company will be held at the Lilly Center Auditorium, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, on Monday, April 20, 2009,19, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. EDT for the following purposes:
  to elect fourfive directors of the company to serve three-year terms
 
 to ratify the appointment by the audit committee of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for the year 20092010
  to approve amendments to the articles of incorporation to provide for annual election of all directors
 
 • to reapproveapprove amendments to the material termsarticles of performance goals for the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Planincorporation to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements
  to consider and vote on a shareholder proposal requesting that the board eliminate all supermajority voting provisions fromamend the company’s articlesbylaws to allow holders of incorporation and bylaws10 percent of the outstanding shares of stock to call special meetings of shareholders
  to consider and vote on a shareholder proposal requesting that the company amend its articlesboard of incorporation to allow shareholders to amenddirectors adopt a policy of prohibiting CEOs from serving on the company’s bylaws by majority votecompensation committee of the board
  to consider and vote on a shareholder proposal requesting that the board of directors adopt a policy of asking shareholders to ratify the compensation of named executive officers at the annual meeting of shareholders.shareholders
• to consider and vote on a shareholder proposal requesting that the compensation committee of the board of directors establish a policy requiring senior executives to retain equity awards until two years after leaving the company.
Shareholders of record at the close of business on February 13, 2009,12, 2010, will be entitled to vote at the meeting and at any adjournment of the meeting.
Attendance at the meeting will be limited to shareholders, those holding proxies from shareholders, and invited guests from the media and financial community. A page at the back of this proxy statementreport contains an admission ticket. If you plan to attend the meeting, please bring this ticket with you.
This combined proxy statement and annual report to shareholders and the proxy voter card are being mailed on or about March 9, 2009.8, 2010.
By order of the board of directors,
James B. Lootens
Secretary
March 9, 2009
8, 2010
Indianapolis, Indiana

1


 

General Information
Why did I receive this proxy statement?
The board of directors of Eli Lilly and Company is soliciting proxies to be voted at the annual meeting of shareholders (the annual meeting) to be held on Monday, April 20, 2009,19, 2010, and at any adjournment of the annual meeting. When the company asks for your proxy, we must provide you with a proxy statement that contains certain information specified by law.
What will the shareholders vote on at the annual meeting?
Seven
Eight items:
  election of directors
 
 ratification of the appointment of principal independent auditor
 
 amending the company’s articles of incorporation to provide for annual election of all directors
 reapproving performance goals for the company’s cash bonus plan
 a shareholder proposal on eliminating supermajority voting provisions fromamending the company’s articles of incorporation and bylawsto eliminate all supermajority voting requirements
  a shareholder proposal on allowing shareholders to amend the company’s bylawscall special meetings of shareholders
 a shareholder proposal on prohibiting CEOs from serving on the compensation committee
 a shareholder proposal on shareholder ratification of executive compensation.compensation
• a shareholder proposal on executives holding equity awards into retirement.
Will there be any other items of business on the agenda?
We do not expect any other items of business because the deadline for shareholder proposals and nominations has already passed. Nonetheless, in case there is an unforeseen need, the accompanying proxy gives discretionary authority to the persons named on the proxy with respect to any other matters that might be brought before the meeting. Those persons intend to vote that proxy in accordance with their best judgment.
Who is entitled to vote?
Shareholders as of the close of business on February 13, 200912, 2010 (the record date) may vote at the annual meeting. You have one vote for each share of common stock you held on the record date, including shares:
  held directly in your name as the shareholder of record
 
 held for you in an account with a broker, bank, or other nominee
 
 attributed to your account in theThe Eli Lilly and Company Employee 401(k) Plan (the 401(k) plan).
What constitutes a quorum?
A majority of the outstanding shares, present or represented by proxy, constitutes a quorum for the annual meeting. As of the record date, 1,149,015,8821,153,145,432 shares of company common stock were issued and outstanding.
How many votes are required for the approval of each item?
There are differing vote requirements for the various proposals.
  The fourfive nominees for director will be elected if they receive a majority of the votes cast.cast for the nominee exceed the votes cast against the nominee. Abstentions will not count as votes cast either for or against a nominee.
 
 The following items of business will be approved if the votes cast for the proposal exceed those cast against the proposal:
—the appointment of principal independent auditor
—the appointment of principal independent auditor
—the management proposal to reapprove performance goals for the company’s bonus plan
—the shareholder proposals.
Abstentions will not be counted either for or against these proposals.
• The management proposals to amend the articles of incorporation to provide for annual election of all directors and to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements require the vote of 80 percent of the outstanding shares. For these items, abstentions have the same effect as a vote against the proposals.
The management proposal to amend the articles of incorporation to provide for annual election of all directors requires the vote of 80 percent of the outstanding shares. For this item, abstentions and broker nonvotes have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.
Broker nonvotes.discretionary voting. If your shares are held by a broker, the broker will ask you how you want your shares to be voted. If you give the broker instructions, your shares will be voted as you direct. If you do not give instructions, one of two things can happen, depending on the type of proposal. For the election of directors, the ratification of the auditor and the management proposals on reapproving performance goals for the company’s bonus plan and amending the articles of incorporation to provide for annual election of all directors and to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements, the broker may vote your shares in its discretion. For all other proposals, the broker may not vote your shares at all. When that happens, it is called a “broker nonvote.”

2


 

How do I vote by proxy?
If you are a shareholder of record, you may vote your proxy by any one of the following methods.methods:
By mail. Sign and date each proxy card you receive and return it in the prepaid envelope. Sign your name exactly as it appears on the proxy. If you are signing in a representative capacity (for example, as an attorney-in-fact, executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, or the officer or agent of a corporation or partnership), please indicate your name and your title or capacity. If the stock is held in custody for a minor (for example, under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act), the custodian should sign, not the minor. If the stock is held in joint ownership, one owner may sign on behalf of all owners. If you return your signed proxy but do not indicate your voting preferences, we will vote on your behalf for the election of the nominees for director listed below, for the ratification of the appointment of the independent auditor, for the management proposals on amending the articles of incorporation to provide for annual election of all directors and reapproving performance goals for the company’s bonus plan,to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements, and against the shareholder proposals.
     Note that if you previously elected to receive these materials electronically,If you did not receive a proxy card. Ifcard in the materials you received from the company and you wish to vote by mail rather than by telephone or on the Internet as discussed below, you may request a paper copiescopy of these materials includingand a proxy card by calling317-433-5112. Please make sure If you give us the control number from the received ane-mail message that you received notifying you of the electronic availability of these materials, please provide the control number from thee-mail,along with your name and mailing address.
By telephone. Shareholders in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada may vote by telephone by following the instructions on the enclosedyour proxy card or, if you received these materials electronically, by following the instructions in thee-mail message that notified you of their availability. Voting by telephone has the same effect as voting by mail. If you vote by telephone, do not return your proxy card. Telephone voting will be available until 11:59 p.m. EDT, April 19, 2009.18, 2010.
On the Internet. You may vote online atwww.proxyvote.com. Follow the instructions on the enclosedyour proxy card or, if you received these materials electronically, follow the instructions in thee-mail message that notified you of their availability. Voting on the Internet has the same effect as voting by mail. If you vote on the Internet, do not return your proxy card. Internet voting will be available until 11:59 p.m. EDT, April 19, 2009.18, 2010.
You have the right to revoke your proxy at any time before the meeting by (1)(i) notifying the company’s secretary in writing or (2)(ii) delivering a later-dated proxy by telephone, on the Internet, or by mail. If you are a shareholder of record, you may also revoke your proxy by voting in person at the meeting.
How do I vote shares that are held by my broker?
If you have shares held by a broker or other nominee, you may instruct your broker or other nominee to vote your shares by following instructions that the broker or nominee provides forto you. Most brokers offer voting by mail, by telephone, and on the Internet.
How do I vote in person?
If you are a shareholder of record, you may vote your shares in person at the meeting. However, we encourage you to vote by mail, by telephone, or on the Internet even if you plan to attend the meeting.
How do I vote my shares in the 401(k) plan?
You may instruct the plan trustee on how to vote your shares in the 401(k) plan by mail, by telephone, or on the Internet as described above, except that, if you vote by mail, the card that you use will be a voting instruction card rather than a proxy card.
How many shares in the 401(k) plan can I vote?
You may vote all the shares allocated to your account on the record date. In addition, unless you decline, your vote will also apply to a proportionate number of other shares held in the 401(k) plan for which voting directions are not received. These undirected shares include:
  shares credited to the accounts of participants who do not return their voting instructions (except for a small number of shares from a prior stock ownership plan, which can be voted only on the directions of the participants to whose accounts the shares are credited)
 
 shares held in the plan that are not yet credited to individual participants’ accounts.

3


 
All participants are named fiduciaries under the terms of the 401(k) plan and under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for the limited purpose of voting shares credited to their accounts and the portion of undirected shares to which their vote applies. Under ERISA, fiduciaries are required to act prudently in making voting decisions.
If you do not want to have your vote applied to the undirected shares, you should check the box marked “I decline.” Otherwise, the trustee will automatically apply your voting preferences to the undirected shares proportionally with all other participants who elected to have their votes applied in this manner.
3


What happens if I do not vote my 401(k) plan shares?
Your shares will be voted by other plan participants who have elected to have their voting preferences applied proportionally to all shares for which voting instructions are not otherwise received.
What does it mean if I receive more than one proxy card?
It means that you hold shares in more than one account. To ensure that all your shares are voted, sign and return each card. Alternatively, if you vote by telephone or on the Internet, you will need to vote once for each proxy card and voting instruction card you receive.
What does it mean if I did not receive a proxy card?
You may have elected to receive your proxy statement electronically, in which case you should have received an email with directions on how to access the proxy statement and how to vote your shares. If you wish to request a paper copy of these materials and a proxy card, please call317-433-5112.
Who tabulates the votes?
The votes are tabulated by an independent inspector of election, IVS Associates, Inc.
What should I do if I want to attend the annual meeting?
All shareholders as of the record date may attend by presenting the admission ticket that appears at the end of this proxy statement. Please fill it out and bring it with you to the meeting. The meeting will be held at the Lilly Center Auditorium. Please use the Lilly Center entrance to the south of the fountain at the intersection of Delaware and McCarty streets. You will need to pass through security, including a metal detector. Present your ticket to thean usher at the meeting.
Parking will be available on a first-come, first-served basis in the garage indicated on the map on page 57.at the end of this report. If you have questions about admittance or parking, you may call317-433-5112.
How do I contact the board of directors?
You may send written communications to one or more members of the board, addressed to:
Presiding
Lead Director, Board of Directors
Eli Lilly and Company
c/o Corporate Secretary
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285
All such communications (from shareholders or other interested parties) will be forwarded to the relevant director(s), except for solicitations or other matters unrelated to the company.
How do I submit a shareholder proposal for the 20102011 annual meeting?
The company’s 20102011 annual meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2010.18, 2011. If a shareholder wishes to have a proposal considered for inclusion in next year’s proxy statement, he or she must submit the proposal in writing so that we receive it by November 9, 2009.8, 2010. Proposals should be addressed to the company’s corporate secretary, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285. In addition, the company’s bylaws provide that any shareholder wishing to propose any other business at the annual meeting must give the company written notice by November 9, 2009.8, 2010. That notice must provide certain other information as described in the bylaws. Copies of the bylaws are available online athttp://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm or in paper form upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.
Does the company offer an opportunity to receive future proxy materials electronically?
Yes. If you are a shareholder of record or a member of the 401(k) plan, you may, if you wish, receive future proxy statements and annual reports online. If you elect this feature, you will receive ane-mail message notifying you when the materials are available, along with a web address for viewing the materials and instructions for voting by telephone or on the Internet. If you have more than one account, you may receive separatee-mail notifications for each account.

4


You may sign up for electronic delivery in two ways:
  If you vote online as described above, you may sign up for electronic delivery at that time.
 
 You may sign up at any time by visitinghttp://investor.lilly.com/services.cfm.services.cfm.
If you received these materials electronically, you do not need to do anything to continue receiving materials electronically in the future.
If you hold your shares in a brokerage account, you may also have the opportunity to receive proxy materials electronically. Please follow the instructions of your broker.
What are the benefits of electronic delivery?
Electronic delivery reduces the company’s printing and mailing costs. It is also a convenient way for you to receive your proxy materials and makes it easy to vote your shares online. If you have shares in more than one account, it is an easy way to avoid receiving duplicate copies of proxy materials.
4


What are the costs of electronic delivery?
The company charges nothing for electronic delivery. You may, of course, incur the usual expenses associated with Internet access, such as telephone charges or charges from your Internet service provider.
Can I change my mind later?
Yes. You may discontinue electronic delivery at any time. For more information, call317-433-5112.
What is “householding”?
We have adopted “householding,” a procedure under which shareholders of record who have the same address and last name and do not receive proxy materials electronically will receive only one copy of our annual report and proxy statement unless one or more of these shareholders notifies us that they wish to continue receiving individual copies. This procedure saves printing and postage costs by reducing duplicative mailings.
Shareholders who participate in householding will continue to receive separate proxy cards. Householding will not affect dividend check mailings.
Beneficial shareholders can request information about householding from their banks, brokers, or other holders of record.
What if I want to receive a separatepaper copy of the annual report and proxy statement?
If you participate in householding and wish to receive a separatepaper copy of the 20082009 annual report and 20092010 proxy statement, or if you wish to receive separate copies of future annual reports and proxy statements, please call1-800-542-1061 or write to: Householding Department, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, New York 11717. We will deliver the requested documents to you promptly upon your request.

5


 

Board of Directors
Directors’ Biographies
Directors’ BiographiesClass of 2010
Class of 2009
The following fourfive directors’ terms will expire at this year’s annual meeting. Each of these directors has been nominated and is standing for election to serve a term that will expire in 2012.2013. See page 4655 of this proxy statement for more information.
MARTIN S. FELDSTEIN LOGO
Martin S. Feldstein, Ph.D.
Age 69Director since 2002
George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Dr. Feldstein is president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research and the George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University. He became an assistant professor at Harvard in 1967, an associate professor in 1968, and a professor in 1969. From 1982 through 1984, he served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and President Ronald Reagan’s chief economic adviser. President Obama has appointed him as a member of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He is a member of the American Philosophical Society, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, a fellow of the Econometric Society, and a fellow of the National Association for Business Economics. Dr. Feldstein is a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission and a director of American International Group, Inc. and Economic Studies, Inc. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and past president of the American Economic Association.
J. ERIK FYRWALD LOGO
J. Erik Fyrwald
Age 49Director since 2005
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Nalco Holding Company
Mr. Fyrwald joined Nalco Holding Company (a leading integrated water treatment and process improvement company) as chairman, president, and chief executive officer in February 2008. From 2003 to 2008, Mr. Fyrwald served as group vice president of the agriculture and nutrition division at E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. From 2000 until 2003, he was vice president and general manager of DuPont’s Nutrition and Health business. In 1999, Mr. Fyrwald was vice president for corporate strategic planning and business development. At DuPont, Mr. Fyrwald held a broad variety of assignments in a number of divisions covering many industries. He has worked in several locations throughout North America and Asia.
ELLEN R. MARRAM LOGO
Ellen R. Marram
Age 62Director since 2002
President, The Barnegat Group LLC
Ms. Marram is the president of The Barnegat Group LLC, a firm that provides business advisory services. She was a managing director at North Castle Partners, LLC from 2000 to 2005 and is currently an advisor to the firm. Prior to joining North Castle, she served as the chief executive officer of a start-up B2B exchange for the food and beverage industry. From 1993 to 1998, Ms. Marram was president and chief executive officer of Tropicana and the Tropicana Beverage Group. From 1988 to 1993, she was president and chief executive officer of the Nabisco Biscuit Company, the largest operating unit of Nabisco, Inc.; from 1987 to 1988, she was president of Nabisco’s Grocery Division; and from 1970 to 1986, she held a series of marketing positions at Nabisco/Standard Brands, Johnson & Johnson, and Lever Brothers. Ms. Marram is a member of the board of directors of Ford Motor Company and The New York Times Company, as well as several private companies. She serves on the boards of Institute for the Future, The New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Lincoln Center Theater, Families and Work Institute, and Citymeals-on-Wheels.

6


       

(PHOTO OF RALPH ALVAREZ)
 
DOUGLAS R. OBERHELMAN LOGO
Douglas R. OberhelmanRalph Alvarez
Age 5654                              Director since 2008
2009
GroupRetired President Caterpillar Inc.and Chief Operating Officer, McDonald’s Corporation
Mr. Oberhelman is a groupAlvarez served as president and chief operating officer of McDonald’s Corporation from August 2006 until December 2009. Previously, he served as president of Caterpillar Inc. HeMcDonald’s North America, with responsibility for all the McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. and Canada. Prior to that, he was president of McDonald’s USA. Mr. Alvarez joined CaterpillarMcDonald’s in 19751994 and has held a variety of leadership roles throughout his career, including chief operations officer and president of the central division, both with McDonald’s USA, and president of McDonald’s Mexico. Prior to joining McDonald’s, he held leadership positions including senior finance representative based in South America for Caterpillar Americas Co; region finance managerat Burger King Corporation and district manager forWendy’s International, Inc. Mr. Alvarez serves on the company’s North American Commercial Division;President’s Council and managing director for strategic planning at Shin Caterpillar Mitsubishi, Caterpillar’s affiliated company in Tokyo, Japan. Mr. Oberhelman was elected a vice president in 1995, serving as Caterpillar’s chief financial officer from 1995 to November 1998. In 1998, he became vice president with responsibility for the engine products divisionInternational Advisory Board of the University of Miami, and he was electedis a group president and member of Caterpillar’s executive office in 2002. Mr. Oberhelman servesthe board of trustees for Chicago’s Field Museum. He previously served on the boards of AmerenMcDonald’s Corporation The Nature Conservancy — Illinois Chapter, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Manufacturing Institute, Easter Seals, and the Wetlands America Trust.KeyCorp. Mr. OberhelmanAlvarez has been serving under interim election since December 2008.April 2009.
Board Committees: finance and public policy and compliance
Class of 2010
The following four directors will continue in office until 2010.
       
SIR WINFRIED BISCHOFF LOGO 
Sir Winfried Bischoff
 Age 67Director since 2000
Retired Chairman, Citigroup Inc.
  

(PHOTO OF SIR WINFRIED BISCHOFF)
Sir Winfried Bischoff                     Age 68                              Director since 2000
Chairman, Lloyds Banking Group plc
Sir Winfried Bischoff has been chairman of the board of Lloyds Banking Group plc since September 2009. He served as chairman of Citigroup Inc. from December 2007 until February 2009.2009 and as interim chief executive officer for a portion of 2007. He served as chairman of Citigroup Europe from 2000 to 2007. From 1995 to 2000, he was chairman of Schroders plc. He joined the Schroder Group in 1966 and held a number of positions there, including chairman of J. Henry Schroder & Co. and group chief executive of Schroders plc. He is also a nonexecutive director of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. He previously served on the boards of Citigroup Inc., Prudential plc, Land Securities plc, and Prudential plc.Akbank T.A.S.
Board Committees: directors and corporate governance and finance (chair)

(PHOTO OF R. DAVID HOOVER)
R. David Hoover                        Age 64                              Director since 2009
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ball Corporation
Mr. Hoover is chairman and chief executive officer of Ball Corporation. Mr. Hoover joined Ball Corporation in 1970 and has held a variety of leadership roles throughout his career, including vice president and treasurer, senior vice president and chief financial officer, executive vice president, and vice chairman. He is a member of the boards of Ball Corporation; Energizer Holdings, Inc.; and Qwest Communications International Inc. Mr. Hoover previously served on the board of Irwin Financial Corporation. He is the chair of the board of trustees of DePauw University and on the Indiana University Kelley School of Business Dean’s Council. He is also a director of Boulder Community Hospital and a member of the Colorado Forum. Mr. Hoover has been serving under interim election since June 2009.
Board Committees: audit and compensation
6


       
J. MICHAEL COOK LOGO 
J. Michael Cook
 Age 66 Director since 2005
Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Deloitte & Touche LLP
Mr. Cook served as chairman and chief executive officer of Deloitte & Touche LLP from 1989 until his retirement in 1999. He joined Deloitte, Haskins & Sells in 1964 and served as chairman and chief executive from 1986 through 1989. Mr. Cook is an emeritus member of the Advisory Council of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and is a trustee of The Scripps Research Institute. He serves on the boards of Comcast Corporation and International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. He is chairman of the Accountability Advisory Council to the Comptroller General of the United States and is chairman of the Department of Defense Audit Advisory Committee. He was a member of the National Association of Corporate Directors Blue Ribbon Panel on Corporate Governance and was named the 62nd member of the Accounting Hall of Fame in 1999. He is past president of the Institute of Outstanding Directors.
       
FRANKLYN G. PRENDERGAST LOGO 

(PHOTO OF FRANKLYN G. PRENDERGAST)
Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.Age 6365                    Director since 1995

Edmond and Marion Guggenheim Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Medical School; Director, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine; and Director Emeritus, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center
Dr. Prendergast is the Edmond and Marion Guggenheim Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics at Mayo Medical School and the director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine. He has held several other teaching positions at the Mayo Medical School since 1975. Dr. Prendergast serves on the board of trustees of the Mayo Foundation.


Board Committees: public policy and compliance and science and technology

7


       
KATHI P. SEIFERT LOGO 

(PHOTO OF KATHI P. SEIFERT)
Kathi P. SeifertAge 5960                              Director since 1995

Retired Executive Vice President, Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Ms. Seifert served as executive vice president for Kimberly-Clark Corporation until June 2004. She joined Kimberly-Clark in 1978 and served in several capacities in connection with both the domestic and international consumer products businesses. Prior to joining Kimberly-Clark, Ms. Seifert held management positions at Procter & Gamble, Beatrice Foods, and Fort Howard Paper Company. She is chairman of Katapult, LLC. Ms. Seifert serves on the boards of Supervalu Inc.; Revlon Consumer Products Corporation; Lexmark International, Inc.; Appleton Papers Inc.; the U.S. Fund for UNICEF; and the Fox Cities Performing Arts Center.


Board Committees: audit and public policy and compliance
In addition, beginning on April 1, 2009, Mr. Alvarez
Class of 2011
The following four directors will serve as a director under interim election for a term that will expirecontinue in 2010.office until 2011.
       
RALPH ALVAREZ LOGO
Ralph Alvarez
Age 53
President and Chief Operating Officer, McDonald’s Corporation
Mr. Alvarez has been president and chief operating officer of McDonald’s Corporation since August 2006. Previously, he served as president of McDonald’s North America, with responsibility for all the McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. and Canada. Prior to that, he was president of McDonald’s USA. Mr. Alvarez joined McDonald’s in 1994 and has held a variety of leadership roles throughout his career, including chief operations officer and president of the Central Division, both with McDonald’s USA, and president of McDonald’s Mexico. Prior to joining McDonald’s, he held leadership positions at Burger King Corporation and Wendy’s International, Inc. Mr. Alvarez serves on the boards of McDonald’s Corporation and Key-Corp. He currently serves on the President’s Council and the International Advisory Board of the University of Miami, and he is a member of the board of trustees for Chicago’s Field Museum.
Class of 2011
The following four directors will continue in office until 2011.
       

(PHOTO OF MICHAEL L. ESKEW)
 
MICHAEL L. ESKEW LOGO
Michael L. Eskew
Age 5960                              Director since 2008

Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, United Parcel Service, Inc.
Mr. Eskew served as chairman and chief executive officer of United Parcel Service, Inc., from January 2002 until December 2007. He continues to serve on the UPS board of directors. Mr. Eskew began his UPS career in 1972 as an industrial engineering manager and held various positions of increasing responsibility, including time with UPS’s operations in Germany and with UPS Airlines. In 1993, Mr. Eskew was named corporate vice president for industrial engineering. Two years later he became group vice president for engineering. In 1998, he was elected to the UPS board of directors. In 1999, Mr. Eskew was named executive vice president and a year later was given the additional title of vice chairman. Mr. EskewHe serves as chairman of the board of trustees of theThe Annie E. Casey Foundation. HeMr. Eskew also serves on the boards of 3M Corporation and IBM Corporation.
Board Committees: audit (chair) and compensation

8


       

(PHOTO OF ALFRED G. GILMAN)
 
ALFRED G. GILMAN LOGO
Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D.
Age 6768                              Director since 1995

Executive Vice President for Academic AffairsChief Scientific Officer, Cancer Prevention and Provost, The UniversityResearch Institute of Texas
Dr. Gilman is the chief scientific officer of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Southwestern Medical Centerand regental professor of pharmacology emeritus at Dallas; Dean, Southwestern Medical School; and Regental Professor of Pharmacology and Director of the Cecil and Ida Green Center for Molecular, Computational, and Systems Biology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Dr. Gilman has served as executive vice president for academic affairs and provost of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas and dean of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School since 2005 and professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center since 1981. He holds the Raymond and Ellen Willie Distinguished Chair of Molecular Neuropharmacology, the Nadine and Tom Craddick Distinguished Chair in Medical Science, and the Atticus James Gill, M.D., Chair in Medical Science at the university and was named a regental professor in 1995.Dallas. Dr. Gilman was on the faculty of the University of Virginia School of Medicine from 1971 to 1981 and was named a professor of pharmacology there in 1977. He previously served as executive vice president for academic affairs and provost of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, dean of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, and professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He held the Raymond and Ellen Willie Distinguished Chair of Molecular Neuropharmacology; the Nadine and Tom Craddick Distinguished Chair in Medical Science; and the Atticus James Gill, M.D., Chair in Medical Science at the university and was named a regental professor in 1995. He is a director of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Gilman was a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1994.
Board Committees: public policy and compliance and science and technology (chair)
7


       
KAREN N. HORN LOGO 

(PHOTO OF KAREN N. HORN)
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D.Age 6566                              Director since 1987

Retired President, Private Client Services, and Managing Director, Marsh, Inc.
Ms. Horn serves as the board’s lead director. She served as president of Private Client Servicesprivate client services and managing director of Marsh, Inc. from 1999 until her retirement in 2003. Prior to joining Marsh, she was senior managing director and head of international private banking at Bankers Trust Company; chairman and chief executive officer of Bank One, Cleveland, N.A.; president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; treasurer of Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania; and vice president of First National Bank of Boston. Ms. Horn serves as director of T. Rowe Price Mutual Funds; The U.S. Russia Investment Fund, a presidential appointment; Simon Property Group, Inc.; and Norfolk Southern Corporation and vice chairman of theU.S.-Russia Investment Foundation. She previously served on the board of Fannie Mae and Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Ms. Horn has been senior managing director of Brock Capital Group since 2004.
Board Committees: compensation (chair) and directors and corporate governance
       

(PHOTO OF JOHN C. LECHLEITER)
 
JOHN C. LECHLEITER LOGO
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.
Age 5556                              Director since 2005

Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
Dr. Lechleiter becameis chairman, of Eli Lilly and Company on January 1, 2009. Dr. Lechleiter was named president, and chief executive officer of the company in April 2008.Eli Lilly and Company. He served as president and chief operating officer from 2005 to 2008. He joined Lilly in 1979 as a senior organic chemist and has held management positions in England and the U.S. He was named vice president of pharmaceutical product development in 1993 and vice president of regulatory affairs in 1994. In 1996, he was named vice president for development and regulatory affairs. Dr. Lechleiter became senior vice president of pharmaceutical products in 1998 and executive vice president offor pharmaceutical products and corporate development in 2001. He was named executive vice president offor pharmaceutical operations in 2004. He is a member of the American Chemical Society.Society, Business Roundtable, and Business Council. Dr. Lechleiter serves as a member ofon the executive committee of the board of directorsboards of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA); Xavier University (Cincinnati, Ohio); Fairbanks Institute (Indianapolis); Indianapolis Downtown, Inc.; the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership; and the United Way of Central Indiana. He also serves on the board of Nike, Inc. and previously served on the board of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation.
Board Committees: none
Class of 2012
The following four directors will continue in office until 2012.

(PHOTO OF MARTIN S. FELDSTEIN)
Martin S. Feldstein, Ph.D.                Age 70                              Director since 2002
George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Dr. Feldstein is the George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research. From 1982 through 1984, he served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and President Ronald Reagan’s chief economic adviser. Dr. Feldstein served as president and chief executive officer of the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1977 to 1982 and 1984 to 2008. In 2009, President Obama appointed him to the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He is a member of the American Philosophical Society, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, a fellow of the Econometric Society, and a fellow of the National Association for Business RoundtableEconomics. Dr. Feldstein is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Business Council. He also serves as a member of the Visiting CommitteeTrilateral Commission, the Group of Harvard Business School30, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Council of Academic Advisors of the American Enterprise Institute and past president of the American Economic Association. He previously served on the boards of American International Group, Inc. and HCA Inc.
Board Committees: audit, finance, and public policy and compliance (chair)
8



(PHOTO OF J. ERIK FYRWALD)
J. Erik Fyrwald                            Age 50                              Director since 2005
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Nalco Company
Mr. Fyrwald joined Nalco Company (a leading integrated water treatment and process improvement company) as chairman, president, and chief executive officer in February 2008 following a27-year career at DuPont. From 2003 to 2008, Mr. Fyrwald served as group vice president of the agriculture and nutrition division at DuPont. From 2000 until 2003, he was vice president and general manager of DuPont’s nutrition and health business. In 1999, Mr. Fyrwald was vice president for corporate strategic planning and business development. At DuPont, he held a broad variety of assignments in a number of divisions covering many industries. He has worked in several locations throughout North America and Asia. In addition to serving as chairman of Nalco’s board of directors, Mr. Fyrwald serves as a director of the Society of Chemical Industry and the American Chemistry Council and is a trustee of the Field Museum of Chicago.
Board Committees: compensation and science and technology

(PHOTO OF ELLEN R. MARRAM)
Ellen R. Marram                          Age 63                              Director since 2002
President, The Barnegat Group LLC
Ms. Marram is the president of The Barnegat Group LLC, a firm that provides business advisory services. She was a managing director at North Castle Partners, LLC from 2000 to 2005 and is currently an advisor to the firm. She served as the chief executive officer of aprivately-heldstart-up B2B exchange for the food and beverage industry, efdex, Inc., from August 1999 to May 2000 (efdex never became fully operational and in September 2000 commenced liquidation in the U.K. due to its insolvency). From 1993 to 1998, Ms. Marram was president and chief executive officer of Tropicana and the Tropicana Beverage Group. From 1988 to 1993, she was president and chief executive officer of the Nabisco Biscuit Company, the largest operating unit of Nabisco, Inc.; from 1987 to 1988, she was president of Nabisco’s grocery division; and from 1970 to 1986, she held a series of marketing positions at Nabisco/Standard Brands, Johnson & Johnson, and Lever Brothers. Ms. Marram is a member of the board of trusteesdirectors of Xavier University (Cincinnati, Ohio).Ford Motor Company and The New York Times Company, as well as several private companies. She previously served on the board of Cadbury plc. She also serves on the boards of Institute for the Future, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Lincoln Center Theater, and Families and Work Institute.
Board Committees: compensation and directors and corporate governance (chair)

(PHOTO OF DOUGLAS R. OBERHELMAN)
Douglas R. Oberhelman                Age 57                              Director since 2008
Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer-Elect, Caterpillar Inc.
Mr. Oberhelman is vice chairman and chief executive officer-elect of Caterpillar Inc. He will join the Caterpillar board and become chief executive officer on July 1, 2010 and chairman on November 1, 2010. He joined Caterpillar in 1975 and has held a variety of positions, including senior finance representative based in South America for Caterpillar Americas Co; region finance manager and district manager for the company’s North American commercial division; and managing director and vice general manager for strategic planning at Caterpillar Japan Ltd. Mr. Oberhelman was elected a vice president in 1995, serving as Caterpillar’s chief financial officer from 1995 to November 1998. In addition,1998, he serves asbecame vice president with responsibility for the engine products division and he was elected a distinguished advisor to The Children’s Museum of Indianapolisgroup president and a member of Caterpillar’s executive office in 2002. Mr. Oberhelman serves on the United Wayboards of Central Indiana boardAmeren Corporation, The Nature Conservancy–Illinois Chapter, the National Association of directors.Manufacturers, the Manufacturing Institute, and the Wetlands America Trust.
Board Committees: audit and finance
9

9


 

Highlights of the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines
The board of directors has established guidelines that it follows in matters of corporate governance. The following summary provides highlights of those guidelines. A complete copy of the guidelines is available online athttp://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfmor in paper form upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.
I. Role of the Board
I. Role of the Board
The directors are elected by the shareholders to oversee the actions and results of the company’s management. Their responsibilities include:
  providing general oversight of the business
 
 approving corporate strategy
 
 approving major management initiatives
 
 providing oversight of legal and ethical conduct
 
 overseeing the company’s management of significant business risks
 
 selecting, compensating, and evaluating directors
 
 evaluating board processes and performance
 
 selecting, compensating, evaluating, and, when necessary, replacing the chief executive officer, and compensating other executive officerssenior executives
  ensuring that a succession plan is in place for all senior executives.
II. Composition of the Board
II. Composition of the Board
Mix of Independent Directors andOfficer-Directors

There should always be a substantial majority (75 percent or more) of independent directors. The chief executive officer should be a board member. Other officers may, from time to time, be board members, but no officer other than the chief executive officer should expect to be elected to the board by virtue of his or her office.position in the company.
Selection of Director Candidates
The board is responsible for selecting candidates for board membership and for establishing the criteria to be used in identifying potential candidates. The board delegates the screening process to the directors and corporate governance committee. For more information on the director nomination process, including the current selection criteria, see “Directors and Corporate Governance Committee Matters” on
pages 18-19.21-23.
Independence Determinations
The board annually determines and discloses the independence of directors based on a review by the directors and corporate governance committee. No director is considered independent unless the board has determined that he or she has no material relationship with the company, either directly or as a partner, significant shareholder, or officer of an organization that has a material relationship with the company. Material relationships can include commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable, and familial relationships, among others. To evaluate the materiality of any such relationship, the board has adopted categorical independence standards consistent with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) listing guidelines.standards, except that the “look-back period” for determining whether a director’s prior relationship with the company impairs independence is extended from three to four years.
Specifically, a director is not considered independent if (i) the director or an immediate family member is a current partner of Lilly’sthe company’s independent auditor (currently Ernst & Young LLP); (ii) the director is a current employee of such firm; (iii) the director has an immediate family member who is a current employee of such firm and who participates in the firm’s audit, assurance, or tax compliance (but not tax planning) practice; or (iv) the director or an immediate family member was within the last threefour years (but is no longer) a partner or employee of such firm and personally worked on the listed company’sour audit within that time.
In addition, a director is not considered independent if any of the following relationships existed within the previous threefour years:
a director who is an employee of Lilly, or whose immediate family member is an executive officer of Lilly. Temporary service by an independent director as interim chairman or chief executive officer will not disqualify the director from being independent following completion of that service.
 a director who is an employee of the company, or whose immediate family member is an executive officer of the company. Temporary service by an independent director as interim chairman or chief executive officer will not disqualify the director from being independent following completion of that service.
 a director who receives any direct compensation from Lillythe company other than the director’s normal director compensation, or whose immediate family member receives more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from Lillythe company other than for service as a nonexecutive employee.
  a director who is employed (or whose immediate family member is employed as an executive officer) by another company where any Lilly executive officer serves on the compensation committee of that company’s board.

10


 

  a director who is employed by, who is a 10 percent shareholder of, or whose immediate family member is an executive officer of a company that makes payments to or receives payments from Lilly for property or services that exceed the greater of $1 million or two percent of that company’s gross revenuesrevenue in a single fiscal year.
  a director who is an executive officer of a nonprofit organization that receives grants or contributions from Lillythe company in a single fiscal year exceeding the greater of $1 million or two percent of that organization’s gross revenuesrevenue in a single fiscal year.
 
Members of the audit, compensation, and directors and corporate governanceboard committees must meet all applicable independence tests of the New York Stock Exchange,NYSE, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Internal Revenue Service.Service (IRS).
In February 2009,2010, the directors and corporate governance committee reviewed directors’ responses to a questionnaire asking about their relationships with the company (and those of their immediate family members) and other potential conflicts of interest, as well as material provided by management related to transactions, relationships, or arrangements between the company and the directors or parties related to the directors. The committee determined that all 1112 nonemployee directors listed below are independent, and that the members of the audit, compensation, and directors and corporate governance committeeseach committee also meet the independence testsstandards referenced above. The committee recommended this conclusion to the board and explained the basis for its decision, and this conclusion was adopted by the full board. The committee and the board determined that none of the 1112 directors listed below has had during the last threefour years (i) any of the relationships listed above or (ii) any other material relationship with the company that would compromise his or her independence. The table below includes a description of categories or types of transactions, relationships, or arrangements considered by the board (in addition to those listed above) in reaching its determination that the directors are independent. All of these relationships and transactions were entered into at arm’s length in the normal course of business and, to the extent they are commercial relationships, have standard commercial terms. None of these relationships or transactions exceeded the thresholds described above or otherwise compromisecompromises the independence of the named director.directors.
     
Name
 Independent Transactions/Relationships/Arrangements
Mr. AlvarezYesNone
Sir Winfried Bischoff Yes Commercial banking, capital markets, and indenture trustee relationships between Lilly and various Citigroup banks-immaterialbanks—immaterial
Mr. CookEskew YesLilly’s purchase of shipping, courier, and post office services from UPS—immaterial
Dr. FeldsteinYes None
Mr. EskewFyrwald Yes None
Dr. FeldsteinYesLilly grants and contributions to Harvard University-immaterial
Mr. FyrwaldYesLilly'sLilly’s purchase of DuPont and Nalco products and services-immaterialservices—immaterial
Dr. Gilman Yes Lilly grants and contributions to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center-immaterialCenter—immaterial
Mr. HooverYesNone
Ms. Horn Yes None
Ms. Marram Yes None
Mr. Oberhelman Yes None
Dr. Prendergast Yes Lilly grants and contributions to Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation-immaterialFoundation—immaterial
Ms. Seifert Yes None
Director Tenure and Retirement Policy
Subject to the company’s charter documents, the governance guidelines establishfollowing are the followingboard’s expectations for director tenure:
  A companyofficer-director, including the chief executive officer, will resign from the board at the time he or she retires or otherwise ceases to be an active employee of the company.
 
 Nonemployee directors will retire from the board not later than the annual meeting of shareholders that follows their seventy-second birthday.
 
 Directors may stand for reelection even though the board’s retirement policy would prevent them from completing a full three-year term.
 
 A nonemployee director who retires or changes principal job responsibilities will offer to resign from the board. The directors and corporate governance committee will assess the situation and recommend to the board whether to accept the resignation.
Other Board Service
Effective November 1, 2009, no new director may serve on more than three other public company boards, and no incumbent director may accept new positions on public company boards that would result in service on more than three other public company boards. The directors and corporate governance committee or the chair of that committee may approve exceptions to this limit upon a determination that such additional service will not impair the director’s effectiveness on the company board.
11


Voting for Directors
In an uncontested election, any nominee for director who fails to receive a majority of the votes cast shall promptly tender his or her resignation following certification of the shareholder vote. The directors and corporate governance

11


committee will consider the resignation offer and recommend to the board whether to accept it. The board will act on the committee’s recommendation within 90 days following certification of the shareholder vote. Board action on the matter will require the approval of a majority of the independent directors.
The company will disclose the board’s decision on aForm 8-K furnished to the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC within four business days after the decision, including a full explanation of the process by which the decision was reached and, if applicable, the reasons why the board rejected the director’s resignation. If the resignation is accepted, the directors and corporate governance committee will recommend to the board whether to fill the vacancy or reduce the size of the board.
Any director who tenders his or her resignation under this provision will not participate in the committee or board deliberations regarding whether to accept the resignation offer. If each memberall members of the directors and corporate governance committee failsfail to receive a majority of the votes cast at the same election, then the independent directors who did receive a majority of the votes cast will appoint a committee amongst themselves to consider the resignation offers and recommend to the board whether to accept them.
III. Director Compensation and Equity Ownership
III. Director Compensation and Equity Ownership
The directors and corporate governance committee annually reviews board compensation. Any recommendations for changes are made to the full board by the committee.
Directors should hold meaningful equity ownership positions in the company; accordingly, a significant portion of overall director compensation is in the form of company equity. Directors are required to hold Lillycompany stock valued at a minimum ofnot less than five times their annual cash retainer; new directors are allowed five years to reach this ownership level.
IV. Key Responsibilities of the Board
IV. Key Responsibilities of the Board
Selection of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Succession Planning

The board customarilycurrently combines the rolesrole of chairman andof the board with the role of chief executive officer, believingcoupled with a lead director position to further strengthen the governance structure. The board believes this generally provides the mostan efficient and effective leadership model for the company. Combining the chairman and CEO roles fosters clear accountability, effective decision-making, and alignment on corporate strategy. To assure effective independent oversight, the board has adopted a number of governance practices, including:
• a strong, independent, clearly-defined lead director role (see below for a full description of the role)
• executive sessions of the independent directors after every board meeting
• annual performance evaluations of the chairman and CEO by the independent directors.
However, no single leadership model is right for all companies and at all times. The board anticipatesrecognizes that in certaindepending on the circumstances, and particularly during relatively short periodsother leadership models, such as a separate independent chairman of the board, might be appropriate. Accordingly, the board periodically reviews its leadership transition, these roles may be assigned to two different persons. structure.
The presidinglead director recommends to the board an appropriate process by which a new chairman and chief executive officer will be selected. The board has no required procedure for executing this responsibility because it believes that the most appropriate process will depend on the circumstances surrounding each such decision.
A key responsibility of the CEO and the board is ensuring that an effective process is in place to provide continuity of leadership over the long term at all levels in the company. Each year, succession planningsuccession-planning reviews are held at every significant organizational level of the company, culminating in a full review of senior leadership talent by the independent directors. During this review, the CEO and the independent directors discuss future candidates for senior leadership positions, succession timing for those positions, and development plans for the highest-potential candidates. This process ensures continuity of leadership over the long term, and it forms the basis on which the company makes ongoing leadership assignments. It is a key success factor in managing the long planning and investment lead times of our business.
In addition, the CEO maintains in place at all times, and reviews with the independent directors, a confidential plan for the timely and efficient transfer of his or her responsibilities in the event of an emergency or his or her sudden incapacitation or departure.
Evaluation of Chief Executive Officer
The presidinglead director leadsis responsible for leading the independent directors annually in assessingexecutive session to assess the performance of the chief executive officer.officer at least annually. The results of this reviewassessment are discussedreviewed with the chief executive officer and considered by the compensation committee in establishing his or herthe chief executive officer’s compensation for the next year.
Succession Management and Election of Officers
The independent directors are responsible for overseeing the succession and management development program for senior leadership. The chief executive officer develops and maintains a process for advising the board on succession planning for the chief executive officer and other key senior leadership positions. The chief executive officer reviews this plan with the independent directors at least annually.
12


Consistent with the succession-management plan, the chief executive officer recommends to the board candidates for the company’s principal corporate offices.
Corporate Strategy
Once each year, the board devotes an extended meeting to an update from management regarding the strategic issues and opportunities facing the company, allowing the board an opportunity to provide direction for the corporate strategic plan. These strategy sessions also provide the board an opportunity to interact extensively with the company’s senior leadership team. This assists the board in its succession-management responsibilities.
Throughout the year, significant corporate strategy decisions are brought to the board for approval.
Code of Ethics
The board approved the company’s code of ethics, which complies with the requirements of the New York Stock ExchangeNYSE and the Securities and Exchange Commission.SEC. This code is set out in:
  The Red Book, a comprehensive code of ethical and legal business conduct applicable to all employees worldwide and to our board of directors
 
 the company’s• Code of Ethical Conduct for Lilly Financial Management,a supplemental code for our chief executive

12


officer and all members of financial management that recognizes the unique responsibilities of those individuals in assuring proper accounting, financial reporting, internal controls, and financial stewardship.
Both documents are available online athttp://www.lilly.com/about/compliance/conduct/ or in paper form upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.
The audit committee and public policy and compliance committee assist in the board’s oversight of compliance programs with respect to matters covered in the code of ethics.
V. FunctioningRisk Oversight
The company has an enterprise risk management program overseen by its chief ethics and compliance officer and senior vice president, enterprise risk management, who reports directly to the CEO and is a member of the Board
company’s top leadership committee. Enterprise risks are identified and prioritized by management, and each prioritized risk is assigned to a board committee or the full board for oversight. For example, strategic risks are overseen by the full board; financial risks are overseen by the audit or finance committee; compliance and reputational risks are typically overseen by the public policy and compliance committee; and scientific risks are overseen by the science and technology committee. Management regularly reports on each such risk to the relevant committee or the board. The enterprise risk management program as a whole is reviewed annually at a joint meeting of the audit and public policy and compliance committees, as well as at an annual board strategy session. Additional review or reporting on enterprise risks is conducted as needed or as requested by the board or committee. Also, the compensation committee periodically reviews the most important enterprise risks to ensure that compensation programs do not encourage excessive risk-taking.
V. Functioning of the Board
Executive Session of Directors
The independent directors meet alone in executive session and in private session with the chief executive officer at every regularly scheduled board meeting. In addition, at least twice a year, the independent directors meet in executive session with the chief executive officer.
PresidingLead Director
The board annually appoints a presidinglead director from among the independent directors (currently Ms. Horn). The presidinglead director:
  leads the board’s processprocesses for selecting and evaluating the chief executive officer;
 
 presides at all meetings of the board at which the chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors unless the directors decide that, due to the subject matter of the session, another independent director should preside;
 
 serves as a liaison between the chairman and the independent directors;
 
 approves meeting agendas and schedules and generally approves information sent to the board;
 
 has the authority to call meetings of the independent directors; and
 
 has the authority to retain independent counsel or other advisors to the board.independent directors.
Conflicts of Interest
Occasionally a director’s business or personal relationships may give rise to an interest that conflicts, or appears to conflict, with the interests of the company. Directors must disclose to the company all relationships that create a conflict or an appearance of a conflict. The board, after consultation with counsel, takes appropriate steps to ensure that all directors voting on an issue are disinterested. In appropriate cases, the affected director will be excused from discussions on the issue.
 
13


To avoid any conflict or appearance of a conflict, board decisions on certain matters of corporate governance are made solely by the independent directors. These include executive compensation and the selection, evaluation, and removal of the chief executive officer.
Review and Approval of Transactions with Related Persons
The board has adopted a written policy and written procedures for review, approval, and monitoring of transactions involving the company and “related persons” (directors and executive officers, their immediate family members, or shareholders owning five percent or greater of the company’s outstanding stock). The policy covers any related-person transaction that meets the minimum threshold for disclosure in the proxy statement under the relevant SEC rules (generally, transactions involving amounts exceeding $120,000 in which a related person has a direct or indirect material interest).
Policy
Policy.Related-person transactions must be approved by the board or by a committee of the board consisting solely of independent directors, who will approve the transaction only if they determine that it is in the best interests of the company. In considering the transaction, the board or committee will consider all relevant factors, including as applicable (i) including:
the company’s business rationale for entering into the transaction; (ii) 
the alternatives to entering into a related-person transaction; (iii) 
whether the transaction is on terms comparable to those available to third parties, or in the case of employment relationships, to employees generally; (iv) 
the potential for the transaction to lead to an actual or apparent conflict of interest and any safeguards imposed to prevent such actual or apparent conflicts; and (v) 
the overall fairness of the transaction to the company.
The board or relevant committee will periodically monitor the transaction to ensure that there are no changed circumstances that would render it advisable for the company to amend or terminate the transaction.
• Procedures.
 The board or relevant committee will periodically monitor the transaction to ensure that there are no changed circumstances that would render it advisable for the company to amend or terminate the transaction.

13


Procedures
Management or the affected director or executive officer will bring the matter to the attention of the chairman, the presidinglead director, the chair of the directors and corporate governance committee, or the secretary.
 The chairman and the presidinglead director shall jointly determine (or, if either is involved in the transaction, the other shall determine in consultation with the chair of the directors and corporate governance committee) whether the matter should be considered by the board or by one of its existing committees consisting only of independent directors.
 If a director is involved in the transaction, he or she will be recused from all discussions and decisions about the transaction.
 The transaction must be approved in advance whenever practicable, and if not practicable, must be ratified as promptly as practicable.
 The board or relevant committee will review the transaction annually to determine whether it continues to be in the company’s best interests.
 The only
There are currently no related-person transaction is a time-share arrangement (now ended) between the company and Mr. Taurel as described
on page 43. The compensation committee approved and monitored this arrangement consistent with the above policy.transactions.
Orientation and Continuingof New Directors; Director Education
A comprehensive orientation process is in place for new directors. In addition, directors receive ongoing continuing education through educational sessions at meetings, the annual strategy retreat, and periodic mailingscommunications between meetings. We hold periodic mandatory training sessions for the audit committee, to which other directors and executive officers are invited. We also afford directors the opportunity to attend external director education programs.
Director Access to Management and Independent AdvisersAdvisors
Independent directors have direct access to members of management whenever they deem it necessary. The independent directors and the committees are also free to retain their own independent advisers,advisors, at company expense, whenever they feel it would be desirable to do so. In accordance with New York Stock ExchangeNYSE listing standards, the audit, compensation, and directors and corporate governance committees have sole authority to retain independent advisersadvisors to their respective committees.
Assessment of Board Processes and Performance
The directors and corporate governance committee annually assesses the performance of the board, its committees, and board processes based on inputs from all directors. The committee also considers the contributions of individual directors at least every three years when considering whether to recommend nominating the director to a new three-year term.
VI. Board Committees
VI. Board Committees
Number, Structure, and Independence

The duties and membership of the six board-appointed committees are described below. Only independent directors may serve on the audit, compensation, directors and corporate governance, and public policy and compliance committees. Only independent directors may chair any committee.
 
14


Committee membership and selection of committee chairs are recommended to the board by the directors and corporate governance committee after consulting the chairman of the board and after considering the backgrounds, skills, and desires of the board members. The board has no set policy for rotation of committee members or chairs but annually reviews committee memberships and chair positions, seeking the best blend of continuity and fresh perspectives on the committees.
Functioning of Committees
Each committee reviews and approves its own charter annually, and the directors and corporate governance committee reviews and approves all committee charters annually. The board may form new committees or disband a current committee (except the audit, compensation, and directors and corporate governance committees) as it deems appropriate. The chair of each committee determines the frequency and agenda of committee meetings. In addition, the audit, compensation, and compensationpublic policy and compliance committees meet alone in executive session on a regular basis; all other committees meet in executive session as needed.
All six committee charters are available online athttp://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm or in paper form upon request to the company’s corporate secretary..

14

15


 

Committees of the Board of Directors
Audit Committee
The duties of the audit committee are described in the “Audit Committee Report” found on page 24.
Compensation Committee
The duties of the compensation committee are described on pages 19-20.26-27, and the “Compensation Committee Report” is shown on page 40.
Directors and Corporate Governance Committee
The duties of the directors and corporate governance committee are described on page 18.21.
CompensationFinance Committee
The duties of the compensation committee are described on pages 21-22, and the “Compensation Committee Report” is shown on page 32.
• reviews and makes recommendations regarding capital structure and strategies, including dividends, stock repurchases, capital expenditures, financings and borrowings, and significant business development projects.
Public Policy and Compliance Committee
  oversees the processes by which the company conducts its business so that the company will do so in a manner that complies with laws and regulations and reflects the highest standards of integrity
 
 reviews and makes recommendations regarding policies, practices, and procedures of the company that relate to public policy and social, political, and economic issues that may affect the company.legal trends and issues.
Finance Committee
reviews and makes recommendations regarding capital structure and strategies, including dividends, stock repurchases, capital expenditures, financings and borrowings, and significant business development projects.
Science and Technology Committee
  reviews and makes recommendations regarding the company’s strategic research goals and objectives
 
 reviews new developments, technologies, and trends in pharmaceutical research and development
 
 reviews• oversees matters of scientific aspects of significant business development projects.and medical integrity and risk management.
16


Membership and Meetings of the Board and Its Committees
In 2008,2009, each director attended more than 8590 percent of the total number of meetings of the board and the committees on which he or she serves. In addition, all board members are expected to attend the annual meeting of shareholders, and all but one attended in 2008.2009. Current committee membership and the number of meetings of the board and each committee in 20082009 are shown in the table below.
                            
 Directors and Public             Directors and
     Public
   
 Corporate Policy and Science and           Corporate
     Policy and
  Science and
Name Board Audit Compensation Governance Finance Compliance Technology  Board  Audit  Compensation  Governance  Finance  Compliance  Technology
Mr. Alvarez1
 Member       Member Member    Member           Member  Member   
Sir Winfried Bischoff Member     Member Chair      Member        Member  Chair      
Mr. Cook Member Chair     Member    
Mr. J. Michael Cook2
                     
Mr. Eskew Member Member Member          Member  Chair  Member            
Dr. Feldstein Member Member     Member Chair    Member  Member        Member  Chair   
Mr. Fisher2
              
Mr. Fyrwald Member   Member       Member  Member     Member           Member
Dr. Gilman Member         Member Chair  Member              Member  Chair
Mr. Hoover3
  Member  Member  Member            
Ms. Horn Presiding Director   Chair Member        Lead Director     Chair  Member         
Dr. Lechleiter Chair              Chair                  
Ms. Marram Member   Member Chair        Member     Member  Chair         
Mr. Oberhelman3
 Member Member     Member    
Mr. Oberhelman  Member  Member        Member      
Dr. Prendergast Member         Member Member  Member              Member  Member
Ms. Seifert Member Member       Member    Member  Member           Member   
Mr. Taurel 4
              
Number of 2008 Meetings 9 9 9 6 5 5 5
Number of 2009 Meetings  7  10  8  7  6  6  4
              
1Mr. Alvarez’s term beginsAlvarez joined the board as of April 1, 2009.
 
2Mr. FisherCook retired from the board as of April 21, 2008.20, 2009.
 
3Mr. OberhelmanHoover joined the board as of DecemberJune 1, 2008.
4Mr. Taurel retired from the board as of December 31, 2008.2009.

15

17


 

Directors’ Compensation
Director compensation is reviewed and approved annually by the board, on the recommendation of the directors and corporate governance committee. Directors who are employees receive no additional compensation for serving on the board or its committees.
Cash Compensation
The company provides nonemployee directors the following cash compensation:
  retainer of $80,000 per year (payable monthly)
 
 $1,000 for each committee meeting attended
  $2,000 to the committee chairpersonschair for each committee meeting conducted as compensation for the chairperson’schair’s preparation time
  retainer of $20,000 per year to the presidinglead director ($30,000 beginning in 2010)
  reimbursement for customary and usual travel expenses.
Stock Compensation
Stock Compensation
Stock compensation for nonemployee directors consists of:
of shares of Lillycompany stock equaling $145,000, deposited annually in a deferred sharestock account in the Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan (as described below), payable after service on the board has ended.
Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan
This plan allows nonemployee directors to defer receipt of all or part of their retainer and meeting fees until after their service on the board has ended. Each director can choose to invest the funds in one or both of two accounts:
  Deferred ShareStock Account.This account allows the director, in effect, to invest his or her deferred cash compensation in Lillycompany stock. In addition, the annual award of shares to each director noted above (4,513(4,040 shares in 2008)2009) is credited to this account on a pre-set annual date. Funds in this account are credited as hypothetical shares of Lillycompany stock based on the market price of the stock at the time the compensation would otherwise have been earned. Hypothetical dividends are “reinvested” in additional shares based on the market price of the stock on the date dividends are paid. AllActual shares in the deferred share accounts are hypothetical and are not issued or transferred untilafter the director ends his or her service on the board.
  Deferred Compensation Account.Funds in this account earn interest each year at a rate of 120 percent of the applicable federal long-term rate, compounded monthly, as established the preceding December by the U.S. Treasury Department under Section 1274 (d)1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. The rate for 20092010 is 5.24.9 percent. The aggregate amount of interest that accrued in 20082009 for the participating directors was $148,138,$189,802, at a rate of 5.55.2 percent.
 
Both accounts may be paid in a lump sum or in annual installments for up to 10 years, beginning the second January following the director’s departure from the board. Amounts in the deferred sharestock account are paid in shares of Lillycompany stock.

16

18


 

In 2008,2009, we provided the following compensation to directors who are not employees:
Directors’ Compensation
                
 All Other            
 Fees Earned Stock Awards Compensation Total  Fees Earned
     All Other Compensation
   
Name or Paid in Cash ($)1 ($)2 ($)3 ($)4  or Paid in Cash ($)1  Stock Awards ($)2  and Payments ($)3  Total ($)4,5
Current
         
Current
Mr. Alvarez  $69,000  $145,000  $1,134   $215,134
Sir Winfried Bischoff $106,000 $145,000 $16,844 $267,844   $105,000  $145,000  $22,179   $272,179
Mr. Cook $121,000 $145,000 $29,320 $295,320 
Mr. Eskew $87,333 $145,000 $8,399 $240,732   $115,000  $145,000  $1,321   $261,321
Dr. Feldstein $108,000 $145,000 $48,699 $301,699   $110,000  $145,000  $37,545   $292,545
Mr. Fyrwald $102,000 $145,000 $13,295 $260,295   $98,000  $145,000  $23,150   $266,150
Dr. Gilman $100,000 $145,000 $50,191 $295,191   $98,000  $145,000  $32,204   $275,204
Mr. Hoover  $57,667  $145,000  $32,877   $235,544
Ms. Horn $133,000 $145,000 $33,915 $311,915   $134,000  $145,000  $6,795   $285,795
Ms. Marram $106,000 $145,000 $48,173 $299,173   $110,000  $145,000  $33,304   $288,304
Mr. Oberhelman $7,667 $0 $16,590 $24,257   $94,000  $145,000  $1,836   $240,836
Dr. Prendergast $93,000 $145,000 $20,478 $258,478   $90,000  $145,000  $0   $235,000
Ms. Seifert $94,000 $145,000 $34,676 $273,676   $95,000  $145,000  $40,000   $280,000
Retired
         
Retired
Mr. Fisher $28,667 $0 $1,549 $30,216 
Mr. Cook  $37,667  $48,333  $31,000   $117,000
        
1The following directors deferred 20082009 cash compensation into their deferred sharestock accounts under the Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan (further described above):
       
Name
  2009 Cash Deferred  Shares
Mr. Fyrwald  $98,000  2,871
Mr. Hoover  $57,667  1,684
       
         
Name 2008 Cash Deferred Shares
Current
        
Mr. Fyrwald $102,000   2,354 
Retired
        
Mr. Fisher $14,333   284 
2Each nonemployee director, other than Mr. Fisher and Mr. Oberhelman,Cook, received an award of stock withvalued at $145,000 (4,040 shares). Mr. Cook received an award of 1,347 shares, which was prorated for the time he was a grant date fair value of $145,000 (4,513 shares).director in 2009. This stock award and all prior stock awards are fully vested in that they are not subject to forfeiture; however, the shares are not issued until the director ends his or her service on the board, as further described above under “Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan.” The table shows the expense recognized by the companygrant date fair value for each director’s stock award. Aggregate outstanding stock awards in the table are shown on page 53 under “Ownership of Company Stock” in the “Directors’ Deferral Plan Shares” column. Aggregate stock options are shown in the table below under “Directors’ Outstanding Stock Options”.
3This column includes amounts donated by the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation, Inc. under its matching gift program, which is generally available to U.S. employees as well as the outside directors. Under this program, the foundation matches 100 percent of charitable donations over $25 made to eligible charities, up to a maximum of $90,000 per year for each individual. The foundation matched the following donations for outside directors in 2008 via payments made directly to the recipient charity: Mr. Cook, $24,500; Mr. Eskew, $5,500; Dr. Feldstein, $27,000; Mr. Fisher, $1,000; Mr. Fyrwald, $10,000; Dr. Gilman, $36,000; Ms. Horn, $8,275; Ms. Marram, $33,000; Mr. Oberhelman, $16,590; and Ms. Seifert, $34,676. This column also includes the following amounts for expenses for the directors’ spouses to travel to and participate in board functions that included spouse participation: Sir Winfried Bischoff, $12,437; Dr. Feldstein, $16,119; Dr. Gilman, $10,376; Ms. Horn, $19,045; Ms. Marram, $10,969; and Dr. Prendergast, $17,382. For all directors except Mr. Fisher, Mr. Oberhelman, andDr. Prendergast, Ms. Seifert, and Mr. Cook, the amounts in this column also include tax reimbursements related to expenses for the directors’ spouses to travel to and participate in board functions that included spouse participation. For Sir Winfried Bischoff, this column also includes $14,210 for expenses for his spouse to travel to and participate in board functions that included spouse participation.
     The foundation matched the donations in the table below for outside directors in 2009 via payments made directly to the recipient charity.
 Amount of
NameMatching Donation
Dr. Feldstein$36,000
Mr. Fyrwald$22,000
Dr. Gilman$29,210
Mr. Hoover$31,100
Ms. Horn$5,475
Ms. Marram$32,500
Ms. Seifert$40,000
Retired
Mr. Cook$31,000
4Directors do not participate in a Lillycompany pension plan or non-equity incentive plan.

17

5Nonemployee directors received no stock options in 2009. The company discontinued granting stock options to nonemployee directors in 2005.
19


 

Directors’ Outstanding Stock Options
                
 Outstanding        
 Stock Options           Outstanding Stock Options
Name Grant Date Expiration Date Exercise Price (Exercisable)  Grant Date  Expiration Date  Exercise Price  (Exercisable)
Mr. Alvarez        0
            
Sir Winfried Bischoff 2/20/2001 2/18/2011 $73.98 2,800   2/20/2001  2/18/2011  $73.98  2,800
 2/19/2002 2/17/2012 $75.92 2,800   2/19/2002  2/17/2012  $75.92  2,800
 2/18/2003 2/18/2013 $57.85 2,800   2/18/2003  2/18/2013  $57.85  2,800
 2/17/2004 2/17/2014 $73.11 2,800   2/17/2004  2/17/2014  $73.11  2,800
            
           11,200
            
Mr. Cook    0         0
            
Mr. Eskew    0         0
            
Dr. Feldstein 2/19/2002 2/17/2012 $75.92 2,800   2/19/2002  2/17/2012  $75.92  2,800
 2/18/2003 2/18/2013 $57.85 2,800   2/18/2003  2/18/2013  $57.85  2,800
 2/17/2004 2/17/2014 $73.11 2,800   2/17/2004  2/17/2014  $73.11  2,800
            
           8,400
            
Mr. Fyrwald    0         0
            
Dr. Gilman 4/20/2000 4/19/2010 $75.94 2,800   4/20/2000  4/19/2010  $75.94  2,800
 2/20/2001 2/18/2011 $73.98 2,800   2/20/2001  2/18/2011  $73.98  2,800
 2/19/2002 2/17/2012 $75.92 2,800   2/19/2002  2/17/2012  $75.92  2,800
 2/18/2003 2/18/2013 $57.85 2,800   2/18/2003  2/18/2013  $57.85  2,800
  2/17/2004  2/17/2014  $73.11  2,800
            
           14,000
            
Mr. Hoover        0
 2/17/2004 2/17/2014 $73.11 2,800             
Ms. Horn 4/20/2000 4/19/2010 $75.94 2,800   4/20/2000  4/19/2010  $75.94  2,800
 2/20/2001 2/18/2011 $73.98 2,800   2/20/2001  2/18/2011  $73.98  2,800
 2/19/2002 2/17/2012 $75.92 2,800   2/19/2002  2/17/2012  $75.92  2,800
 2/18/2003 2/18/2013 $57.85 2,800   2/18/2003  2/18/2013  $57.85  2,800
 2/17/2004 2/17/2014 $73.11 2,800   2/17/2004  2/17/2014  $73.11  2,800
            
           14,000
            
Ms. Marram 2/18/2003 2/18/2013 $57.85 2,800   2/18/2003  2/18/2013  $57.85  2,800
 2/17/2004 2/17/2014 $73.11 2,800   2/17/2004  2/17/2014  $73.11  2,800
            
           5,600
            
Mr. Oberhelman    0         0
            
Dr. Prendergast 4/20/2000 4/19/2010 $75.94 2,800   4/20/2000  4/19/2010  $75.94  2,800
  2/20/2001  2/18/2011  $73.98  2,800
  2/19/2002  2/17/2012  $75.92  2,800
  2/18/2003  2/18/2013  $57.85  2,800
 2/20/2001 2/18/2011 $73.98 2,800   2/17/2004  2/17/2014  $73.11  2,800
 2/19/2002 2/17/2012 $75.92 2,800             
 2/18/2003 2/18/2013 $57.85 2,800            14,000
 2/17/2004 2/17/2014 $73.11 2,800             
Ms. Seifert 4/20/2000 4/19/2010 $75.94 2,800   4/20/2000  4/19/2010  $75.94  2,800
 2/20/2001 2/18/2011 $73.98 2,800   2/20/2001  2/18/2011  $73.98  2,800
 2/19/2002 2/17/2012 $75.92 2,800   2/19/2002  2/17/2012  $75.92  2,800
 2/18/2003 2/18/2013 $57.85 2,800   2/18/2003  2/18/2013  $57.85  2,800
 2/17/2004 2/17/2014 $73.11 2,800   2/17/2004  2/17/2014  $73.11  2,800
            
           14,000
        
20


Directors and Corporate Governance Committee Matters
Overview
Overview
The directors and corporate governance committee recommends to the board candidates for membership on the board and board committees.committees and for lead director. The committee also oversees matters of corporate governance, including board performance, director independence directorand compensation, and board performance.the corporate governance guidelines. The committee’s charter is available online athttp://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm or in paper form upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.
All committee members are independent as defined in the New York Stock ExchangeNYSE listing requirements.
Director Qualifications
The board seeks independent directors who represent a mix of backgrounds and experiences that will enhance the quality of the board’s deliberations and decisions. Candidates shall have substantial experience with one or more publicly traded national or multinational companies or shall have achieved a high level of distinction in their chosen fields.
Board membership should reflect diversity in its broadest sense, including persons diverse in geography, gender, and ethnicity. The board is particularly interested in maintaining a mix that includes the following backgrounds:
• active or retired chief executive officers and senior executives, particularly those with experience in operations, finance, accounting, banking, marketing, and sales
• international business
• science and medicine
• government and public policy
• health care system (public or private).
Finally, board members should display the personal attributes necessary to be an effective director: unquestioned integrity, sound judgment, independence in fact and mindset, ability to operate collaboratively, and commitment to the company, its shareholders, and other constituencies.
The Lilly board members represent a desirable mix of backgrounds, skills, and experiences, and they all share the personal attributes of effective directors described above. Below are some of the specific experiences and skills of our independent directors:
Ralph Alvarez
Through his senior executive experience at McDonalds and other global restaurant businesses, Mr. Alvarez has extensive experience in consumer marketing, global operations, international business, and strategic planning. His international experience includes a special focus on emerging markets.
Sir Winfried Bischoff
Sir Winfried Bischoff has a distinguished career in banking and finance, including commercial banking, corporate finance, and investment banking. He has CEO experience both in Europe and the U.S. He is a globalist, with particular expertise in European matters but with extensive experience overseeing worldwide operations. He has extensive corporate governance experience from his service on public company boards in the U.S., U.K., and other European and Asian countries.
Michael L. Eskew
Mr. Eskew has CEO experience with UPS, where he established a record of success in managing complex worldwide operations, strategic planning, and building a strong consumer brand focus. He is an audit committee financial expert, based on his CEO experience and his service on other U.S. company audit committees. He has extensive corporate governance experience through his service on the boards of other companies.
Martin S. Feldstein
Dr. Feldstein is a renowned economist, academic, and adviser to U.S. presidents of both political parties. He has deep economic and public policy expertise, financial acumen, and a global perspective. His background as an academic brings a diversity of experience and perspective to the board’s deliberations. He has also served on the boards of several major public companies.
J. Erik Fyrwald
Mr. Fyrwald has a strong record of operational and strategy leadership in two complex worldwide businesses with a focus on technology and innovation. An engineer by training, he has extensive senior executive experience at DuPont, a multinational chemical company, where he led their agriculture and nutrition division, which used chemical and biotechnology solutions to enhance plant health. More recently, he has gained CEO experience at Nalco, a global technology-based water products and services company.
21


Alfred G. Gilman
Dr. Gilman is a Nobel Prize winning pharmacologist, researcher, and medical professor. He has deep expertise in basic science, including mechanisms of drug action, and experience with pharmaceutical discovery research. As the former dean of a major medical school, he brings to the board important perspectives of both the academic and practicing medical communities.
R. David Hoover
Mr. Hoover has extensive CEO experience at Ball Corporation, with a strong record of leadership in operations and strategy. He is an audit committee financial expert as a result of his experience as CEO and formerly as CFO of Ball. He also has extensive corporate governance experience through his service on other public company boards.
Karen N. Horn
Ms. Horn is a former CEO with extensive experience in various segments of the financial industry, including banking and financial services. Through her for-profit and her public-private partnership work, she has significant experience in international economics and finance. Ms. Horn has extensive corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards in a variety of industries.
John C. Lechleiter
Dr. Lechleiter is our chairman, president, and chief executive officer. Under our corporate governance guidelines, the CEO is expected to serve on the board of directors. Dr. Lechleiter, a Ph.D. chemist, has over 30 years of experience with the company in a variety of roles of increasing responsibility in research and development, sales and marketing, and corporate administration. As a result, he has a deep understanding of pharmaceutical research and development, sales and marketing, strategy, and operations. He also has significant corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards.
Ellen R. Marram
Ms. Marram is a former CEO with a strong marketing and consumer brand background. Through her nonprofit and private company activities, she has a special focus and expertise in wellness and consumer health. Ms. Marram has extensive corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards in a variety of industries.
Douglas R. Oberhelman
Mr. Oberhelman has a strong strategic and operational background as a senior executive (and most recently as CEO-elect) of Caterpillar, a leading manufacturing company with worldwide operations and a special focus on emerging markets. He is an audit committee financial expert as a result of his prior experience as CFO of Caterpillar and as a member and chairman of the audit committee of another U.S. public company.
Franklyn G. Prendergast
Dr. Prendergast is a prominent medical clinician, researcher, and academician. He has extensive experience in senior-most administration at Mayo Clinic, a major medical institution, and as director of its renowned cancer center. He has special expertise in two critical areas for Lilly—oncology and personalized medicine. As a medical doctor, he brings an important practicing physician perspective to the board’s deliberations.
Kathi P. Seifert
Ms. Seifert is a former senior executive of Kimberly-Clark, a global consumer products company. She has strong expertise in consumer marketing and brand management, having led sales and marketing for several worldwide brands, with a special focus on consumer health. She has extensive corporate governance experience through her other board positions.
Director Nomination Process
The board seeks independent directors who represent a mix of backgrounds and experiences that will enhance the quality of the board’s deliberations and decisions. Candidates shall have substantial experience with one or more publicly traded national or multinational companies or shall have achieved a high level of distinction in their chosen fields.
     Board membership should reflect diversity in its broadest sense, including persons diverse in geography, gender, and ethnicity. The board is particularly interested in maintaining a mix that includes the following backgrounds:
active or retired chief executive officers and senior executives, particularly those with experience in operations, finance or banking, and marketing or sales
international business
medicine and science
government and public policy
health care environment and policy.

18


The board delegates the screening process to the directors and corporate governance committee, which receives direct input from other board members. Potential candidates are identified bythrough recommendations from several sources, including:
  incumbent directors
 
 management
 
 shareholders
 
 an independent executive search firm retained by the committee to assist in locating and screening candidates meeting the board’s selection criteria.
The committee employs the same process for evaluating all candidates, including those submitted by shareholders. The committee initially evaluates a candidate based on publicly available information and any additional information supplied by the party recommending the candidate. If the candidate appears to satisfy the selection criteria and the committee’s initial evaluation is favorable, the committee, assisted by management or the search firm, gathers additional data on the candidate’s qualifications, availability, probable level of interest, and any
22


potential conflicts of interest. If the committee’s subsequent evaluation continues to be favorable, the candidate is contacted by the chairman of the board and one or more of the independent directors for direct discussions to determine the mutual levels of interest in pursuing the candidacy. If these discussions are favorable, the committee makes a final recommendation to the board to nominate the candidate for election by the shareholders (or to select the candidate to fill a vacancy, as applicable). Mr. Oberhelman,Alvarez and Mr. Hoover, who isare standing for election, and Mr. Alvarez, who will serve under interim election beginning April 1, 2009, were referred to the committee by an independent executive search firm.
Process for Submitting Recommendations and Nominations
A shareholder who wishes to recommend a director candidate for evaluation by the committee pursuant to this process should forward the candidate’s name and information about the candidate’s qualifications to the chairmanchair of the directors and corporate governance committee, in care of the corporate secretary, at Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285. The candidate must meet the selection criteria described above and must be willing and expressly interested in serving on the board.
Under Section 1.9 of the company’s bylaws, a shareholder who wishes to directly nominate a director candidate at the 20102011 annual meeting (i.e., to propose a candidate for election who is not otherwise nominated by the board through the recommendation process described above) must give the company written notice by November 9, 2009.8, 2010. The notice should be addressed to the corporate secretary at Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285. The notice must contain prescribed information about the candidate and about the shareholder proposing the candidate as described in more detail in Section 1.9 of the bylaws. A copy of the bylaws is available online athttp://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm. The bylaws will also be provided by mail without charge upon request to the corporate secretary.
23


Audit Committee Matters
Audit Committee Membership
Audit Committee Membership
All members of the audit committee are independent as defined in the New York Stock ExchangeSEC regulations and NYSE listing standards applicable to audit committee members. The board of directors has determined that Mr. J. Michael CookEskew, Mr. Hoover, and Mr. Michael L. EskewOberhelman are audit committee financial experts, as defined in the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.SEC.
Audit Committee Report
The audit committee (“we” or “the committee”) reviews the company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the board. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the systems of internal controls and disclosure controls. In this context, we have met and held discussions with management and the independent auditor. Management represented to us that the company’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and we have reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements and related disclosures with management and the independent auditor, including a review of the significant management judgments underlying the financial statements and disclosures.
The independent auditor reports to us. We have sole authority to appoint (subject to shareholder ratification) and to terminate the engagement ofreplace the independent auditor.
We have discussed with the independent auditor matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing

19


Standards No. 61 (Communication with Audit Committees), as amended and as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in Rule 3200T, including the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments, and the clarity of the disclosures in the financial statements. In addition, we have received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditor required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding communications with the audit committee concerning independence, and have discussed with the independent auditor the auditor’s independence from the company and its management. In concluding that the auditor is independent, we determined, among other things, that the nonaudit services provided by Ernst & Young LLP (as described below) were compatible with its independence. Consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we have adopted policies to avoid compromising the independence of the independent auditor, such as prior committee approval of nonaudit services and required audit partner rotation.
We discussed with the company’s internal and independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their respective audits, including internal control testing under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We periodically meet with the internal and independent auditors, with and without management present, and in private sessions with members of senior management (such as the chief financial officer and the chief accounting officer) to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the company’s internal controls, and the overall quality of the company’s financial reporting. We also periodically meet in executive session.
In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, we recommended to the board (and the board subsequently approved the recommendation) that the audited financial statements be included in the company’s annual report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008,2009, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.SEC. We have also appointed the company’s independent auditor, subject to shareholder ratification, for 2009.2010.
Audit Committee
J. Michael Cook, Chair
Michael L. Eskew,
Chair
Martin S. Feldstein, Ph.D.
R. David Hoover
Douglas R. Oberhelman
Kathi P. Seifert
Services Performed by the Independent Auditor
The audit committee preapproves all services performed by the independent auditor, in part to assess whether the provision of such services might impair the auditor’s independence. The committee’s policy and procedures are as follows:
  The committee approves the annualaudit services engagement and, if necessary, any changes in terms, conditions, and fees resulting from changes in audit scope, company structure, or other matters. The committee may also preapprove other audit services, which are those services that only the independent auditor reasonably can provide. Since 2004, audit services have included internal controls attestation work under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
 
 Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit, and that are traditionally performed by the independent auditor. The committee believes that the provision of these services does not impair the independence of the auditor.
 
 Tax services. The committee believes that, in appropriate cases, the independent auditor can provide tax compliance services, tax planning, and tax advice without impairing the auditor’s independence.
 
 The committee may approveother services to be provided by the independent auditor if (i) the services are permissible under SEC and PCAOB rules, (ii) the committee believes the provision of the services would not
24


impair the independence of the auditor, and (iii) management believes that the auditor is the best choice to provide the services.
  Process. At the beginning of each audit year, management requests prior committee approval of the annual audit, statutory audits, and quarterly reviews for the upcoming audit year as well as any other engagements known at that time. Management will also present at that time an estimate of all fees for the upcoming audit year. As specific engagements are identified thereafter, they are brought forward to the committee for approval. To the extent approvals are required between regularly scheduled committee meetings, preapproval authority is delegated to the committee chair.
For each engagement, management provides the committee with information about the services and fees, sufficiently detailed to allow the committee to make an informed judgment about the nature and scope of the services and the potential for the services to impair the independence of the auditor.
After the end of the audit year, management provides the committee with a summary of the actual fees incurred for the completed audit year.

20


Independent Auditor Fees
The following table shows the fees incurred for services rendered on a worldwide basis by Ernst & Young LLP, the company’s independent auditor, in 20082009 and 2007.2008. All such services were preapproved by the committee in accordance with the preapproval policy.
         
  2008 2007
  (millions) (millions)
Audit Fees $8.0  $7.0 
Annual audit of consolidated and subsidiary financial statements, including Sarbanes-Oxley 404 attestation
        
Reviews of quarterly financial statements
        
Other services normally provided by the auditor in connection with statutory and regulatory filings
      
         
Audit-Related Fees $0.8  $0.4 
Assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit or reviews of the financial statements
        
2008 and 2007: primarily related to employee benefit plan and other ancillary audits, and due diligence services on acquisitions
        
         
Tax Fees $1.7  $1.4 
2008 and 2007: primarily related to consulting and compliance services
        
         
All Other Fees $0.2  $0.1 
2008 and 2007: primarily related to compliance services outside the U.S.
        
         
Total $10.7  $8.9 
           
   2009
  2008
   (millions)  (millions)
           
 Audit Fees          
• Annual audit of consolidated and subsidiary financial statements, including Sarbanes-Oxley 404 attestation   $8.0    $8.0 
• Reviews of quarterly financial statements          
• Other services normally provided by the auditor in connection with statutory and regulatory filings          
           
 Audit-Related Fees          
• Assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit or reviews of the financial statements   $1.1    $0.8 
—2009 and 2008: primarily related to employee benefit plan and other ancillary audits, and due diligence services on potential acquisitions          
           
 Tax Fees
• 2009 and 2008: primarily related to consulting and compliance services
   $1.2    $1.7 
           
 All Other Fees
• 2009 and 2008: primarily related to compliance services outside the U.S.
   $0.1    $0.2 
           
 Total   $10.4    $10.7 
           
25


Compensation Committee Matters
Scope of Authority
The compensation committee oversees the company’s global compensation philosophy and establishes the compensation of executive officers. The committee also acts as the oversight committee with respect to the company’s deferred compensation plans, management stock plans, and bonus plans covering executives.other management incentive compensation programs. In overseeing those plans, the committee may delegate authority to company officers forday-to-day plan administration and interpretation, including selecting participants, determining award levels within plan parameters, and approving award documents. However, the committee may not delegate any authority for matters affecting the executive officers.
The Committee’s Processes and Procedures
The committee’s primary processes for establishing and overseeing executive compensation can be found in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section under “The Committee’s Processes and Analyses” on pages 23-24.below. Additional processes and procedures include:
  Meetings.The committee meets several times each year (nine(eight times in 2008)2009). Committee agendas are established in consultation with the committee chair and the committee’s independent compensation consultant. The committee meets in executive session after each meeting.
  Role of Independent Consultant.The committee has retained Frederic W. Cook and his firm, Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc., as its independent compensation consultant to assist the committee in evaluating executive compensation programs and in setting executive officers’ compensation.committee. Mr. Cook reports directly to the committee, and neither he nor his firm is permitted to perform any services for management. The consultant’s duties include the following:
 Reviewreview committee agendas and supporting materials in advance of each meeting and raise questions with the company’s global compensation group and the committee chair as appropriate
 Reviewreview the company’s total compensation philosophy, peer group, and target competitive positioning for reasonableness and appropriateness
 Reviewreview the company’s total executive compensation program and advise the committee of plans or practices that might be changed to better reflectin light of evolving best practices
 Provideprovide independent analyses and recommendations to the committee on the CEO’s pay
 Reviewreview draft Compensation“Compensation Discussion and AnalysisAnalysis” report and related tables for the proxy statement
 Proactivelyproactively advise the committee on best practices ideas for board governance of executive compensation
 Undertakeundertake special projects at the request of the committee chair.
The consultant interacts directly with members of company management only on matters under the committee’s oversight and with the knowledge and permission of the committee chair.
The consultant interacts directly with members of Lilly management only on matters under the committee’s oversight and with the knowledge and permission of the committee chairperson.
  Role of Executive Officers and Management.With the oversight of the CEO and the senior vice president of human resources, the company’s global compensation group formulates recommendations on matters of compensation philosophy, plan design, and the specific compensation recommendations for executive officers (other

21


than the CEO as noted below). The CEO gives the committee a performance assessment and compensation recommendation for each of the other named executive officers. Those recommendations are then considered by the committee with the assistance of its compensation consultant. The CEO and the senior vice president of human resources attend committee meetings but are not present for the executive sessions or for any discussion of their own compensation. (Only nonemployee directors and the committee’s consultant attend executive sessions.)
The CEO normally does not participate in the formulation or discussion of his pay recommendations andrecommendations; however, for 2010 Dr. Lechleiter requested that no increases be made to his base salary or incentive targets. The CEO has no prior knowledge of the recommendations that the consultant makes to the committee.
• Risk assessment.With the help of its compensation consultant, in 2009 the committee reviewed the company’s compensation policies and practices for all employees, including executive officers, and determined that our compensation programs will not have a material adverse effect on the company. The committee also reviewed our compensation programs for certain design features that have been identified by experts as having the potential to encourage excessive risk-taking, including:
 —too much focus on equity
 —compensation mix overly weighted toward annual incentives
 —highly leveraged payout curves and uncapped payouts
 —unreasonable goals or thresholds
 —and steep payout cliffs at certain performance levels that may encourage short-term business decisions to meet payout thresholds.
The committee noted several design features of the company’s cash and equity incentive programs for all employees that reduce the likelihood of excessive risk-taking:
 —The program design provides a balanced mix of cash and equity, annual and longer-term incentives, and performance metrics (revenue, earnings, and total shareholder return).
 —Maximum payout levels for bonuses and performance awards are capped at 200 percent of target.
 —All regular U.S. employees participate in the same bonus plan.
26


 —Bonus and equity programs have minimum payout levels for nonexecutive officers.
 —The company currently does not grant stock options.
 —The compensation committee has downward discretion over incentive program payouts.
 —The executive compensation recovery policy allows the company to “claw back” payments made using materially inaccurate financial results.
 —Executive officers are subject to share ownership and retention guidelines.
 —Compliance and ethical behaviors are integral factors considered in all performance assessments.
The committee determined that, for all employees, the company’s compensation programs do not encourage excessive risk and instead encourage behaviors that support sustainable value creation. Nonetheless, as a result of the review, the committee is implementing certain changes to the bonus and equity incentive plan designs for 2010 to further reduce incentives to incur excessive risk as follows:
 —Key risks to the business strategy are reviewed by the board as part of the company’s annual long-range planning process. These risks will be an input into an annual review by the compensation committee to assess the potential for compensation programs to encourage excessive risk-taking (or excessively risk-averse behaviors).
 —The bonus plan has been modified to allow for greater differentiation based on individual performance and smoother payout curves.
 —A linear payout formula for the PA is replacing the nine discreteearnings-per-share (EPS) ranges, eliminating payout “cliffs” between ranges. Additionally, the threshold payout level will be increased from zero to 50 percent of target, and the maximum payout level will be lowered from 200 percent to 150 percent of target for all participants.
 —The committee expanded the executive compensation recovery policy (described in more detail onpages 39-40).
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
None of the compensation committee members:
  has ever been an officer or employee of the company
  is or was a participant in a related-person transaction in 20082009 (see page 1314 for a description of our policy on related-person transactions)
  is an executive officer of another entity, at which one of our executive officers serves on the board of directors.
27


Executive Compensation
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
2008
Summary
Executive compensation for 20082009 aligned well with the objectives of our compensation philosophy and with our performance, driven by these factors:

Highlights:
(HIGHLIGHTS)
(BAR CHARTS)
Strong performance
 • Strong growth in operating results drove strong annual bonus and performance award (PA) payouts.As described below, strong operating performance included 5.3 percent pro-forma adjusted revenue growth and 15.7 percent adjusted EPS growth, both of which were more than double our peer group average. This resulted in above-target cash bonus and PA payouts for all participants.
Consistent programs
 
New chair and CEOLagging stock price resulted in no payout of shareholder value awards (SVAs).Total shareholder return for2007-2009 failed to meet the threshold for the SVA; as a result, awards granted to executive officers did not pay out.

Strong operating results yield strong incentive compensation payouts.In 2008, Lilly performed in the top tier of its peer group in expected sales and adjusted earnings-per-share growth; this strong top- and bottom-line growth led to cash and equity incentive compensation payouts substantially above target.
 
 Cost-effective equity design maintained for 2008.2009, with more emphasis on long-term performance.In 2009, we shifted our PA program from a one-year to a two-year performance period, in response to shareholder input and the board’s emphasis on strong corporate governance. We loweredcontinued our SVA program and maintained a 50/50 mix of PAs and SVAs for all members of senior management, including executive officers. We improved the overall cost structure of our equity program in 2007—2007, while maintaining its competitiveness and motivational impact—impact, by eliminating stock options in favor of shareholder value awards and by lowering total equity grant values for most positions. We maintained this program in 2008 with some increases in equity value.SVAs.
 
 A balanced program fosters employee achievement, retention, and engagement.We delivered a balancetotal compensation package composed of salary, performance-based cash and equity incentives, and a strongcompetitive employee benefitbenefits program. Together these elements reinforcedpay-for-performance, incentives provided a balanced focus on both long- and short-term performance, and encouraged employee retention and engagement.


Mr. Taurel retired as CEO effective March 31, 2008, but remained as chairman of the board and a director through December 31, 2008. His salary and cash bonus were reduced by half for the period of April through December 2008. Dr. Lechleiter was elected CEO effective April 1, 2008, and received increases to his salary and target cash bonus at that time to reflect his increased responsibilities.
In addition:
• The compensation committee reviewed the connection between compensation and risk.The committee reviewed our compensation programs and policies for features that may encourage excessive risk taking. The committee found the overall program to be sound, but approved changes to the executive compensation recovery policy, share ownership and retention guidelines, and some design features for 2010 incentive programs.
• No increase in CEO compensation for 2010. In light of the business challenges the company currently faces, at Dr. Lechleiter’s request, the compensation committee approved that no increases be made to his 2010 salary or incentive targets.
Executive Compensation Philosophy
Our success depends on our abilitystrategy is to create value by accelerating the flow of innovative new medicines that provide improved outcomes for individual patients. We aim to discover, develop, and market a stream ofor acquire innovative new therapies—medicines that address important medical needs.make a real difference for patients and deliver clear value for payers. In addition, we must continually improve productivity in all that we do. To achieve these goals, we need tomust attract, engage, and retain highly talented highly-talented
28


individuals who are committed to the company’s core values of integrity, excellence, integrity, and respect for people. Our compensation and benefitbenefits programs are based on these objectives:

(TEXT BOX)
  Compensation should reflect individual and company performance.We link all employees’ pay to individual and company performance.

Executive Compensation Philosophy:
Individual performance
 
 
Company performance
Long-term focus
Efficient
Egalitarian
Competitive pay

As employees assume greater responsibilities, more of their pay is linked to company performance and shareholder returns.
 
 We seek to deliver top-tierabove-market compensation given top-tier individual and company performance, but lower-tierbelow-market compensation where individual performance falls short of expectationsand/or company performance lags the industry.
 We design our programs to be simple and clear, so that employees can easily understand how their efforts affect their pay.
 —Our incentive programs use hard metrics (sales, earnings, and total shareholder return) that can be objectively measured against our peer companies.


22


 We balance the objectives ofpay-for-performance and employee retention. Even during downturns in company performance, the programsprogram should continue to motivate and engage successful, high-achieving employees.


  Compensation should foster a long-term focus.A long-term focus is critical to success in our industry.industry and is consistent with our goal of retaining highly talented employees as they build their careers. Throughout the company, a competitive benefits program aids retention. As employees progress to higher levels of the organization, a greater portion of compensation is tied to our longer-term performance.
  Compensation should be based on the level of job responsibility.responsibility and reflect the market.We seek internal pay relativity, meaning that pay differences among jobs should be commensurate with differences in the levels ofjob responsibility and impact of the jobs.
Compensation should reflect the marketplace for talent.impact. We aim to remain competitive with the pay of other premier employers with whichwhom we compete for talent.
 Compensation and benefit programs should attract employees who are interested in a career at Lilly.Our employee benefit programs provide a competitive advantage by helping us attract and retain highly talented employees who are looking for the opportunity to build careers.
 Compensation should be egalitarian and efficient.To We seek to deliver superior long-term shareholder returns we must deliverand to share value tocreated with employees in a cost-effective manner.
Compensation and benefit programs should be egalitarian.While compensation will always reflect differences in job responsibilities, geographies, and marketplace considerations, the overall structure of compensation and benefitbenefits programs should be broadly similar across the organization.
The Committee’s Processes and Analyses
The compensation committee uses several tools to help it structure compensation programs that meet company objectives. Among those are:

Compensation Committee Tools:
Company metrics
Individual metrics
Peer group analysis
External advisor
(TEXT BOX)

Assessment of company performance.The committee uses company performance measures in two ways:
—  In establishing total compensation ranges, the committee compares the performance of Lilly and its peer group with respect to sales, earnings per share, return on assets, return on equity, and total shareholder return. The committee uses this data as a reference point rather than applying a formula.
 —  The committee establishes specific company performance measures that determine payouts under the company’s cash and equity formula-based incentive programs.

 Assessment of individual performance.Individual performance has a strong impact on compensation.
 —The independent directors, under the direction of the presidinglead director, meet with the CEO in executiveprivate session at the beginning of the year to agree upon the CEO’s performance objectives for the year. At the end of the year, the independent directors again meet in executive session to review the performance of the CEO based on his or her achievement of theagreed-upon objectives, contribution to the company’s performance, ethics and integrity, and other leadership accomplishments. This evaluation is shared with the CEO by the presidinglead director and is provided toused by the compensation committee for its consideration in setting the CEO’s compensation.
 For the other executive officers, the committee receives a performance assessment and compensation recommendation from the CEO and also exercises its judgment based on the board’s interactions with the executive officer. As with the CEO, the executive’s performance evaluation is based on the executive’s achievement of objectives established between the executive and his or her supervisor, the executive’s contribution to the company’s performance, ethics and integrity, and other leadership attributes and accomplishments.


 Assessment of company performance. The committee uses company performance measures in two ways:
 —In establishing total compensation ranges, the committee uses as a reference point the performance of the company and its peer group with respect to sales, earnings per share, return on assets, return on equity, and total shareholder return.
 —The committee establishes specific company performance measures that determine payouts under the company’s cash and equity formula-based incentive programs.
 Peer group analysis.The committee compares the company’s programs with a peer group of global pharmaceutical companies: Abbott Laboratories; Amgen Inc.; AstraZeneca plc; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; GlaxoSmithKline plc; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis AG; Pfizer Inc.; Sanofi-Aventis; Schering-Plough Corporation; and Wyeth. Pharmaceutical companies’ needs for
29


scientific and sales and marketing talent are unique to the industry and as such, Lillywe must compete with these companies for talent. The committee uses the peer group data in two ways:
 Overall competitiveness.The committee uses aggregated data and both company and individual performance as a reference point to ensure that the executive compensation program as a whole is competitive, meaning within the broad middle range of comparative pay of theat peer group companies when the company achieves the targeted performance levels. The committee does not target a specific position within the range.
 Individual competitiveness.The committee compares the overall pay of individual executives, if the jobs are sufficiently similar to make the comparison meaningful. The individual’s pay is driven primarily by individual and company performance and internal relativity, rather than the peer group data; the peer group data is used as a “market check” to ensure that individual pay remains within the broad middle range of peer group pay. The committee does not target a specific position within the range.
The peer group is reviewed for appropriateness at least every three years. The group was reviewed in June 2008, and the new group was used for purposes of 2009 compensation decisions. The committee added four new companies (AstraZeneca plc, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Novartis AG, and Sanofi-Aventis) because over time the number of comparator companies had decreased due to industry consolidation. The committee desired an expanded peer group to have a better representation of companies that are direct competitors for our products, operate in a similar business model, and employ people with the unique skills required to operate an established biopharmaceutical company. The committee also considered market cap as of December 31, 2007 and 2007 revenue as measures of size; with the exception of Johnson & Johnson, all peer companies were between one-half to three times Lilly with regard to both measures. The committee included Johnson & Johnson, despite its size, because it competes directly with Lilly for talent at all management levels.

23


The peer group is reviewed for appropriateness at least every three years. The group was reviewed in June 2008, and the new group will be used to assess company performance for purposes of 2009 compensation decisions.
  CEO compensation.To provide further assurance of independence, the compensation recommendation for the CEO is developed by anthe committee’s independent consultant (Frederic W. Cook and his firm, Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc.) without the input or knowledge of the CEO and with limited support from company staff. The Cook firm prepares analyses showing mediancompetitive CEO compensation among the peer group in termsfor the individual elements of base salary, target annual incentive award, most recent equity grant value,compensation and resulting total direct compensation. Mr. Cook develops a range of recommendations for any change in the CEO’s base salary, annual incentive target, equity grant value, and equity mix. Mr. Cook’sThe recommendations for target CEO pay take into account the peer competitive pay analysis, expected future pay trends, and importantly, the position of the CEO in relation to other senior company executives and proposed pay actions for all key employees of the company. The range allows for the committee to exercise its discretion based on the CEO’s individual performance.performance and other factors. The CEO has no prior knowledge of the recommendations and normally takes no part in the recommendations, committee discussions, or decisions. For 2010, Dr. Lechleiter requested that no increases be made to his base salary or incentive targets.
Executive Compensation for 20082009
Overview—Establishment of Overall Pay
In making its pay decisions for 2008,2009, the committee reviewed 20072008 company performance data and peer group data as discussed above, and also considered expected competitive trends in executive pay. That review showed:
  Company performance.In 2007, Lilly2008, the company performed in the upper tier of the peer group in adjusted earnings per share growth, sales growth, return on assets, and return on equity and in the lower tier in one-year and five-year total shareholder return.
  Pay relative to peer group.Lilly’s The company’s total pay to executive officers for 20072008 was in the broad middle range.range of the peer group.
The committee determined the following:
  Program elements.The 20082009 program consisted of base salary, a cash incentive bonus award, and two forms of performance-based equity grants: performance awardsPAs and shareholder value awards (SVAs).SVAs. Executives also received the company employee benefitbenefits package. This program balances the mix of cash and equity compensation, the mix of current and longer-term compensation, the mix of financial and market goals, and the security of foundational benefits in a way that furthers the compensation objectives discussed above.
  Pay ranges and mix of pay elements.The company generally maintained the same pay ranges and mix of pay elements as in 2007.2008. The committee believes this overall program continues to provide a cost effectivecost-effective delivery of total compensation that:
 encourages retention and employee engagement by delivering competitive cash and equity components
 maintains a strong link to company performance and shareholder returns through a balanced equity incentive program without encouraging excessive risk-taking
 maintains appropriate internal pay relativity, and
 provides opportunity for total pay within the broad middle range of expected peer grouppeer-group pay given company performance comparable to that of our peers.
30


2009 Target Compensation
The graphs below show the balance of target compensation determined by the committee.
PIE CHARTS
PIE CHARTS
2009 Actual Compensation
The graphs below show the ratio of pay elements in actual compensation received for 2009.
PIE CHARTS
Base salary and bonus amounts are shown in the Summary Compensation Table. The PA payout for 2009 performance is shown in the table on page 44. The SVA payout for2007-2009 performance was zero for all named executive officers except Mr. Carmine, who was not an officer when the award was granted. Mr. Carmine’s payout is shown in the Options Exercised and Stock Vested in 2009 table.
Base Salary
In setting base salaries for 2008,2009, the committee considered the following:

(TEXT)

Base Salary Considerations:
Corporate budget
 
Individual performance
Internal relativity
Peer group data

 The corporate “merit budget,”budget.the company’s overall The corporate budget for merit-based salary increases. The corporate merit budgetincreases was established based on company performance for 2007,2008, expected performance for 2008,2009, and a reference to general external merit trends. The objective of the merit budget is to allow salary increases to retain, motivate, and reward successful performers while maintaining affordability within the company’s business plan. Individual pay increases can be more or less than the budget amount depending on individual performance, but aggregate increases must stay within the budget. The aggregate merit increases for allthe named executive officers and the other executive officers were within the corporate merit budget of four percent.


Individual performance.As described above under “The Committee’s Processes and Analyses,” base salary increases were driven largely by individual performance assessments.
The independent directors assessed Mr. Taurel’s 2007 performance. They considered the company’s and Mr. Taurel’s accomplishment of objectives that had been established at the beginning of the year and their own subjective assessment of his performance. They noted that under Mr. Taurel’s leadership in 2007, the company:

24


��exceeded its sales and earnings targets;
 §made significant progress on the transformation agenda, including progressing the tailored therapy strategy;
§exceeded its Six Sigma and related productivity goals;
§strengthened its public image; and
§met or exceeded its targets for research pipeline progress and acquisition of new compounds.
Mr. Taurel’s decision to retire as CEO as of April 1, 2008, and as chairman as of December 31, 2008, resulted in the committee’s decision to maintain his annual salary at the 2007 level through March 31, 2008, and then reduce it by one-half for the remainder of 2008.
The committee reviewed similar performance considerations for each of the other named executives.
With regard to Dr. Lechleiter, the committee considered his new position as chief executive officer and increased Dr. Lechleiter’s annual salary by 21 percent effective April 1, 2008, to $1,400,000. The committee considered Dr. Lechleiter’s strong leadership in 2007 in driving the company’s operational results and transformational agenda.
With regard to Dr. Paul, the committee noted that Lilly Research Laboratories met or exceeded nearly all 2007 pipeline progress goals and implemented several strategic actions to increase flexibility and productivity. The committee increased Dr. Paul’s annual salary by four percent.
Mr. Carmine’s annual salary was increased by 79 percent upon his promotion, effective April 1, 2008, to recognize his significantly expanded responsibilities.
Mr. Rice’s annual salary was increased 13 percent in recognition of his assumption of increased operational responsibilities, his strong leadership of the financial component, and outstanding contributions to the management of the company.
In establishing Mr. Armitage’s annual salary (a five percent increase), the committee noted his leadership in driving a culture of compliance and transparency, shaping intellectual property policy to foster innovation, and implementing effective litigation strategies.
§ Internal relativity,meaning the relative pay differences between different job levels.
 § Peer group dataspecific to certain positions in which the jobs were viewed as comparable in content and importance to the company.importance. We used the peer grouppeer-group data not to target a specific position in range, but instead as a market check for reasonableness and competitiveness. The salaries, as determined by the other factors, were within the broad middle range of expected competitive pay and, therefore, no further adjustments were necessary for competitiveness.
• Individual performance. As described above under “The Committee’s Processes and Analyses,” base salary increases were driven largely by individual performance assessments.
In assessing Dr. Lechleiter’s 2008 performance, the independent directors considered the company’s and Dr. Lechleiter’s accomplishment of objectives that had been established at the beginning of the year and their own subjective assessment of his performance. They noted that under Dr. Lechleiter’s leadership in 2008, the company:
• exceeded sales and earnings targets

31


• successfully transitioned through the change in leadership with Mr. Taurel retiring at the end of 2008
• aggressively expanded the product portfolio through business development transactions, including the acquisition of ImClone Systems Incorporated
• implemented wide-ranging productivity improvements, including reducing layers of management.
In establishing Dr. Lechleiter’s base salary, the committee also considered his assumption of the additional role of chairman of the board in 2009.
With regard to Dr. Paul, the committee considered Lilly Research Laboratories’ progress with respect to pipeline goals, cycle time reductions, and transformation efforts, as well as his already-strong compensation.
The committee considered Mr. Carmine’s effective leadership in driving strong operating results and reinforcing a culture of transparency, ethics, and compliance.
The committee noted Mr. Rice’s continued strong leadership of the financial component, fostering a culture of controls and compliance, and overall contributions to company strategy.
With regard to Mr. Armitage, the committee recognized his continued leadership in shaping intellectual-property policy to foster innovation and driving a corporate culture of compliance and transparency.

Change in base salary ($000‘s)
                
         Percentage
Name  2008  2009  Increase
Dr. Lechleiter  $1,400   $1,500    7% 
 
Dr. Paul  $1,006   $1,026    2% 
 
Mr. Carmine  $880   $924    5% 
 
Mr. Rice  $850   $901    6% 
 
Mr. Armitage  $785   $816    4% 
 

Cash Incentive Bonuses
The company’s annual cash bonus programs alignprogram aligns employees’ goals with the company’s sales and earnings growth objectives for the current year. Cash incentive bonuses for all management employees worldwide, as well as most nonmanagement employees in the U.S., are determined under theThe Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan.Plan (the bonus plan). Under the plan, the company sets target bonus amounts (a percentage of base salary)targets for all participants at the beginning of each year. Bonus payouts range from zero to 200 percent of target amounts depending on the company’s financial results relative to predetermined performance measures. At the end of the performance period, the committee has discretion to adjust an awarda bonus payout downward for executive officers, but(but not upward,upward) from the amount yielded by the formula.formula for executive officers.
The committee considered the following when establishing the 20082009 awards:
 § Bonus targets.Bonus targets (expressed as a percentage of base salary) were based on job responsibilities, internal relativity, and peer group data. Consistent with our compensation objectives, as executives assume greater responsibilities, more of their pay is linked to company performance. For mostthree named executive officers, the committee maintained the same bonus targets as 2007;2008; for some,two named executive officers, targets were increased duein order to peer group trends or internal relativity. The committee determined that these targets appropriately reflectedreflect internal relativity and would maintain cash compensation within the broad middle range of expected competitive pay, given median peer grouppeer-group performance. The 2008 targets for the named executives were as follows:

Bonus targets (as a percentage of base salary):
                
Name  2008  2009  Change
Dr. Lechleiter   140%    140%    0% 
 
Dr. Paul   85%    90%    5% 
 
Mr. Carmine   85%    90%    5% 
 
Mr. Rice   80%    80%    0% 
 
Mr. Armitage   80%    80%    0% 
 
Mr. Taurel – 140 percent (increased from 125 percent to approximate the peer group median)
 Dr. Lechleiter – 140 percent (100 percent through March 31, 2008)
Dr. Paul – 85 percent
Mr. Carmine – 85 percent
Mr. Rice – 80 percent (increased from 75 percent due to internal relativity)
Mr. Armitage – 80 percent (increased from 75 percent due to internal relativity).
§ Company performance measures.The committee established 20082009 company performance measures with a 25 percent weighting on sales growth and a 75 percent weighting on growth in adjusted EPS (reported earnings per

25


shareEPS adjusted as described below under “Adjustments for Certain Items”). This mix of performance measures focuses employees appropriately on improving both top-line sales and bottom-line earnings, with special emphasis on earnings in order to tie rewards directly to productivity improvements. The measures are also effective motivators because they are easy for employees to track and understand.

Bonus Weighting:(HIGHLIGHTS)
25% sales growth
75% adjusted EPS growth
Targets:
4% sales growth
8% adjusted EPS growth

   In establishing the 20082009 target growth rates, the committee considered the expected 20082009 performance of our peer group, based on published investment analyst estimates. The target growth rates of fourthree percent for sales and eightseven percent for adjusted EPS were slightly above the median expected growth rates for our peer group. These targets are consistentwere aligned with our compensation objectives because they produceof producing above-target payouts if Lilly outperformsthe company outperformed the peer group and below-target payouts if Lillycompany performance lagslagged the peer group. Payouts were determined by this formula:


(0.25 x sales multiple) + (0.75 x adjusted EPS multiple) = bonus multiple
Bonus multiple X bonus target X base salary earnings = payout
 2008
32


2009 sales and adjusted EPS multiples are illustrated by these charts:
(LINE CHART)
2009 pro forma sales of $21,836 million represented 5.3 percent growth over 2008 pro forma sales growth of 8.7 percent$20,732 million and resulted in a sales multiple of 1.475.1.23.
(LINE CHART)
2009 pro forma adjusted EPS of $4.42 represented growth of 15.7 percent over 2008 pro forma adjusted EPS growth of 13.6 percent$3.82 and resulted in an adjusted EPS multiple of 1.556.
1.87.
 
Together, the sales multiple and the adjusted EPS multiple yielded a bonus multiple of 1.54.1.71.
(0.25 x 1.475)1.23) + (0.75 x 1.556)1.87) = 1.541.71 bonus multiple
 
See page 2937 for a reconciliation of 20082009 reported and pro forma sales and adjusted EPS.
Equity Incentives—Total Equity Program
In 2008, we employedWe employ two forms of equity incentives granted under the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan: performance awards (PAs) and shareholder value awards.awards (SVAs). These incentives ensure thatare designed to focus our leaders are properly focused on long-term shareholder value.value: SVAs have a three-year performance period and PAs, beginning in 2009, have a two-year performance period. For executive officers, PAs pay out in restricted stock units that vest one year after the

26

33


 

performance period. Executive officers are required to hold net shares they earn from SVAs for one year after payout. The following chart shows the holding periods for PA and SVA grants over time:

Equity Compensation:

Performance metrics of growth in adjusted EPS and share price align with shareholder interests
 
Target grant values set based on internal relativity, performance, and peer data
2008 target grant values increased

 Target grant values.For 2008,2009, the committee increased aggregate grant values for mostthree named executives based on internal relativity, individual performance, and peer groupaggregated peer-group data suggesting that the 20072008 grant values were below the broad middle range. In addition, Dr. Lechleiter’s and Mr. Carmine’s targets were increasedrange compared to reflect their new roles.those of peers. Consistent with the company’s compensation objectives, individuals at higher levels received a greater proportion of total paycompensation in the form of equity. The committee determined that for members of senior management, a50/50 split for executives between performance awardsPAs and shareholder value awardsSVAs appropriately balances the company financial performance and shareholder equity return incentivesmetrics of the two programs. Target values for 20082009 equity grants for the named executivesexecutive officers were as follows:



         
   Shareholder
Name Performance
Awards
 Value
Awards
Mr. Taurel $4,000,000  $4,000,000 
Dr. Lechleiter $3,250,000  $3,250,000 
Dr. Paul $1,500,000  $1,500,000 
Mr. Carmine $1,500,000  $1,500,000 
Mr. Rice $1,200,000  $1,200,000 
Mr. Armitage $855,000  $855,000 
Target grant values ($000’s)
                          
                   Percentage
 
 Name  2008 PA   2009 PA   2008 SVA   2009 SVA   Increase (total) 
 Dr. Lechleiter   $3,250    $3,750    $3,250    $3,750    15% 
 Dr. Paul   $1,500    $1,500    $1,500    $1,500    0% 
 Mr. Carmine   $1,500    $1,500    $1,500    $1,500    0% 
 Mr. Rice   $1,200    $1,500    $1,200    $1,500    25% 
 Mr. Armitage   $855    $1,000    $855    $1,000    17% 
                          
Equity Incentives—Performance Awards
Performance awards
PAs provide employees with shares of Lillycompany stock if certain company performance goals are achieved, aligning employees with shareholder interests and providing an ownership stake in the company.achieved. The awards are structured as a schedule of shares of Lillycompany stock based on the company’s achievement of specificgrowth in adjusted earnings per share (adjusted EPS) levelsEPS over specified time periods of one or more years. In 2009, the company will grantgranted both a one-year and a two-year award to all global management as a transition to a two-year performance period for all performance awardsPAs granted beginning in 2010. (This design change was implemented in response to shareholder feedback.) The two grants in 2009 provided the opportunity for participants to receiveone and only onePA payout each year—without skipping a year. The 2009 PA paid in February 2010, while the2009-2010 PA will pay out in February 2011, assuming performance targets are met (see Holding Periods for PAs and SVAs chart above). The fair market value at grant for both awards was the same. Possible payouts for both PAs range from zero to 200 percent of the target amount, depending on adjusted EPS growth over the performance period. No dividends are paid on the awards during the performance period. At the end of the performance period, the committee has discretion to adjust an award payout downward but(but not upward,upward) from the amount yielded by the formula. For the 20082009 grants, the committee considered the following:

Performance Awards:
One-year performance period in 2008
 
Two-year performance period phased in beginning in 2009
Payouts must be held one year
Target growth (8%) slightly above expected peer group performance
Actual growth 13.6%

Target grant values.As described above, the committee increased equity awards for most named executives and maintained a 50/50 split between performance awards and SVAs.
 Company performance measure.The committee established the performance measure as adjusted EPS growth (reported EPS adjusted as described below under “Adjustments for Certain Items”) over a one-year period, with a one-year holding period, thus creating a two-year award.growth. The committee believes adjusted EPS growth is an effective motivator because it is closely linked to shareholder value, is broadly communicated to the public, and is easily understood by employees.employees, and allows for objective comparisons to peer-group performance. The target growth percentage of eightseven percent was slightly above the median expected adjusted earnings performance of companies in our peer group over both a one-year and two-year period, based on published investment analyst estimates. Accordingly,


34


consistent with our compensation objectives, Lillycompany performance exceeding the expected peer-group median would result in above-target payouts, while Lillycompany performance lagging the expected peer-group median would result in below-target payouts. Payouts were determined according to this schedule:


                                 
Adjusted 2008 EPS Growth Less than 3.00% 3.00-4.99% 5.00-6.99% 7.00-8.99% 9.00-10.99% 11.00-12.99% 13.00-15.99% 16.00% +
Percent of Target  0   50%  75%  100%  125%  150%  175%  200%
Payouts for 2009 PAs were determined according to this schedule:
2009 PA
                                          
2009 EPS   Less than $3.90  $3.90-$3.96  $3.97-$4.04  $4.05-$4.12  $4.13-$4.19  $4.20-$4.27  $4.28-$4.34  Greater than $4.34
                                          
Percent of Target
    0%    50%    75%    100%    125%    150%    175%    200% 
                                          
 Pro
2009 pro forma adjusted EPS of $4.42 represented a growth over 2008 pro forma adjusted EPS ($3.82) of 13.6 percent ($4.02 per share)15.7 percent. This top-tier growth within the peer group resulted in a 2008 performance award pay-out2009 PA payout at 175200 percent of target. See page 2937 for a reconciliation of 20082009 reported and pro forma adjusted EPS.
Payouts for2009-2010 PAs will be determined in 2011 based on the schedule below:
2009-2010 PA
                                         
Aggregate2009-2010 EPS   Less than $7.87   $7.87-$8.09  $8.10-$8.33  $8.34-$8.57  $8.58-$8.81  $8.82-$9.06  $9.07-$9.31  Greater than $9.31
                                         
Percent of Target
   0%    50%    75%    100%    125%    150%    175%    200% 
                                         
Equity Incentives—Shareholder Value Awards
Beginning in
In 2007, the company implemented a new equity program, the shareholder value award (SVA), which replaced ourits stock option program with the SVA program. The SVA pays outSVAs are structured as a schedule of shares of Lillycompany stock based on the performance of the company’s stock over a three-year period. No dividends are paid on the awards during the performance period. Payouts range from zero to 140 percent of the target amount, depending on stock price performance over the period. At the end of the performance period, the committee has discretion to adjust an award payout downward (but not upward) from the amount yielded by the formula. The SVA program delivers equity compensation that is strongly linked to long-term total shareholder returns. It is more

27


cost-effective than the stock option program it replaced because the SVA program delivers, at a lower cost to the company, an equity incentive that is equally or more effective in aligning employee interests with long-term shareholder returns. For the 20082009 grants, the committee considered the following:

Shareholder Value Awards:(TEXT)

Three-year performance period
 
Target is determined by applying an expected three-year rate of return for large-cap companies
Payouts must be held one year

Target grant size.As described above, the committee increased target grant sizes for most named executives and maintained a 50/50 split between performance awards and SVAs.
 Company performance measure.The SVA is designed to pay above target if Lillycompany stock outperforms an expected compounded annual rate of return for large-cap companies and below target if Lillycompany stock underperforms that rate of return. The expected rate of return used in this calculation was determined considering total return that a reasonable investor would consider appropriate for investing in the stock of a large-cap U.S. company, less the company’s current dividend yield, based on input from external money managers, less Lilly’s current dividend yield.managers. Executive officers receive no payout if the stock price, (lessless three years of dividends at the current rate)rate, does not grow over the three-year performance period—in other words, if total shareholder return for the three-year period is zero or negative.



 
The starting price for the 20082009-2011 SVAs was $52.71$34.74 per share, representing the average of the closing prices of Lillycompany stock for all trading days in November and December 2007.2008. The ending price to determine payouts will be the average of the closing prices of Lillycompany stock for all trading days in November and December 2010.2011.
 
Payouts of the 2008 grant2009-2011 SVA to executive officers will be determined by this gridschedule when they are paid out in early 2011:2012:
                             
Ending Stock Price Less than $46.79 $46.79-$52.39 $52.40-$57.99 $58.00-$61.99 $62.00-$65.99 $66.00-$69.99 $69.99 +
Percent of Target  0   40%  60%  80%  100%  120%  140%
2009-2011 SVA
                      
   Less than
                  
Ending Stock Price  $28.57  $28.57-$32.78  $32.79-$36.99  $37.00-$39.49  $39.50-$41.99  $42.00-$44.49  Greater than $44.50
                      
Compounded Annual Growth Rate
(adjusted for dividends)
  Less than
(6.3)%
  (6.3)%-(1.9)%  (1.9)%-2.1%  2.1%-4.4%  4.4%-6.5%  6.5% -8.6%  Greater than 8.6%
                      
                      
Percent of Target
  0%  40%  60%  80%  100%  120%  140%
                      
35


Stock Options
The company stopped granting stock options in 2007. All outstanding stock options are currently “under water,” meaning they have no realizable value. The stock option granted in 1999 expired in 2009, and all of the named executive officers forfeited the award having realized no value. These awards (and other expired stock options) were not replaced.
Adjustments for Certain Items
Consistent with past practice, the committee adjusted the results on which 20082009 bonuses and performance awardsPAs were determined to eliminate the distorting effect of certain unusual income or expense items onyear-over-year growth percentages. The adjustments are intended to:
  align award payments with the underlying growth of the core business
 
 avoid volatile, artificial inflation or deflation of awards due to the unusual items in either the award year or the previous (comparator) year
  eliminate certain counterproductive short-term incentives—for example, incentives to refrain from acquiring new technologies or to defer disposing of underutilized assets or settling legacy legal proceedings in order to protect current bonus payments.
To assure the integrity of the adjustments, the committee establishes adjustment guidelines at the beginning of the year. These guidelines are consistent with the company guidelines for reporting adjusted earnings to the investment community, which are reviewed by the audit committee of the board. The adjustments apply equally to income and expense items and must exceed a materiality threshold.items. The compensation committee reviews all adjustments and retains “downward discretion”—i.e., discretion to reduce compensation below the amounts that are yielded by the adjustment guidelines.
For the 20082009 awards calculation, the committee made these adjustments to EPS:
 Both 2007For both 2009 and 2008: Eliminated the impact of (i) significant asset impairments and restructuring charges and (ii) one-time accounting charges for the acquisition of in-process research and development and (ii) significant asset impairments and restructuring charges
 2007:For 2009: Eliminated the impact of special charges related to product liability litigation and the government investigations noted below
 For 2008: Eliminated the impact of (i) the ImClone Systems Incorporated acquisition, (ii) a one-time benefit to income resulting from settlement of a tax audit, and (ii)(iii) special charges related to the resolution of government investigations of prior sales and marketing practices of the company.
 
In addition, to eliminate the distorting effect of the acquisition of ICOS CorporationImClone Systems Incorporated (completed in late January 2007)November 2008) onyear-over-year growth rates, the committee adjusted sales and EPS for 20072008 on a pro forma basis as if the acquisition had been completed at the beginning of 2007. The committee also eliminated the impact on 2008 sales and EPS of the acquisition of ImClone Systems Incorporated (completed in late November 2008).2008.
The adjustments were intended to align award payments more closely towith underlying business growth trends and eliminate volatile swings (up or down) caused by the unusual items. This is demonstrated by the 2006, 2007, 2008, and 20082009 adjustments:

28


(BAR GRAPH)
 
(GRAPH)
Reconciliations of the adjustments to our reported sales and earnings per share are below. The boldbolded numbers were used for calculatingare the growth percentages forused to calculate payouts under the compensation programs.
36


                    
   % Growth     % Growth                  
 2008 2007   2008 vs. 2007   2006   2007 vs. 2006         % Growth
      % Growth
           2009 2008   2009 vs. 2008  2007   2008 vs. 2007
Sales as reported ($ millions) $20,378.0 $18,633.5    9.4%  $15,691.0    18.8%   $21,836.0   $20,371.9   7.2%   $18,633.5   9.3%
Pro forma ICOS adjustment  $72.7       $755.2                  $72.7    
Eliminate ImClone sales in 2008     ($35.6)          
                    
Subtotal—adjusted for ImClone sales only  $21,836.0   $20,336.3       $18,706.2   8.7%
Pro forma ImClone adjustment $35.6                   $324.7           
                              
Sales—pro forma adjusted $20,342.4 $18,706.2    8.7%  $16,446.2    13.7% 
Sales—pro forma adjusted (sales and royalties)  $21,836.0   $20,732.2   5.3%   $18,706.2    
                             
EPS as reported $(1.89) $2.71   NM   $2.45    10.6%   $3.94   ($1.89)  NM   $2.71   NM
Eliminate net impact associated with ImClone acquisition $4.46                   $4.46           
Eliminate charges related to Zyprexa investigations $1.20              
Eliminate IPR&D charges for acquisitions and
in-licensing transactions
 $0.10 $0.63               $0.05   $0.10       $0.63    
Eliminate asset impairments, restructuring and other special charges (including product liability charges) $0.34 $0.21       $0.73      
Eliminate asset impairments, restructuring and other special charges (including charges related to litigation and government investigations)  $0.42   $1.54       $0.21    
Eliminate benefit from resolution of IRS audit $(0.19)                   ($0.19)          
Proforma ICOS adjustment            ($0.01)   
                              
EPS—adjusted $4.02 $3.55       $3.18      
Pro forma ICOS adjustment  $(0.01)      $(0.15)     
EPS—pro forma adjusted (ICOS only)  $4.42   $4.02       $3.54   13.6%
Pro forma ImClone adjustment     ($0.20)           
                             
EPS—pro forma adjusted $4.02 $3.54    13.6%  $3.03    16.8% 
EPS—pro forma adjusted (ImClone only)  $4.42   $3.82   15.7%       
                          
NM—Not meaningful
The bonus paidNumbers in the 2009 column do not add due to all management was based on 13.6 percent growth between the adjusted EPS of $3.54 for 2007 and $4.02 for 2008.rounding.
Equity Incentive Grant Mechanics and Timing
The committee approves target grant values for equity incentives prior to the grant date. On the grant date, those values are converted to shares based on:
  the closing price of Lillycompany stock on the grant date
  the same valuation methodology the company uses to determine the accounting expense of the grants under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 123R.Board Accounting Standards Codification (FASB ASC) Topic 718.
The committee’s procedure for the timing of equity grants assures that grant timing is not being manipulated for employee gain. The annual equity grant date for all eligible employees is in mid-February. ThisThe committee establishes this date is established by the committee well in advance—typically at the committee’s October meeting.in October. The mid-February grant date timing is driven by these considerations:
  It coincides with the company’scalendar-year-based performance management cycle, allowing supervisors to deliver the equity awards close in time to performance appraisals, which increases the impact of the awards by strengthening the link between pay and performance.
 
  It follows the annual earnings release by approximately two weeks, so that the stock price at that time can reasonably be expected to fairly represent the market’s collective view of our then-current results and prospects.
Grants to new hires and other off-cycle grants are effective on the first trading day of the following month.

29


Employee and Post-Employment Benefits
The company offers core employee benefits coverage in order to:
  provide our global workforce with a reasonable level of financial support in the event of illness or injury
 
  enhance productivity and job satisfaction through programs that focus on work/life balance.
The benefits available are the same for all U.S. employees and include medical and dental coverage, disability insurance, and life insurance.
In addition, the Lilly 401(k) Planplan and theThe Lilly Retirement Plan (the retirement plan) provide a reasonable level of retirement income reflecting employees’ careers with the company. U.S. employees are eligible to participate in these plans. To the extent that any employee’s retirement benefit exceeds IRS limits for amounts that can be paid through a qualified plan, Lillythe company also offers a nonqualified pension plan and a nonqualified savings plan. These plans provide only the difference between the calculated benefits and the IRS limits, and the formula is the same for all U.S. employees.
 
37


The cost of both employee and post-employment benefits is partially borne by the employee, including each executive officer.
Perquisites
Perquisites
The company provides very limited perquisites to executive officers. The company aircraft is made available for the personal use of Dr. Lechleiter, where the committee believes the security and efficiency benefits to the company clearly outweigh the expense. TheDr. Lechleiter did not use the corporate aircraft for personal flights during 2009. Until March 1, 2009, the company aircraft was similarly made available to Mr. Taurel prior to his retirement and is also made available to other executive officers for the more limited purpose of travel to outside board meetings. In addition, dependingHowever, the company no longer allows this use. Depending on seat availability, family members of executive officers may travel on the company aircraft to accompany executives who are traveling on business. There is no incremental cost to the company for these trips.
     Mr. Taurel’s primary use of corporate aircraft for personal flights in 2008 was to attend outside board meetings for the two public companies at which he serves as an independent director. The committee believes that Mr. Taurel’s service on these boards, and his ability to conduct Lilly business while traveling to board meetings, provided clear benefits to the company. Mr. Taurel entered into a time-share arrangement (now ended) for use of corporate aircraft under which he paid the company a lease fee for personal use, other than for attending outside board meetings. This amount offset part of the company’s incremental cost of providing the aircraft. Dr. Lechleiter had minimal use of the corporate aircraft for personal flights during 2008. Mr. Rice’s personal use of the aircraft was limited to travel to outside board meetings.
The Lilly Deferred Compensation ProgramPlan
Executives may defer receipt of part or all of their cash compensation under the company’sThe Lilly Deferred Compensation Plan (the deferred compensation program.plan). The programplan allows executives to save for retirement in a tax-effective way at minimal cost to the company. Under this unfunded program,plan, amounts deferred by the executive are credited at an interest rate of 120 percent of the applicable federal long-term rate, as described in more detail following the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 20082009 table on page 40.48.
Severance Benefits
Except in the case of a change in control of the company, the company is not obligated to pay severance to named executive officers upon termination of their employment.employment; any such payments are at the discretion of the committee. See footnote 2 to the Potential Payments Upon Termination of Employment table on page 50 for a description of a severance arrangement for Dr. Paul.
The company has adopted achange-in-control severance pay programplan for nearly all employees of the company, including the executive officers. The programplan is intended to preserve employee morale and productivity and encourage retention in the face of the disruptive impact of an actual or rumored change in control of the company.control. In addition, for executives, the programplan is intended to align executive and shareholder interests by enabling executives to consider corporate transactions that are in the best interests of the shareholders and other constituents of the company without undue concern over whether the transactions may jeopardize the executives’ own employment. Because this program is guided by different objectives than the regular compensation program, decisions made under this program do not affect the regular compensation program.
Although there are some differences in benefit levels depending on the employee’s job level and seniority, the basic elements of the programplan are comparable for all regular employees:
  Double trigger.Unlike “single trigger” plans that pay out immediately upon a change in control, the Lilly programcompany plan generally requires a “double trigger”—a change in control followed by an involuntary loss of employment within two years thereafter. This is consistent with the purpose of the program,plan, which is to provide employees with a guaranteed level of financial protection upon loss of employment. A partial exception is made for performance

30


awards,outstanding PAs, a portion of which would be paid out upon a change in control on a pro-rated basis for time worked based on time worked up to the change in control and the target or forecasted payout level at the time of the change in control. The committee believes this partial payment is appropriate because of the difficulties in converting the Lillycompany EPS targets into an award based on the surviving company’s EPS. Likewise, if Lilly is not the surviving entity, a portion of the shareholder value awardsoutstanding SVAs is paid out based on a pro-rated basis for time worked up to the change in control andbased on the merger price for Lillycompany stock.
  Covered terminations.Employees are eligible for payments if, within two years of the change in control, their employment is terminated (i) without cause by the company or (ii) for good reason by the employee, each as is defined in the program.
plan. Seepages 41-4350-52 for a more detailed discussion, including a discussion of what constitutes a change in control.
  Two-year protections.Employees who suffer a covered termination receive up to two years of pay and benefitbenefits protection. The purpose of theseThese provisions is to assure employees a reasonable period of protection of their income and core employee benefits upon which they depend for financial security.

Change In Control Severance:
All-employee plan
Double trigger
Two-year protection period

(TEXT)
 Severance payment.Eligible terminated employees would receive a severance payment ranging from six months’ to two years’ base salary. Executives are all eligible for two years’ base salary plus cash bonus, (withwith bonus established as the higher of the then-current year’s bonus target bonus or the last bonus paid prior to the change in control).control. Beginning in October 2010, the bonus portion of this payment will be established based on bonus target only.
 Benefit continuation.Basic employee benefits such as health and life insurance would be continued for up to two years following termination of employment. All executives, including named executive officers, are entitled to two years’ benefit continuation. This period will be reduced to 18 months beginning in October 2010.

 Pension supplement.Under the portion of the programplan covering executives, a terminated employee would be entitled to a supplement of two years of
38


age credit and two years of service credit for purposes of calculating eligibility and benefit levels under the company’s defined benefit pensionretirement plan. This benefit will be eliminated beginning in October 2010.

  Accelerated vesting of equity awards.Any unvested equity awards at the time of termination of employment would become vested.
  Excise tax.In some circumstances, the payments or other benefits received by the employee in connection with a change in control maycould exceed certain limits established under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code. The employee would then be subject to an excise tax on top of normal federal income tax. Because of the way the excise tax is calculated, it can impose a large burden on some employees while similarly compensated employees will not be subject to the tax. The costs of this excise tax—but not the regular income tax—tax and associatedgross-upswould be borne by the company. (Employees would pay income tax resulting from severance payments.) To avoid triggering the excise tax, payments that would otherwise be due under the programplan that are up to three percent over the IRS limit will be cut back to the IRS limit. Effective in October 2010, this cutback threshold will be raised to five percent above the IRS limit.
Share Ownership and Retention Guidelines; Hedging Prohibition
Share ownership and retention guidelines help to foster a focus on long-term growth. The committee has adopted a guideline requiring the CEO to own Lillycompany stock valued at least five times his or her annual base salary, andsalary. The committee revised the guidelines in 2009 for other executive officers to own at least three times their annual baserequire ownership of a fixed number of shares based on position rather than a multiple of salary. A phase-inThe fixed number of up to five yearsshares eliminates volatility in the share ownership requirements that can occur with sharp movements in share price. Until the guideline level is provided for newly hired or promotedreached, the executive officers. Individual shareholding requirements were set at the beginningofficer must retain all existing holdings as well as 50 percent of 2008, and will be reset for each individual periodically or when their job changes significantly. Lillynet shares resulting from new equity payouts. Our executives have a long history of maintaining extensive holdings in Lillycompany stock, and all established executive officers already meet or exceed the guideline, or in the case ofguideline. All new executive officers are on track to meet or exceed the guideline within the phase-in period. As of his retirement, Mr. Taurel held shares valued at 50 times his salary andnext few years. Dr. Lechleiter currently holds shares valued, as of year-end 2008,2009, at sevenover 11 times his salary. The following table shows the required share levels for the named executive officers:
 
                
   Prior Share
   Revised Share
   Meets
 
Executive  Requirement   Requirement   Requirement 
Dr. Lechleiter  five times base salary   Yes 
                
Dr. Paul   54,393    55,000    Yes 
                
Mr. Carmine   49,897    55,000    Yes 
                
Mr. Rice   42,407    55,000    Yes 
                
Mr. Armitage   42,008    42,000    Yes 
                
Executive officers are also required to retain all shares received from the company equity programs, net of acquisition costs and taxes, for at least one year. In addition, anyyear, even once share requirements have been met. For PAs, this requirement is met by paying the award in the form of restricted stock units. As a result, executive officer who does not meetofficers experienced the same type of financial loss from the decline in stock ownership guideline must retain all net shares until the requisite ownership level is achieved.
value during 2009 as other company shareholders. Employees are not permitted to hedge their economic exposures to the Lillycompany stock that they own through short sales or derivative transactions.
Tax Deductibility Cap on Executive Compensation
U.S. federal income tax law prohibits the company from taking a tax deduction for certain compensation paid in excess of $1,000,000 to certain executive officers. However, performance-based compensation is fully deductible if the programs are approved by shareholders and meet other requirements. Our policy is to qualify our incentive compensation programs for full corporate deductibility to the extent feasible and consistent with our overall compensation objectives.

31


We have taken steps to qualify cash bonus compensation, performanceall incentive awards (bonuses, PAs, and SVAsSVAs) for full deductibility as “performance-based compensation.” The committee may make payments that are not fully deductible if, in its judgment, such payments are necessary to achieve the company’s compensation objectives and to protect shareholder interests. For 2008,2009, the non-deductible compensation under this law for Dr. Lechleiter was essentially equal toslightly less than the portion of hiseach of Dr. Lechleiter’s and Dr. Paul’s base salarysalaries that exceeded $1,000,000 as shown in the Summary Compensation Table. Mr. Taurel’s non-deductible compensation was approximately the amount listed under “All Other Compensation” in the Summary Compensation Table.
Executive Compensation Recovery Policy and Other Risk Mitigation Tools
AnyAll incentive awards including SVAs, are subject to forfeiture prior to payment forupon termination of employment or for disciplinary reasons. In addition,2009, the committee has adopted an expanded executive compensation recovery policy applicable to executive officers. Under this policy, theThe company maycan recover incentive compensation (cash or equity) that was based on achievement of financial results that were subsequently the subject of a restatement if anthe executive officer engaged in intentional misconduct that caused or partially caused the need for the restatement and the effect of the wrongdoing was to increase the amount of bonus or incentive compensation. The expanded policy also permits the recovery or “claw back” of all or a portion of any incentive compensation or payment in the case of
39


materially inaccurate financial statements or material errors in the performance calculation, whether or not they result in a restatement and whether or not the executive officer has engaged in wrongful conduct. Recoveries under this “no-fault” provision cannot extend back more than two years.
The recovery policy applies to any incentive compensation awarded or paid to an employee at a time when he or she is an executive officer. Subsequent changes in status, including retirement or termination of employment, do not affect the company’s rights to recover compensation under the policy.
In addition to the executive compensation recovery policy, the committee and management have implemented a three-pronged approachcompensation-program design features to minimizingmitigate the risk of compensation programs encouraging misconduct or undueexcessive risk-taking. First, incentive programs are designed using a diversity of meaningful financial metrics (growth in total shareholder return, measured over three years, net sales, and EPS, measured over one and two years), thus providing a balanced approach between short- and long-term performance. The committee reviews incentive programs each year against the objectives of the programs, assesses any features that could encourage excessive risk-taking, and makes changes as necessary. Second, management has implemented effective controls that minimize unintended and willful reporting errors. Third, if despite these actions an executive officer’s fraudulent conduct leads to “ill-gotten gains” due to misstated financial results, the committee will “claw back” the portion of a bonus or performance award attributed to the misstatement.
The committee does not believe it is practical to apply a specific claw-back policy to the shareholder value awardSVAs since it is very difficult to isolate the amount, if any, by which the stock price benefitedmight benefit from misstated earnings over thea three-year performance period. In this case, the committee has the authority to exercise negativedownward discretion to reduce or withhold payouts.
2010 Compensation Actions
Several changes to the company’s executive compensation program will take effect in 2010:
• In light of the business challenges the company faces, Dr. Lechleiter requested that he receive no increase in base salary or incentive targets in 2010. The committee agreed to maintain his 2009 compensation package for 2010.
• The transition from a one-year PA to a two-year PA will be completed, and PA targets will be revised to have a threshold payout of 50 percent of target (rather than zero) and a maximum payout of 150 percent of target (rather than 200 percent).
• Changes to the change in control severance pay plans that generally reduce benefits are effective October 2010.
• Changes to the retirement and retiree medical plans that reduce benefits for employees retiring prior to age 65 were effective January 2010.
Compensation Committee Report
The compensation committee (“we” or “the committee”) evaluates and establishes compensation for executive officers and oversees the deferred compensation plan, the company’s management stock plans, and other management incentive, benefit, and perquisite programs. Management has the primary responsibility for the company’s financial statements and reporting process, including the disclosure of executive compensation. With this in mind, we have reviewed and discussed with management the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” found on pages 22-3228-40 of this proxy statement. The committee is satisfied that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” fairly and completely represents the philosophy, intent, and actions of the committee with regard to executive compensation. We recommended to the board of directors that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” be included in this proxy statement for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.SEC.
Compensation Committee
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D., Chair
Michael L. Eskew
J. Erik Fyrwald
R. David Hoover
Ellen R. Marram

32

40


 

Summary Compensation Table1
                                 
                  Non-Equity      
           Stock   Option  Incentive Plan Change in All Other Total
Name and Principal     Salary Awards Awards Compensation Pension Value Compensation Compensation
Position Year ($) ($)2 ($)2 ($)3 ($)4 ($)5 ($)
Sidney Taurel  2008  $1,080,313  $8,353,333  $0  $2,329,154  $456,787  $839,428  $13,059,014 
Chairman Emeritus  2007  $1,717,417  $6,443,000  $600,000  $4,035,929  $0  $215,044  $13,011,390 
   2006  $1,650,333  $5,400,000  $3,805,333  $2,764,308  $1,417,434  $192,409  $15,229,817 
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.  2008  $1,339,125  $6,621,333  $0  $2,709,053  $2,221,597  $87,107  $12,978,215 
Chairman, President, and Chief  2007  $1,149,083  $4,641,000  $390,000  $2,160,277  $921,394  $70,761  $9,332,515 
Executive Officer  2006  $1,112,000  $3,510,000  $3,967,976  $1,490,080  $1,156,247  $68,790  $11,305,093 
Steven M. Paul, M.D.  2008  $1,000,250  $3,194,250  $0  $1,309,327  $997,863  $18,372  $6,520,062 
Executive Vice President,  2007  $960,333  $2,852,671  $200,000  $1,534,613  $396,687  $13,500  $5,957,804 
Science and Technology  2006  $916,167  $1,864,460  $1,240,000  $1,043,514  $607,463  $55,789  $5,727,393 
Bryce D. Carmine  2008  $783,113  $2,958,333  $0  $1,006,135  $1,158,720  $55,789  $5,962,090 
Executive Vice President,
Global Marketing and Sales
                                
Derica W. Rice  2008  $834,117  $2,485,000  $318,133  $1,027,632  $455,226  $86,034  $5,206,142 
Senior Vice President and  2007  $747,583  $1,995,000  $473,675  $1,054,093  $194,469  $78,787  $4,543,607 
Chief Financial Officer  2006  $615,000  $675,000  $590,928  $580,466  $168,627  $37,722  $2,667,743 
Robert A. Armitage  2008  $778,767  $1,852,500  $375,000  $959,441  $439,374  $53,138  $4,458,219 
Senior Vice President and  2007  $741,667  $1,995,000  $716,400  $1,045,750  $232,697  $45,551  $4,777,065 
General Counsel  2006  $701,657  $1,394,053  $1,339,911  $705,165  $231,862  $42,691  $4,415,339 
                                         
               Non-Equity
         
               Incentive Plan
  Change in
  All Other
  Total
      Salary
  Stock Awards
  Option Awards
  Compensation
  Pension Value
  Compensation
  Compensation
Name and Principal Position  Year  ($)  ($)2  ($)2  ($)3  ($)4  ($)5  ($)
 
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.1
   2009   $1,483,333   $11,250,000         $0   $3,551,100   $4,553,125   $90,091   $20,927,649 
Chairman, President, and   2008   $1,339,125   $8,125,000    $0   $2,709,053   $2,221,597   $87,107   $14,481,882 
Chief Executive Officer   2007   $1,149,083   $4,972,500    $0   $2,160,277   $921,394   $70,761   $9,274,015 
                                         
Steven M. Paul, M.D.    2009   $1,023,450   $4,500,000    $0   $1,575,090   $2,302,595   $16,682   $9,417,817 
Executive Vice President,   2008   $1,000,250   $3,750,000    $0   $1,309,327   $1,586,474   $18,372   $7,664,423 
Science and Technology
and President, Lilly Research
Laboratories
   2007   $960,333   $3,000,000    $0   $1,534,613   $738,461   $13,500   $6,246,907 
                                         
Bryce D. Carmine   2009   $916,667   $4,500,000    $0   $1,410,750   $1,776,537   $57,001   $8,660,955 
Executive Vice President and
President, Lilly Bio-Medicines
   2008   $783,113   $3,750,000    $0   $1,006,135   $1,158,720   $53,497   $6,751,465 
                                         
Derica W. Rice   2009   $892,500   $4,500,000    $0   $1,220,940   $977,741   $54,838   $7,646,019 
Executive Vice President,   2008   $834,117   $3,000,000    $0   $1,027,632   $455,226   $86,034   $5,403,009 
Global Services and Chief
Financial Officer
   2007   $747,583   $2,137,500    $0   $1,054,093   $194,469   $78,787   $4,212,432 
                                         
Robert A. Armitage   2009   $811,167   $3,000,000    $0   $1,109,676   $775,287   $49,902   $5,746,032 
Senior Vice President and   2008   $778,767   $2,137,500    $0   $959,441   $536,284   $53,138   $4,465,130 
General Counsel   2007   $741,667   $2,137,500    $0   $1,045,750   $297,722   $45,551   $4,268,190 
                                         
 
1Supplement to the Summary Compensation Table.As discussed in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” both a one-year and a two-year PA were granted in 2009, as part of our transition to a two-year award, which was implemented in response to shareholder feedback. The two grants in 2009 provided the opportunity for participants to receiveone and only one PA payout each year—without skipping a year. For each member of global management (including executive officers), the grant date fair market value of the one-year and two-year awards was the same. The supplemental table below shows total 2009 compensation for Dr. Lechleiter, including one PA grant, which the company believes is more representative of his annual compensation. In addition, changes in interest rates resulted in a significant change in pension value in 2009 (see footnote 4 below). The change in pension value has been restated using the same interest-rate assumption used in 2008.
                                         
               Non-Equity
         
               Incentive Plan
  Change in
  All Other
  Total
      Salary
  Stock Awards
  Option Awards
  Compensation
  Pension Value
  Compensation
  Compensation
Name and Principal Position  Year  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)
 
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.   2009   $1,483,333   $7,500,000   $0   $3,551,100   $3,280,584   $90,091   $15,905,108 
Chairman, President and Chief   2008   $1,339,125   $8,125,000   $0   $2,709,053   $2,221,597   $87,107   $14,481,882 
Executive Officer   2007   $1,149,083   $4,972,500   $0   $2,160,277   $921,394   $70,761   $9,274,015 
 
Without these two factors, Dr. Lechleiter’s reported compensation would have increased 9.8 percent over 2008, which is consistent with his promotion to CEO during 2008, his assumption of the role of chairman of the board in 2009, and the company’s strong financial performance for 2009. The increase in Dr. Lechleiter’s 2009 total compensation includes increases to his base salary, bonus target, and equity grant targets and reflects strong company performance measured by growth in revenue and EPS, but lagging performance in total shareholder return. (See the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for key company performance metrics and their impact on Dr. Lechleiter’s 2009 compensation.)
2These columns show the grant date fair value of awards computed in accordance with stock-based compensation accounting rules (FASB ASC Topic 718). Values for awards subject to performance conditions (PAs) are computed based upon the probable outcome of the performance condition as of the grant date. (See the table on page 34 for target grant values for the 2008 and 2009 equity awards.) A discussion of assumptions used in calculating award values may be found in Note 8 to our 2009 audited financial statements in ourForm 10-K.
41


  The table below shows the minimum and maximum possible payout for each PA grant included in the “Stock Awards” column of the Summary Compensation Table (actual payouts for 2009 PAs are shown on page 44).
NameAward TypePayout DateMinimum PayoutMaximum Payout
Dr. Lechleiter2009 PA
2009-2010 PA
January 2010
January 2011
$0
$0
$7,500,000
$7,500,000
Dr. Paul2009 PA
2009-2010 PA
January 2010
January 2011
$0
$0
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Mr. Carmine2009 PA
2009-2010 PA
January 2010
January 2011
$0
$0
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Mr. Rice2009 PA
2009-2010 PA
January 2010
January 2011
$0
$0
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Mr. Armitage2009 PA
2009-2010 PA
January 2010
January 2011
$0
$0
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
3Payments for 2009 performance were made in March 2010 under the bonus plan. No bonus was paid to a named executive officer except as part of a non-equity incentive plan.
2A discussion of the assumptions used in calculating these values may be found in Note 8 to our 2008 audited financial statements on pages 50–52 of our annual report. No stock options were granted in 2008. Outstanding options are expensed at a faster rate for individuals who are eligible to retire. As a result, Mr. Armitage’s options were expensed entirely during 2008, and only Mr. Rice’s outstanding options are still being expensed.
3Payments for 2008 performance were made in March 2009 under the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan.
4The amounts in this column are the change in pension value for each individual.individual, calculated by our actuary. The increase in incremental values in 2009 over 2008 was driven largely by the decrease in the discount rate from 6.9 percent in 2008 to 6.0 percent in 2009, reflecting changes in interest rates. The impact of this change is shown for Dr. Lechleiter in the supplemental table in footnote 1 above. Dr. Paul’s increase in value was also affected by 10 years of additional service credit described on page 48. No named executive officer received preferential or above-market earnings on deferred compensation.
5The table below shows the components of thisthe “All Other Compensation” column for 20062007 through 2008,2009, which includeincludes the company match for each individual’s savings plan contributions, tax reimbursements, and perquisites.
                         
       Savings   Tax          Total
“All Other
Name Year Plan Match Reimbursements1 Perquisites2 Other Compensation”
Mr. Taurel  2008  $64,819  $752,7683 $21,840  $0  $839,428 
   2007  $103,045  $2,731  $109,268  $0  $215,044 
   2006  $99,020  $1,382  $92,007  $0  $192,409 
Dr. Lechleiter  2008  $80,348  $6,759  $0  $0  $87,107 
   2007  $68,945  $1,816  $0  $0  $70,761 
   2006  $66,720  $2,070  $0  $0  $68,790 
Dr. Paul  2008  $13,800  $4,572  $0  $0  $18,372 
   2007  $13,500  $0  $0  $0  $13,500 
   2006  $54,970  $819  $0  $0  $55,789 
Mr. Carmine  2008  $46,987  $6,510  $0  $0  $53,497 
Mr. Rice  2008  $50,047  $6,246  $29,741  $0  $86,034 
   2007  $44,855  $15,0304 $0  $18,9025 $78,787 
   2006  $36,900  $822  $0  $0  $37,722 
Mr. Armitage  2008  $46,726  $6,412  $0  $0  $53,138 
   2007  $44,500  $1,051  $0  $0  $45,551 
   2006  $42,099  $592  $0  $0  $42,691 
Savings Plan
Tax
Total “All Other
NameYearMatchReimbursements1PerquisitesOtherCompensation”
Dr. Lechleiter2009
2008
2007
$89,000
$80,348
$68,945
$1,091
$6,759
$1,816
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$90,091
$87,107
$70,761
Dr. Paul2009
2008
2007
$14,700
$13,800
$13,500
$1,982
$4,572
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,682
$18,372
$13,500
Mr. Carmine2009
2008
$55,000
$46,987
$2,001
$6,510
$0
$0
$0
$0
$57,001
$53,497
Mr. Rice2009
2008
2007
$53,550
$50,047
$44,855
$1,288
$6,246
$15,030
3$0
$29,741
$0

  2
$0
$0
$18,902
4$54,838
$86,034
$78,787
Mr. Armitage2009
2008
2007
$48,670
$46,726
$44,500
$1,232
$6,412
$1,051
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,902
$53,138
$45,551
1TaxThese amounts reflect tax reimbursements for expenses for each executive’s spouse to attend certain company functions involving spouse participation. Beginning in 2010, the company will no longer reimburse executive officers for these taxes. For Mr. Taurel and Mr. Rice, these amounts include taxes on income imputed for use of the corporate aircraft to attend outside board meetings.
2These amounts include the incremental cost to the company of use of the corporate aircraft to attend outside board meetings and, for Mr. Taurels, one personal trip in 2007, offset by Mr. Taurel’s reimbursement under the time-share agreement. The incremental cost of Mr. Taurel’s use of the corporate aircraft was $10,218 in 2008, $107,105 in 2007 and $91,069 in 2006. Mr. Rice’s use of the corporate aircraft was $25,839 in 2008. The amountsamount in this column also include Mrs. Taurel’s andincludes Mrs. Nelson-Rice’s expenses to attend boardcertain company functions that includedinvolving spouse participation. In addition, Mr. Taurel’s family members have occasionally accompanied him on

33


business trips, at no incremental cost to the company. We calculate the incremental cost to the company of any personal use of the corporate aircraft based on the cost of fuel, trip-related maintenance, crew travel expenses, on-board catering, landing fees, trip-related hangar and parking costs, and smaller variable costs, offset by any time-share lease payments by the executive. Since the company-owned aircraft are used primarily for business travel, we do not include the fixed costs that do not change based on usage, such as pilots’ salaries, the purchase costs of the company-owned aircraft, and the cost of maintenance not related to trips. As of March 1, 2009, executive officers are no longer permitted to use corporate aircraft to attend outside board meetings.
3This amount includes tax payments and related reimbursements totaling $720,360 related to the FICA tax payment made by the company for Mr. Taurel on benefits he accrued under the company’s nonqualified pension plan. All participants in the nonqualified pension plan are eligible for this one-time reimbursement upon retirement. Payments are made directly to the IRS, not to the employee.
4For Mr. Rice, this amount includes $13,051 in tax reimbursements in 2007 for the payment described in footnote 54 below.
42


54Reimbursement for an over-withholding of taxes by the company in a prior year when Mr. Rice was on an overseas assignment.
We have no employment agreements with our named executive officers. See, however, the description ofHowever, Dr. Paul and Mr. Armitage have been credited with additional years of service that may be credited to certain named executive officers (page 39)(see page 48).
Grants of Plan-Based Awards During 20082009
The compensation plans under which the grants in the following table were made are generally described in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”, beginning on page 22, and include the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan, abonus plan (a non-equity incentive plan,plan) and the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan which(which provides for performance awards, shareholder value awards,PAs, SVAs, stock options, restricted stock grants, and stock units.units).
                              
                                                            All Other
   
 Estimated Possible Payouts Estimated Possible and Future All Other          Estimated Possible Payouts
  Estimated Possible and Future
  Option
   
 Under Non-Equity Payouts Under Equity Option          Under Non-Equity
  Payouts Under Equity
  Awards:
   
 Incentive Plan Awards1 Incentive Plan Awards2 Awards: Number Grant Date        Incentive Plan Awards1  Incentive Plan Awards2  Number of
  Grant Date
 Compensation     of Securities Fair Value     Compensation
        Securities
  Fair Value
 Committee Threshold Target Maximum Threshold Target Maximum Underlying of Equity     Committee
  Threshold
  Target
  Maximum
  Threshold
  Target
  Maximum
  Underlying
  of Equity
Name Grant Date Action Date ($) ($) ($) (# shares) (# shares) (# shares) Options3 Shares  Grant Date  Action Date  ($)  ($)  ($)  (# shares)  (# shares)  (# shares)  Options3  Awards
Mr. Taurel   $226,866 $1,512,438 $3,024,875    
  2/7/20084 12/17/2007     39,047 78,094 156,189 $4,000,000 
  2/7/20085 12/17/2007     42,542 106,355 148,897 $4,000,000 
   0 
Dr. Lechleiter   $263,869 $1,759,125 $3,518,250     
2/9/20094
2/9/20095
2/9/20096
   
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
    $51,917
    $2,076,667
    $4,153,333
    
51,839
54,953
48,749
    
103,677
109,906
121,872
    
207,354
219,812
170,621
    



0
    
$3,750,000
$3,750,000
$3,750,000
 
  2/7/20084 12/17/2007     31,726 63,452 126,904 $3,250,000 
  2/7/20085 12/17/2007     34,565 86,414 120,980 $3,250,000 
   0                                         
Dr. Paul   $127,532 $850,213 $1,700,425    
2/9/20094
2/9/20095
2/9/20096
   
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
    $23,028



    $921,105



    $1,842,210



    
20,736
21,981
19,500
    
41,471
43,962
48,749
    
82,942
87,924
68,250
    



0
    
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
 
  2/7/20084 12/17/2007     14,643 29,285 58,571 $1,500,000                                         
  2/7/20085 12/17/2007     15,953 39,884 55,838 $1,500,000 
     0 
Mr. Carmine   $98,000 $653,334 $1,306,669     
2/9/20094
2/9/20095
2/9/20096
   
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
    $20,625



    $825,000



    $1,650,000



    
20,736
21,981
19,500
    
41,471
43,962
48,749
    
82,942
87,924
68,250
    



0
    
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
 
  2/7/20084 12/17/2007     14,643 29,285 58,571 $1,500,000 
  2/7/20085 12/17/2007     15,953 39,884 55,838 $1,500,000 
     0 
Mr. Rice   $100,094 $667,293 $1,334,587     
2/9/20094
2/9/20095
2/9/20096
   
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
    $17,850



    $714,000



    $1,428,000



    
20,736
21,981
19,500
    
41,471
43,962
48,749
    
82,942
87,924
68,250
    



0
    
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
 
  2/7/20084 12/17/2007   11,714 23,428 46,857 $1,200,000 
  2/7/20085 12/17/2007   12,762 31,907 44,670 $1,200,000 
   0 
Mr. Armitage   $93,452 $623,013 $1,246,027     
2/9/20094
2/9/20095
2/9/20096
   
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
    $16,223



    $648,933



    $1,297,867



    
13,824
14,654
13,000
    
27,647
29,308
32,499
    
55,294
58,616
45,499
    



0
    
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
 
  2/7/20084 12/17/2007   8,346 16,693 33,385 $855,000 
  2/7/20085 12/17/2007   9,093 22,734 31,828 $855,000 
   0 
 
1These columns show the threshold, target, and maximum payouts for 2008 performance under the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan.bonus plan. As described in the section titled “Cash Incentive Bonuses” in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” bonus payouts range from zero to 200 percent of target. The 2009 bonus payment for 20082009 performance has been made based on the metrics described, at 154171 percent of target, and is shownincluded in the Summary Compensation Table in the column titled “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.”
2These columns show the range of payouts targeted for 20082009 performance under the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan as described in the sections titledtitled: “Equity Incentives—Performance Awards” and “Equity Incentives—Shareholder Value Awards” in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”
3No stock options were granted to named executive officers in 2008.

34


4These rows show performance award grants. The dollar amount recognized as expense by the company for these performance awards is shown in the Summary Compensation Table in the column titled “Stock Awards” and their valuation assumptions are referenced in footnote 2 to that table. Performance award PA payouts range from zero to 200 percent of target. The 2008 performance award payout was made in January 2009 and is shown in more detail below.
5These rows show SVA grants. SVA payouts range from zero to 140 percent of target.
3No stock options were granted in 2009. The company stopped granting stock options in 2007.
4These rows show the 2009 PA grants. The 2009 PA payout foris shown in more detail below.
5These rows show the 2008 shareholder value award2009-2010 PA grants. The2009-2010 PA payout will be determined in January 2011.
6These rows show the2009-2011 SVA grants. The payout for the2009-2011 SVA will be determined in January 2012.
 Our performance awards
43


The two-year PA, granted in 20082009, will pay out in January 2011 based on cumulative EPS for 2009 and 2010. The transitional one-year PA, granted in 2009, paid out in January 2009,2010, and the named executive officers received the following shares or restricted share units:
         
  Performance Value on
Name Awards December 31, 2008
Mr. Taurel  136,665  $5,503,514 
Dr. Lechleiter  111,041  $4,471,605 
Dr. Paul  51,249  $2,063,797 
Mr. Carmine  51,249  $2,063,797 
Mr. Rice  40,999  $1,651,030 
Mr. Armitage  29,213  $1,176,408 
units shown in the table below. For 20082009 performance, payouts were 175200 percent of target. In order toTo receive a performance awardPA payout, a participant must have remained employed with the company through December 31, 20082009 (except in the case of death, disability, or retirement). In addition, an executiveemployee who was an executive officer at the time of grant and an employee at the time of payout received payment in restricted share units.
No dividends accrue on either PAs or SVAs during the performance period. Non-preferential dividends are accrued during the PAs’ one-year restriction period and are paid upon vesting. Each executive was awarded the sharerestricted stock units identified above,in the table below, and the units will remain restricted (and subject to forfeiture if the executive resigns) until February 2010,2011, at which time the units will be paid out in the form of shares. Mr. Taurel’s shares vested upon his retirement fromBeginning in 2010, the company on December 31, 2008.threshold payout for PAs will be 50 percent of target (rather than zero) and the maximum payout will be 150 percent of target (rather than 200 percent).
 Our shareholder value awards
           
Name  Performance Awards  Value at Payout
Dr. Lechleiter   207,354    $7,497,921 
Dr. Paul   82,942    $2,999,183 
Mr. Carmine   82,942    $2,999,183 
Mr. Rice   82,942    $2,999,183 
Mr. Armitage   55,294    $1,999,431 
           
SVAs granted in 20082009 will pay out at the end of the three-year performance period according to the grid shownschedule on page 2835 of the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

35

44


 

Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 20082009
                                    
   Option Awards  Stock Awards
                     Equity Incentive
                  Equity Incentive
  Plan Awards:
                  Plan Awards:
  Market or
   Number of
              Number of
  Payout Value
   Securities
              Unearned
  of Unearned
   Underlying
           Market Value of
  Shares, Units,
  Shares, Units,
   Unexercised
  Option
     Number of Shares
  Shares or Units
  or Other Rights
  or Other Rights
   Options
  Exercise
  Option
  or Units of Stock
  of Stock That
  That Have
  That Have
   (#)1
  Price
  Expiration
  That Have
  Have Not
  Not Vested
  Not Vested
Name  Exercisable  ($)  Date  Not Vested (#)  Vested ($)  (#)  ($)
Dr. Lechleiter                            121,8722   $4,352,049 
                             86,4133   $3,085,808 
                             219,8124   $7,849,487 
                   207,3545   $7,404,611           
                   111,0416   $3,965,274           
    140,964   $56.18    2/9/2016                     
    127,811   $55.65    2/10/2015                     
    200,000   $73.11    2/14/2014                     
    120,000   $57.85    2/15/2013                     
    120,0008  $75.92    2/17/2012                     
    60,000   $79.28    10/4/2011                     
    10,000   $88.41    12/17/2010                     
    100,000   $88.41    12/17/2010                     
                                    
Dr. Paul                            48,7492   $1,740,827 
                             39,8833   $1,424,222 
                             87,9244   $3,139,766 
                   82,9425   $2,961,859           
                   51,2496   $1,830,102           
                   5,0007   $178,550           
    72,289   $56.18    2/28/2015                     
    85,207   $55.65    2/10/2015                     
    120,000   $73.11    2/14/2014                     
    50,000   $57.85    2/15/2013                     
    46,000   $75.92    2/17/2012                     
    23,000   $79.28    10/4/2011                     
    75,900   $73.98    2/18/2011                     
    25,000   $88.41    12/17/2010                     
    25,000   $88.41    12/17/2010                     
    50,000   $88.41    12/17/2010                     
                                    
Mr. Carmine                            48,7492   $1,740,827 
                             39,8833   $1,424,222 
                             87,9244   $3,139,766 
                   82,9425   $2,961,859           
                   51,2496   $1,830,102           
    37,651   $56.18    2/9/2016                     
    42,604   $55.65    2/10/2015                     
    55,000   $73.11    2/14/2014                     
    57,000   $57.85    2/15/2013                     
    50,000   $75.92    2/17/2012                     
    23,000   $79.28    10/4/2011                     
    50,600   $73.98    2/18/2011                     
                                    
Mr. Rice                            48,7492   $1,740,827 
                             31,9063   $1,139,363 
                             87,9244   $3,139,766 
                   82,9425   $2,961,859           
                   40,9996   $1,464,074           
    30,000   $52.54    4/29/2016                     
    27,108   $56.18    2/9/2016                     
    23,077   $55.65    2/10/2015                     
    25,000   $73.11    2/14/2014                     
    11,200   $57.85    2/15/2013                     
    10,000   $75.92    2/17/2012                     
    5,000   $79.28    10/4/2011                     
    12,000   $73.98    2/18/2011                     
                                    
Mr. Armitage                            32,4992   $1,160,539 
                             22,7333   $811,795 
                             58,6164   $2,093,177 
                   55,2945   $1,974,549           
                   29,2136   $1,043,196           
    54,217   $56.18    2/9/2016                     
    53,254   $55.65    2/10/2015                     
    80,000   $73.11    2/14/2014                     
    80,000   $57.85    2/15/2013                     
    23,800   $75.92    2/17/2012                     
    7,000   $79.28    10/4/2011                     
    23,100   $73.98    2/18/2011                     
                                    
                                 
  Option Awards Stock Awards
                              Equity
                          Equity Incentive
                          Incentive Plan Awards:
                          Plan Awards: Market or
                          Number of Payout Value
                  Number of     Unearned of Unearned
  Number of Number of         Shares Market Value Shares, Units, Shares, Units,
  Securities Securities         or Units of of Shares or or Other or Other
  Underlying Underlying Option     Stock That Units Rights That Rights That
  Unexercised Unexercised Exercise Option Have Not of Stock That Have Not Have Not
  Options (#)1 Options (#)1 Price Expiration Vested Have Not Vested Vested Vested
Name Exercisable Unexercisable ($) Date (#)2 ($)2 (#) ($)
Mr. Taurel                          106,3553 $4,282,916 
                           68,4264 $2,755,515 
                   136,6655 $5,503,514         
   216,867      $56.18   12/31/2013                 
   255,621      $55.65   12/31/2013                 
   400,000      $73.11   12/31/2013                 
   350,000      $57.85   2/15/2013                 
   350,0007    $75.92  2/17/2012             
   175,000      $79.28   10/4/2011                 
   350,000      $88.41   12/17/2010                 
   350,000      $66.38   10/16/2009                 
Dr. Lechleiter                          86,4143 $3,479,892 
                           44,4774 $1,791,089 
                   111,0415 $4,471,605         
                   73,3546 $2,953,966         
       140,964  $56.18   2/9/2016                 
   127,811      $55.65   2/10/2015                 
   200,000      $73.11   2/14/2014                 
   120,000      $57.85   2/15/2013                 
   120,0008     $75.92   2/17/2012                 
   60,000      $79.28   10/4/2011                 
   10,000      $88.41   12/17/2010                 
   100,000      $88.41   12/17/2010                 
   80,000      $66.38   10/16/2009                 
Dr. Paul                          39,8843 $1,606,129 
                           26,8344 $1,080,605 
                   51,2495 $2,063,797         
                   5,0009 $201,350         
                   44,2566 $1,782,189         
       72,289  $56.18   2/9/2016                 
   85,207      $55.65   2/10/2015                 
   120,000      $73.11   2/14/2014                 
   50,000      $57.85   2/15/2013                 
   46,000      $75.92   2/17/2012                 
   23,000      $79.28   10/4/2011                 
   75,900      $73.98   2/18/2011                 
   25,00010     $88.41   12/17/2010                 
   25,00010     $88.41   12/17/2010                 
       50,00010 $88.41   12/17/2010                 
   46,000      $66.38   10/16/2009                 
Mr. Carmine                          39,8843 $1,606,129 
                           10,3204 $415,586 
                   51,2495 $2,063,797        
       37,651  $56.18   2/9/2016                 
   42,604      $55.65   2/10/2015                 
   55,000      $73.11   2/14/2014                 
   57,000      $57.85   2/15/2013                 
   50,000      $75.92   2/17/2012                 
   23,000      $79.28   10/4/2011                 
   50,600      $73.98   2/18/2011                 
   46,000      $66.38   10/16/2009                 
Mr. Rice                          31,9073 $1,284,895 
                           19,1194 $769,922 
                   40,9995 $1,651,030         
                   31,5326 $1,269,794         
       30,000  $52.54   4/29/2016                 
       27,108  $56.18   2/9/2016                 
   23,077      $55.65   2/10/2015                 
   25,000      $73.11   2/14/2014                 
   11,200      $57.85   2/15/2013                 
   10,000      $75.92   2/17/2012                 
   5,000      $79.28   10/4/2011                 
   12,000      $73.98   2/18/2011                 
   10,000      $66.38   10/16/2009                 
Mr. Armitage                          22,7343 $915,498 
                           19,1194 $769,922 
                   29,2135 $1,176,408         
                   31,5326 $1,269,794         
       54,217  $56.18   2/9/2016                 
   53,254      $55.65   2/10/2015                 
   80,000      $73.11   2/14/2014                 
   80,000      $57.85   2/15/2013                 
   23,800      $75.92   2/17/2012                 
   7,000      $79.28   10/4/2011                 
   23,100      $73.98   2/18/2011                 
   14,000      $66.38   10/16/2009                 

36

45


 

1The vesting date of each option isThese options vested as listed in the table below by expiration date. Mr. Taurel’sIn addition, Dr. Paul’s options allexpiring February 28, 2015 vested uponon February 10, 2009, and his retirement and they will expire on the earlieroptions expiring December 17, 2010 were granted outside of the expiration date listed below ornormal annual cycle and vested in three installments, as follows: 25 percent on December 31, 2013:19, 2005; 25 percent on December 18, 2008; and 50 percent on November 2, 2009.

    
Expiration Date Vesting DateExpiration Date Vesting Date
04/29/2016 05/01/2009
02/09/201602/10/2009
02/10/201502/11/2008
02/14/201402/19/2007
02/15/2013 02/17/2006
 Expiration DateVesting Date
02/17/2012 02/18/2005
02/09/201610/04/2011 02/10/200910/04/2011 10/03/2003
02/10/201518/2011 02/11/200802/18/2011 02/20/2004
02/14/201412/17/2010 02/19/200712/17/2010 12/18/2003
02/15/2013 02/17/2006 10/16/200910/18/2002


 
2SVAs granted for the2009-2011 performance period that will end December 31, 2011. The number of shares reported in the table reflects the target payout, which will be made if the average closing stock price in November and December 2011 is between $39.50 and $41.99. Actual payouts may vary from zero to 140 percent of target. Had the performance period ended at year-end 2009, the payout would have been 60 percent of target. Should this award pay out, Dr. Paul will receive a prorated payout in January 2012, reflecting his retirement after 14 months of the three-year performance period.
These two columns show performance award shares paid in restricted shares or share units with a holding period of one year. This award paid out in 2008 for 2007 performance. The restricted stock shares pay dividends during the restriction period, but the dividends are not preferential.
3SharesSVAs granted underfor the company’s Shareholder Value Award plan2008-2010 performance period that will vestend December 31, 2010. The number of shares reported in the table reflects the target payout, amount, which will be made if the average closing stock price in November and December 2010 is between $62.00 and $65.99. Actual payouts may vary from zero to 140 percent of target. Had the performance period ended at year end 2008,year-end 2009, the payout would have been zero percent of target. Mr. Taurelzero. Should this award pay out, Dr. Paul will receive one third of hisa prorated payout amount,in January 2011, reflecting his retirement after the first year26 months of the three-year performance period.
4Shares granted under the company’s Shareholder Value Award plan that will vest December 31, 2009. TheMaximum number of PA shares reportedthat could pay out in January 2011 for2009-2010 performance provided performance goals are met. Any shares resulting from this award will pay out in the table reflects the target payout amount, which will be made if the averageform of restricted stock price in November and December 2009 is between $63.00 and $66.99. Actual payouts may vary from zero to 140 percent of target. Had the performance period ended at year end 2008, the payout would have been zero percent of target. Mr. Taurelunits, vesting February 2012. Should this award pay out, Dr. Paul will receive two thirds of hisa prorated payout amount,in February 2012, reflecting his retirement after the second year14 months of the three-yeartwo-year performance period.
 
5PA paid out in January 2010 as restricted stock units for 2009 performance. These shares will vest in February 2011.
6Share units granted under the company’s Performance Award planPA shares paid out in January 2009 for 2008 performance. These shares will vestvested in February 2010. Mr.Taurel’s shares vested upon his retirement.
6Shares granted under the company’s Performance Award plan paid out in January 2008 for 2007 performance. These shares vested in February 2009.
 
7��Mr. Taurel transferred 348,683These shares of this option to a trust for the benefit of his children, and these shares vestedwere forfeited upon Dr. Paul’s retirement on April 30, 2002. 149,172 shares of this option are held in trust for the benefit of Mr. Taurel’s children, and the remainder have been transferred back to Mr. Taurel.February 28, 2010.
 
8Dr. Lechleiter transferred 118,683 shares of this option to a trust for the benefit of his children, and these shares vested on April 30, 2002. 50,734 shares of this option are held in trust for the benefit of Dr. Lechleiter’s children, and the remainder havehas been transferred back to Dr. Lechleiter.
9These shares will vest on December 20, 2010.
10These options were granted outside of the normal annual cycle and vest in three installments, as follows: 25 percent on December 19, 2005; 25 percent on December 18, 2008; and 50 percent on November 2, 2009.
Options Exercised and Stock Vested in 20082009
                 
  Option Awards Stock Awards2
  Number of Shares Acquired Value Realized Number of Shares Acquired Value Realized
Name on Exercise (#) on Exercise ($)1 on Vesting (#) on Vesting ($)
Mr. Taurel  0  $0   100,000  $3,967,000 
           96,120  $4,952,102 
Dr. Lechleiter  0  $0   62,478  $3,218,867 
Dr. Paul  0  $0   32,040  $1,650,701 
Mr. Carmine  0  $0   9,796  $994,098 
Mr. Rice  0  $0   0  $0 
Mr. Armitage  0  $0   24,030  $1,238,026 
                     
   Option Awards  Stock Awards
   Number of Shares
     Number of Shares
   
   Acquired on
  Value Realized
  Acquired on
  Value Realized
Name  Exercise (#)  on Exercise ($)1  Vesting (#)  on Vesting ($)2
Dr. Lechleiter   0   $0    73,3543   $2,700,894 
    04   $0 
                     
Dr. Paul   0   $0    44,2563   $1,629,506 
    04   $0 
                     
Mr. Carmine   0   $0    3    
    6,1924   $223,903 
                     
Mr. Rice   0   $0    31,5323   $1,161,008 
    04   $0 
                     
Mr. Armitage   0   $0    31,5323   $1,161,008 
    04   $0 
                     
1Amounts reflect the difference between the exercise price of the option and the market price at the time of exercise. All outstanding stock options are currently under water.
 
2Amounts reflect the market value of the stock on the day the stock vested. These shares represent performance awards issued in January 2007 for company performance in 2006, which were subject to forfeiture for one year

37

3With the exception of Mr. Carmine (who was not an executive officer when these awards were granted), these shares
46


 

 following issuance. For Mr. Taurel, these amounts also include a performance awardrepresent PAs issued in January 2008 (as restricted stock grants) for company performance in 2007 and were subject to forfeiture until they vested in February 2009.
4For Mr. Carmine, these shares represent a payout of the SVA granted for the2007-2009 performance period, which vested upon his retirement.on December 31, 2009. Mr. Carmine (along with all other participants who were not executive officers at the time of grant) received a payout at 60 percent of target. This SVA did not pay out for any executive officer, because the company’s stock was below $63.00.
Retirement Benefits
We maintain two programsplans to provide retirement income to all eligible U.S. employees, including executive officers:
  The Lilly Employee 401(k) Planplan,, a defined contribution plan qualified under Sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eligible employeesParticipants may elect to contribute a portion of their salary to the plan, and the company provides matching contributions on the employees’ contributions, in the form of company stock, up to six percent of base salary. The matching contributions are in the form of Lilly stock. The employee contributions, company contributions, and earnings thereon are paid out in accordance with elections made by the participant. See the Summary Compensation Table on page 33 for information about company contributions to the named executive officers.
  The Lilly Retirement Plan (the retirement plan)plan, a tax-qualified defined benefit plan that provides monthly retirement benefits to eligible employees.retirees. See the Summary Compensation Table on page 33 for additional information about the value of these pension benefits.
 Section
Sections 401 and 415 of the Internal Revenue Code generally places a limit on the amount of annual pension that can be paid from a tax-qualified plan ($185,000195,000 in 2008)2009) as well as on the amount of annual earnings that can be used to calculate a pension benefit ($230,000245,000 in 2008)2009). However, since 1975, the company has maintained a non-tax-qualifiednonqualified pension plan that pays eligible employeesretirees the difference between the amount payable under the tax-qualifiedretirement plan and the amount they would have received without the qualifiedretirement plan’s limit.limits. The nonqualified pension plan is unfunded and subject to forfeiture in the event of bankruptcy.
The following table shows benefits that the named executive officers are entitled to under the retirement plan and the nonqualified pension plan.
Pension Benefits in 20082009
               
      Number of Years of Present Value of  Payments During
Name Plan Credited Service Accumulated Benefit ($)1  Last Fiscal Year ($)
Mr. Taurel tax-qualified plan 36 $1,164,665     
  nonqualified plan 36 $29,699,031     
  total   $30,863,696  $0 
Dr. Lechleiter2
 tax-qualified plan 29 $820,109     
  nonqualified plan 29 $8,699,133     
  total   $9,519,242  $0 
Dr. Paul 3
 tax-qualified plan 16 $289,080     
  nonqualified plan 16 $3,998,445     
  total   $4,287,525  $0 
Mr. Carmine4
 tax-qualified plan 33 $1,159,841     
  nonqualified plan 33 $4,413,493     
  total   $5,573,334  $0 
Mr. Rice tax-qualified plan 19 $259,527     
  nonqualified plan 19 $999,084     
  total   $1,258,611  $0 
Mr. Armitage5
 tax-qualified plan 10 $2,201,713     
  nonqualified plan 10 $1,198,148     
  total   $3,399,861  $0 
                     
      Number of Years of
  Present Value of
  Payments During
Name  Plan  Credited Service  Accumulated Benefit ($)1  Last Fiscal Year ($)
Dr. Lechleiter2
   retirement plan    30    $1,031,202      
    nonqualified plan    30    $13,041,165      
                     
    total         $14,072,367   $0 
                     
Dr. Paul3
   retirement plan    17    $489,493      
    nonqualified plan    17    $8,506,726      
                     
    total         $8,996,219   $0 
                     
Mr. Carmine4
   retirement plan    34    $1,313,142      
    nonqualified plan    34    $6,036,729      
                     
    total         $7,349,871   $0 
                     
Mr. Rice   retirement plan    20    $364,482      
    nonqualified plan    20    $1,871,870      
                     
    total         $2,236,352   $0 
                     
Mr. Armitage5
   retirement plan    10    $266,953      
    nonqualified plan    10    $2,181,780      
                     
    total         $2,448,733   $0 
                     
1The calculation of the present value of the accumulated benefit assumes a discount rate of 6.96.0 percent, mortality RP 2000CH (post-retirement decrement only), and a joint and survivor benefit of 50 percent until age 62 and 25 percent.percent thereafter.
 
2Dr. Lechleiter is currently eligible for early retirement. He qualifies for approximately eightfive percent less than his full retirement benefit. Early retirement benefits are further described below.
 
3Dr. Paul is currently eligibleretired effective February 28, 2010 and qualified for early retirement. He qualifies for approximately 20 percent less than hisa full retirement benefit. Dr. Paul’s potentialHis additional service credit, described below, increased the present value of his nonqualified pension benefit, shown above, by $1,531,259.$3,306,938.
 
4Mr. Carmine is currently eligible for full retirement benefits.
5Mr. Armitage is currently eligible for early retirement. His additional service credit, described below, does not changeincreased the present value of his nonqualified pension benefit whichby $440,772. The amount shown above is approximately fivetwo percent less than his full retirement benefit.

38


 
The retirement plan benefits shown in the table are net present values. The benefits are not payable as a lump sum; they are generally paid as a monthly annuity for the life of the retiree and any qualifying survivor. The
47


annual benefit under the retirement plan is calculated using the average of the annual earnings for the highest five out of the last 10 years of service (final average earnings). Annual earnings covered by the retirement plan consist of salary and bonus (amounts disclosed in the company’s proxy statements for the relevant years) calculated for the amount of bonus paid (rather than credited) and for the year in which earnings are paid (rather than earned or credited). In addition, for years prior to 2003, the calculation includes performance awardPA payouts. The amount of the benefit also depends on the retiree’s age and years of service at the time of retirement. BenefitIn general, for benefits accrued before January 1, 2010, benefit calculations arewere based on “points,” with an employee’s points equaling the sum of his or her age plus years of service. EmployeesBenefits accrued on or after January 1, 2010 are based on years of service. Eligible employees who retired prior to January 1, 2010 could retire (i) at age 65 with at least five years of service, (ii) at age 62 with at least 80 points, or (iii) with 90 or more points and receive an unreduced benefit. Employees maybenefit for service through December 31, 2009 and could elect early retirement with reduced benefits under either of the following two options:as described below:
  Employees with between 80 and 90 points maycould retire with a benefit that is reduced by three percent for each year that the employee has left to reach 90 points or age 62.
 
 Employees who have less than 80 points, but who have reached age 55 and have at least 10 years of service, maycould retire with a benefit that is reduced as described above and is further reduced by six percent for each year that the employee has left to reach 80 points or age 65.
     All U.S. retirees are entitledFor employees hired on or after February 1, 2008 and for all employees beginning January 1, 2010, the retirement plan was amended, in part, to medical insurancemodify the benefit formula used to calculate benefits accruing thereafter. Eligible employees who retire on or after January 1, 2010 can retire at 65 with at least five years of service and receive an unreduced benefit. Pension benefits under the company’s plans. Retireesamended retirement plan are reduced for employees retiring before age 65.
For retirees with spouses, domestic partners, or unmarried dependents, may elect that, upon the retiree’s death, the plan will pay survivor annuity benefits upon the retiree’s death at either 25, 50, or 75 percent of the retiree’s annuity benefit.benefit, depending on the employee’s elections. Election of the higher survivor benefit will result in a lower annuity payment during the retiree’s life. All U.S. retirees, or their eligible survivors, are entitled to medical insurance under the company’s plans.
Following the recruitment by the company and Dr. Paul joinedof his successor, Dr. Jan Lundberg, Dr. Paul retired on February 28, 2010. Pursuant to a 2004 agreement with the company, in 1993. Dr. Paul will receivewas entitled to 10 years of additional service credit for purposes of his pension (but not other benefits) and a full pension benefit unreduced for early retirement if he remainsremained employed by the company past age 60 or is involuntarilywas terminated by the company before age 60 for reasons other than cause. In conjunction with the company’s hiring of Dr. Lundberg, the company requested and Dr. Paul agreed that he turns 60.would move his retirement date forward. As a result, he was eligible for a full pension benefit unreduced for early retirement. When Mr. Armitage joined the company in 1999, the company agreed to provide him with a retirement benefit based on his actual years of service and earnings at age 60. Since Mr. Armitage reached age 60 with 9.758.75 years of service, for purposes of determining eligibility and calculating his early retirement reduction, he has been treated as though he has for eligibility purposes only, 20 years of service. The additional service credit made him eligible to begin reduced benefits nine15 months early, but did not change the timing or amount of his unreduced benefits (shown in the Pension Benefits in 2008 table on page 38)2009 table). A grant of additional years of service credit to any employee must be approved by the compensation committee of the board of directors.
 Upon retirement, Mr. Taurel was appointed chairman emeritus, effective January 1, 2009. In connection with that appointment, we are providing the following administrative support arrangement to Mr. Taurel,
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in addition to normal retirement programs. This arrangement has been granted for a period of five years following his retirement, at which point the compensation committee of the board of directors may elect to extend this arrangement for an additional period, if requested by Mr. Taurel.2009
     
  Incremental Cost to the Company
Benefit (annualized)
Office space1
   
Administrative and computer/technology support2
 $40,000 
Parking at company facilities   
                             
                  Aggregate
     
      Executive
   Registrant
   Aggregate
   Withdrawals/
   Aggregate
 
      Contributions in
   Contributions in
   Earnings in
   Distributions in
   Balance at Last
 
      Last Fiscal Year
   Last Fiscal Year
   Last Fiscal Year
   Last Fiscal Year
   Fiscal Year End
 
Name  Plan  ($)1   ($)2   ($)   ($)   ($)3 
Dr. Lechleiter  nonqualified savings   $74,300    $74,300    $78,336         $974,482 
   deferred compensation   $1,354,526        $277,899         $5,840,317 
                             
   total   $1,428,826    $74,300    $356,235    $0    $6,814,799 
                             
Dr. Paul  nonqualified savings   $0    $0    $45,843         $541,320 
   deferred compensation   $0        $0         $0 
                             
   total   $0    $0    $45,843    $0    $541,320 
                             
Mr. Carmine  nonqualified savings   $40,300    $40,300    $36,953         $338,827 
   deferred compensation   $503,068        $71,912         $1,538,182 
                             
   total   $543,368    $40,300    $108,864    $0    $1,877,010 
                             
Mr. Rice  nonqualified savings   $38,850    $38,850    $19,368         $301,614 
   deferred compensation   $0        $0         $0 
                             
   total   $38,850    $38,850    $19,368    $0    $301,614 
                             
Mr. Armitage  nonqualified savings   $33,970    $33,970    $40,681         $420,986 
   deferred compensation   $936,235        $228,035         $4,761,489 
                             
   total   $970,205    $33,970    $268,716    $0    $5,182,475 
                             
 
48
1Currently this space is provided in the corporate headquarters at no incremental cost to the company.
2The incremental cost to the company is calculated by estimating the cost of computer hardware, software, and IT support, as well as part-time administrative support.

39


 

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2008
                              
                     Aggregate   
      Executive Registrant Aggregate Withdrawals/ Aggregate
      Contributions in Contributions in Earnings in Distributions in Balance at Last
      Last Fiscal Year Last Fiscal Year Last Fiscal Year Last Fiscal Year Fiscal Year End
Name Plan ($)1 ($)2 ($) ($) ($)3
Mr. Taurel nonqualified savings  $51,019   $51,019   ($902,296)       $2,170,064 
  deferred compensation          $473,727        $9,024,790 
                         
  total  $51,019   $51,019   ($428,569)  $0   $11,194,854 
Dr. Lechleiter nonqualified savings  $66,548   $66,548   ($282,414)       $729,866 
  deferred compensation  $1,080,138       $210,586        $4,207,892 
                         
  total  $1,146,686   $66,548   ($71,828)  $0   $4,937,758 
Dr. Paul nonqualified savings          ($213,476)       $485,199 
  deferred compensation                     
                         
  total  $0   $0   ($213,476)  $0   $485,199 
Mr. Carmine nonqualified savings  $33,187   $33,187   ($84,211)       $215,816 
  deferred compensation  $344,422       $47,278        $963,203 
                         
  total  $377,609   $33,187   ($36,933)  $0   $1,179,019 
Mr. Rice nonqualified savings  $36,247   $36,247   ($62,423)       $198,920 
  deferred compensation                     
                         
  total  $36,247   $36,247   ($62,423)  $0   $198,920 
Mr. Armitage nonqualified savings  $32,926   $32,926   ($136,712)       $304,756 
  deferred compensation  $1,020,457       $179,099        $3,597,219 
                         
  total  $1,053,383   $32,926   $42,387   $0   $3,901,975 
 
1The amounts in this column are also included in the Summary Compensation Table, on page 33, in the “Salary” column (nonqualified savings) or the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column (deferred compensation).
2The amounts in this column are also included in the Summary Compensation Table, on page 33, in the “All Other Compensation” column as a portion of the savings plan match.
3Of the totals in this column, the following amounts have previously been reported in the Summary Compensation Table for this year and for previous years:
                
Name  2009 ($)   Previous Years ($)   Total ($) 
Dr. Lechleiter   $1,503,126    $3,879,530    $5,382,656 
                
Dr. Paul   $0    $218,711    $218,711 
                
Mr. Carmine   $583,668    $410,795    $994,463 
                
Mr. Rice   $77,700    $182,604    $260,304 
                
Mr. Armitage   $1,004,175    $3,706,384    $4,710,559 
                
             
Name 2008 ($) Previous Years ($) Total ($)
Mr. Taurel $102,038  $3,520,965  $3,623,003 
Dr. Lechleiter $1,213,233  $2,666,297  $3,879,530 
Dr. Paul $0  $218,711  $218,711 
Mr. Carmine $410,795  $0  $410,795 
Mr. Rice $72,494  $110,110  $182,604 
Mr. Armitage $1,086,309  $2,620,075  $3,706,384 
 
The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 20082009 table above shows information about two company programs: athe nonqualified savings plan and athe deferred compensation plan. The nonqualified savings plan is designed to allow each executiveemployee to contribute up to six percent of his or her base salary, and receive a company match, beyond the contribution limits prescribed by the IRS with regard to 401(k) plans. This plan is administered in the same manner as the company 401(k) Plan,plan, with the same participation and investment elections, and all employees are eligible to participate.elections. Executive officers and other U.S. executives may also defer receipt of all or part of their cash compensation under the company’s deferred compensation plan. Amounts deferred by executives under this programplan are credited with interest at 120 percent of the applicable federal long-term rate as established for the preceding December by the U.S. Treasury Department under Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code with monthly compounding, which was 5.5 percent for 2008 and is 5.2 percent for 2009.2009 and is 4.9 percent for 2010. Participants may elect to receive the funds in a lump sum or in up to 10 annual installments following retirement, but may not make withdrawals during their employment, except in the event of hardship as approved by the compensation committee. All deferral elections and associated distribution schedules are irrevocable. Both plans are unfunded and subject to forfeiture in the event of bankruptcy.

40

49


 

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
The following table describes the potential payments and benefits under the company’s compensation and benefit plans and arrangements to which the named executive officers would be entitled upon termination of employment. Except for (i) certain terminations following a change in control of the company, as described below, and (ii) certain pension arrangements as shown below and described under “Retirement Benefits” above, there are no agreements, arrangements, or plans that entitle named executive officers to severance, perquisites, or other enhanced benefits upon termination of their employment. Any agreement to provide such payments or benefits to a terminating executive officer (other than following a change in control) would be at the discretion of the compensation committee.
Potential Payments Upon Termination of Employment (as of December 31, 2009)
                   
            Acceleration and
      
            Continuation of
      
         Continuation of
  Equity Awards
      
      Incremental
  Medical / Welfare
  (unamortized
     Total
   Cash Severance
  Pension Benefit
  Benefits
  expense as of
  Excise Tax
  Termination
   Payment  (present value)  (present value)1  12/31/09)  Gross-Up  Benefits
Dr. Lechleiter                  
                   
• Voluntary retirement  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary retirement or termination  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control  $10,102,200  $1,882,018  $60,211  $0  $4,406,961  $16,451,390
                   
Dr. Paul2
                  
                   
• Voluntary retirement  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary retirement or termination  $2,000,000  $3,669,082  $0  $0  $0  $5,669,082
                   
• Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
Mr. Carmine                  
                   
• Voluntary retirement  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary retirement or termination  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control  $4,669,500  $121,986  $24,000  $0  $1,647,735  $6,463,221
                   
Mr. Rice                  
                   
• Voluntary termination  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary retirement or termination  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control  $4,243,880  $215,303  $24,000  $3,827,164  $3,516,816  $11,827,163
                   
Mr. Armitage                  
                   
• Voluntary retirement  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary retirement or termination  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0
                   
• Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control  $3,852,152  $456,749  $24,000  $0  $1,527,014  $5,859,915
                   
                         
              Acceleration and       
              Continuation of       
          Continuation of  Equity Awards       
      Incremental  Medical / Welfare  (unamortized     Total 
  Cash Severance  Pension Benefit  Benefits (present  expense as of  Excise Tax  Termination 
  Payment (present value) value)1 12/31/08) Gross-Up Benefits
Mr. Taurel
Voluntary retirement (12/31/08)
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Dr. Lechleiter
Voluntary retirement
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary termination
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary or good reason
termination after change in
control (CIC)
 $8,218,106  $1,616,631  $24,000  $0  $3,678,530  $13,537,267 
Dr. Paul
Voluntary retirement
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary termination
 $0  $3,327,3942 $90,0762 $0  $0  $3,417,470 
Involuntary or good reason
termination after CIC
 $4,632,054  $4,695,3382 $114,0762 $201,350  $3,537,468  $13,180,286 
Mr. Carmine
Voluntary retirement
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary termination
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary or good reason
termination after CIC
 $3,772,270  $289,618  $24,000  $249,352  $0  $4,335,240 
Mr. Rice
Voluntary termination
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary termination
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary or good reason
termination after CIC
 $3,755,264  $161,415  $24,000  $2,684,962  $1,498,108  $8,123,749 
Mr. Armitage
Voluntary retirement
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary termination
 $0  $0  $0  $0  $0  $0 
Involuntary or good reason
termination after CIC
 $3,488,882  $498,064  $24,000  $2,278,154  $1,572,805  $7,861,906 
1See “Accrued Pay and Regular Retirement Benefits” and “Change-in-Control“Change-in-Control Severance Pay Program—Plan—Continuation of medical and welfare benefits” on pages 41-43.below.
2These amounts reflect an additional 10 yearsFollowing the successful recruitment of service credit that would be credited tohis successor, the company asked and Dr. Paul upon an involuntary termination, other than for cause, should it occur before he reaches age 60agreed that to accommodate a smooth transition, Dr. Paul would retire February 28, 2010, a change from his plan to retire later in the year (see page 3948 for more information about Dr. Paul’s retirement benefits). Dr. Paul received the severance payment shown upon his retirement.
Accrued Pay and Regular Retirement Benefits. The amounts shown in the previous table do not include payments and benefits to the extent they are provided on a non-discriminatory basis to salaried employees generally upon termination of employment. These include:
 Accruedaccrued salary and vacation pay.
 Regularregular pension benefits under the Lilly Retirement Planretirement plan and the nonqualified pension plan. See “Retirement Benefits”
on pages 38-39.page 47. The amounts shown in the table above as “Incremental Pension Benefit” are explained below.
50


 Welfarewelfare benefits provided to all U.S. retirees, including retiree medical and dental insurance. The amounts shown in the table above as “Continuation of Medical / Welfare Benefits” are explained below.
 Distributionsdistributions of plan balances under the Lilly 401(k) Planplan and the nonqualified savings plan. See the narrative following the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 20082009 table on page 40 for information about the 401(k)

41


plan, the deferred compensation plan, and the nonqualified savings plan.
 Thethe value of accelerated vesting of certain unvested equity grants upon retirement. Under the company’s stock plans, employees who terminate employment while retirement-eligible receive accelerated vesting of unvested stock options (except for options granted in the 12 months before retirement, which are forfeited), outstanding performance awardsPAs and shareholder value awardsSVAs (which are paid on a reduced basis for time worked during the awardperformance period), and restricted stock awarded in payment of previous performance awards.PAs.
 Thethe value of option continuation upon retirement. When an employee terminates prior to retirement, his or her stock options are terminated 30 days thereafter. However, when a retirement-eligible employee terminates, his or her options remain in force until the earlier of five years after retirement or the option’s normal expiration date.
Deferred Compensation.The amounts shown in the table do not include distributions of plan balances under the Lilly deferred compensation plan. Those amounts are shown in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2008 table on page 40.2009 table.
Death and Disability. A termination of employment due to death or disability does not entitle the named executive officers to any payments or benefits that are not available to salaried employees generally.
Termination for Cause.Executives receive no severance or enhanced pension or medical benefits and forfeit any unvested equity grants.
Change-in-Control Severance Pay Program.Plan. As described in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” under “Severance Benefits” on pages 30–31,Benefits,” the company maintains achange-in-control severance pay programplan (CIC plan) for nearly all employees, including the named executive officers (the “CIC Program”).officers. The CIC Programplan defines a change in control very specifically, but generally the term includesterms include the occurrence of, or entry into, an agreement to do one of the following: (a)(i) acquisition of 15 percent (20 percent beginning October 20, 2010) or more of the company’s stock; (b)(ii) replacement by the shareholders of one third (one half beginning October 20, 2010) or more of the board of directors; (c)(iii) consummation of a merger, share exchange, or consolidation of the company; or (d)(iv) liquidation of the company or sale or disposition of all or substantially all of its assets. The amounts shown in the table for “involuntary or good reason termination” following atermination after change in controlcontrol” are based on the following assumptions and plan provisions:
  Covered terminations.The table assumes a termination of employment that is eligible for severance under the terms of the current plan, based on the named executive’s compensation, benefits, age, and service credit at December 31, 2008.2009. Eligible terminations include an involuntary termination for reasons other than for cause, or a voluntary termination by the executive for good reason, within two years following the change in control.
 A termination of an executive officer by the company is for cause if it is for any of the following reasons: (i) the employee’s willful and continued refusal to perform, without legal cause, his or her material duties, resulting in demonstrable economic harm to the company; (ii) any act of fraud, dishonesty, or gross misconduct resulting in significant economic harm or other significant harm to the business reputation of the company; or (iii) conviction of or the entering of a plea of guilty ornolo contendereto a felony.
 A termination by the executive officer is for good reason if it results fromfrom: (i) a material diminution in the nature or status of the executive’s position, title, reporting relationship, duties, responsibilities, or authority, or the assignment to him or her of additional responsibilities that materially increase his or her workload; (ii) any reduction in the executive’s then-current base salary; (iii) a material reduction in the executive’s opportunities to earn incentive bonuses below those in effect for the year prior to the change in control; (iv) a material reduction in the executive’s employee benefits from the benefit levels in effect immediately prior to the change in control; (v) the failure to grant to the executive stock options, stock units, performance shares, or similar incentive rights during each twelve (12) month12-month period following the change in control on the basis of a number of shares or units and all other material terms at least as favorable to the executive as those rights granted to him or her on an annualized average basis for the three (3) yearthree-year period immediately prior to the change in control; or (vi) relocation of the executive by more than fifty (50)50 miles.
  Cash severance payment.Represents the CIC Programplan benefit of two times the 2008employee’s 2009 annual base salary plus two times the employee’s cash bonus for 20082009 under the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan.bonus plan.
  Incremental pension benefit.Represents the present value of an incremental nonqualified pension benefit of two years of age credit and two years of service credit that is provided under the CIC Program.plan. The
51


incremental pension benefit will be discontinued effective October 20, 2010. The following standard actuarial assumptions were used to calculate each individual’s incremental pension benefit:
  
 
Discount rate: 6.96.0 percent
Mortality (post-retirement decrement only): RP 2000CH
Joint & survivor benefit: 
Joint and survivor benefit (% of pension):50% until age 62; 25% of pensionthereafter

42


   For Dr. Paul, the amounts in the table above reflect the 10 years of additional service credit described on page 39.
  Continuation of medical and welfare benefits.Represents the present value of the CIC Plan’splan’s guarantee, for two years following a covered termination, of continued coverage equivalent to the company’s current active employee medical, dental, life, and long-term disability insurance. Effective October 20, 2010, the coverage period will be reduced to 18 months. For Dr. Paul, the amount in the table reflects the 10 years of additional service credit described on page 39, which makes him eligible for an enhanced retiree medical benefit. The same actuarial assumptions were used to calculate continuation of medical and welfare benefits as were used to calculate incremental pension benefits, with the addition of an assumed COBRA rate of $12,000 per year.
  Acceleration and continuation of equity awards.Under the CIC Plan,plan, upon a covered termination, any unvested stock options, restricted stock, or other equity awards would vest, and options would be exercisable for up to three years following termination. Payment of the shareholder value award (SVA)SVAs is accelerated in the case of a change in control in which Lilly is not the surviving entity. ForIn the fourevent of a change in control, the three retirement-eligible employees,named executive officers, Dr. Lechleiter, Dr. Paul, Mr. Carmine, and Mr. Armitage, the only other equity award receiving accelerated vestingwould retire, and term extension because of the CIC Plan would be 5,000 shares of restricted stock held by Dr. Paul; all othertheir unvested equity awards (with the exception of the SVA) automaticallywould vest upon retirement regardless of reason.according to their terms. The amountsamount in this column representrepresents the previously unamortized expense that would be recognized in connection with the acceleration of Mr. Rice’s unvested equity grants. In addition, the named executive officer who is not retirement-eligible, Mr. Rice, would receive the benefit under the CIC Planplan of continuation of his outstanding stock options for up to three years following termination of employment. There would be no incremental expense to the company for this continuation because the option wouldoptions have already have been fully expensed.
  Excise tax reimbursement.Upon a change in control, employees may be subject to certain excise taxes under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code. The company has agreed to reimburse the affected employees for those excise taxes as well as any income and excise taxes payable by the executive as a result of the reimbursement. The amounts in the table are based on a 280G excise tax rate of 20 percent and a 40 percent federal, state, and local income tax rate. To reduce the company’s exposure to these reimbursements, the employee’s severance will be cut back by up to three percent (five percent effective October 20, 2010) if the effect is to avoid triggering the excise tax under Section 280G.
Payments Upon Change in Control Alone.In general, the CIC Programplan is a “double trigger” program,plan, meaning payments are made only if the employee suffers a covered termination of employment within two years following the change in control. Employees do not receive payments upon a change in control alone, except that upon consummation of a change in control a partial payment of outstanding performance awardsPAs would be made, reduced to reflect only the portion of the yearperformance period worked prior to the change in control. For example, if a change in control occurred on June 30, the employee would receive one-half of the value of the performance award, calculated based on the company’s then-current financial forecast for the year. Likewise, in the case of a change in control in which Lilly is not the surviving entity, the SVASVAs will pay out based on thechange-in-control stock price and be prorated for the portion of the three-year performance period elapsed.
Related-Person Transaction
As noted above, for security reasons the company aircraft was made available to Mr. Taurel prior to his retirement for all travel. The company entered into a time-share arrangement (now ended) with Mr. Taurel in connection with his personal use of company aircraft. Under the time-share agreement, Mr. Taurel leased the company aircraft, including crew and flight services, for personal flights. He paid a time-share fee based on the company’s cost of the flight but capped at the greater of (i) an amount equivalent to first-class airfare for the relevant flight (if commercially available) or (ii) the Standard Industry Fare Levels as established by the Internal Revenue Service for purposes of determining taxable fringe benefits.

43

52


 

Ownership of Company Stock
Common Stock Ownership by Directors and Executive Officers
The following table sets forth the number of shares of company common stock beneficially owned by the directors, the named executive officers, and all directors and executive officers as a group, as of February 3, 2009.2, 2010.
The table shows shares held by named executivesexecutive officers in the Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan,plan, shares credited to the accounts of outside directors in the Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan, and total shares beneficially owned by each individual, including the shares in the respectivethese two plans. In addition, the table shows restricted stock units that will be issued as shares of common stock at the end of the restriction period and shares that may be purchased pursuant to stock options that are exercisable within 60 days of February 3, 2009.2, 2010. All of the stock options shown are currently under water.
                                    
 Stock Options           Stock Options
 Exercisable Within     Directors’
 Total Shares
   Exercisable Within
 Directors’ Deferral Total Shares Owned 60 Days of  401(k)
  Deferral
 Owned
 Restricted
 60 Days of
Name 401(k) Plan Shares Plan Shares1 Beneficially2 February 3, 2009  Plan Shares  Plan Shares1 Beneficially2 Stock Units3 February 2, 2010
Ralph Alvarez       4,040   4,040       
                      
Robert A. Armitage 1,932  63,424 335,371    2,518       84,371   55,294   321,371 
                      
Sir Winfried Bischoff  16,237 18,237 11,200        21,260   23,260      11,200 
                      
Bryce D. Carmine 4,717  44,348 361,855    5,472       81,212   82,942   315,855 
J. Michael Cook  15,683 17,483  
                      
Michael L. Eskew  4,513 4,513         8,826   8,826       
                      
Martin S. Feldstein, Ph.D.  14,529 15,529 8,400        19,449   20,449      8,400 
                      
J. Erik Fyrwald  16,673 16,786         24,425   24,525       
                      
Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D.  22,424 22,424 14,000        27,822   27,822      14,000 
                      
R. David Hoover       5,748   6,748       
                      
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D.  35,769 35,769 14,000        41,975   41,975      14,000 
                      
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D. 14,163  229,4003 958,775    15,497       273,9424  207,354   878,775 
                      
Ellen R. Marram  14,529 15,529 5,600        19,449   20,449      5,600 
                      
Douglas R. Oberhelman  0 0         4,040   4,040       
                      
Steven M. Paul, M.D. 552  43,538 568,396    1,054       77,937   82,942   572,396 
                      
Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.  28,317 28,317 14,000        34,071   34,071      14,000 
                      
Derica W. Rice 5,559  59,689 123,385    6,374       87,557   82,942   143,385 
                      
Kathi P. Seifert  24,176 27,709 14,000        29,679   33,212      14,000 
Sidney Taurel 18,061  1,064,0594 2,447,488 
All directors and executive officers as a group (22 people): 1,925,653 
                    
                    
All directors and executive officers as a group (27 people):All directors and executive officers as a group (27 people):  1,044,088         
               
 
1See the description of the Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan on page 18.
1See description of the Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan, page 16.
2Unless otherwise indicated in a footnote, each person listed in the table possesses sole voting and sole investment power with respect to the shares shown in the table to be owned by that person.their shares. No person listed in the table owns more than 0.090.02 percent of the outstanding common stock of the company. All directors and executive officers as a group own 0.170.09 percent of the outstanding common stock of the company. 1,800The company includes restricted stock units for purposes of Mr. Cook’s shares were on deposit in a margin account as of February 3, 2009.determining whether share ownership guidelines are met.
3The 2009 PAs paid out in January 2010 in restricted stock units for 2009 performance. These shares will vest in February 2011, and have no voting rights until they vest.
4The shares shown for Dr. Lechleiter include 13,47012,481 shares that are owned by a family foundation for which he is a director. Dr. Lechleiter has shared voting power and shared investment power over the shares held by the foundation.
4The shares shown for Mr. Taurel are presented as of his retirement, December 31, 2008, and include 17,304 shares that are owned by a family foundation for which he is a director. Mr. Taurel has shared voting power and shared investment power overwith respect to the shares held by the foundation.

44

53


 

Principal Holders of Stock
To the best of the company’s knowledge, the only beneficial owners of more than five percent of the outstanding shares of the company’s common stock are the shareholders listed below:
                
 Number of Shares Percent of  Number of Shares
   
Name and Address Beneficially Owned Class  Beneficially Owned Percent of Class 
 
Lilly Endowment, Inc. (the “Endowment”) 135,670,804 11.9  135,670,804   11.8%
2801 North Meridian Street (as of 2/3/09)   (as of 2/12/10)    
Indianapolis, Indiana 46208         
 
Capital World Investors 66,088,590 5.8  87,117,891   7.6%
333 South Hope Street (as of 12/31/08)   (as of 12/31/09)    
Los Angeles, California 90071         
 
PRIMECAP Management Company  64,325,375   5.6%
225 South Lake Ave., #400  (as of 12/31/09)    
Pasadena, California 91101        
 
Wellington Management Company, LLP 65,015,094 5.7  63,559,644   5.5%
75 State Street (as of 12/31/08)   (as of 12/31/09)    
Boston, Massachusetts 02109         
PRIMECAP Management Company 59,240,937 5.2
225 South Lake Ave., #400 (as of 12/31/08) 
Pasadena, California 91101 
The Endowment has sole voting and sole investment power with respect to its shares. The board of directors of the Endowment is composed of Mr. Thomas M. Lofton, chairman; Mr. N. Clay Robbins, president; Mrs. Mary K. Lisher; Drs. Otis R. Bowen andBowen; William G. Enright; and Messrs. Daniel P. Carmichael,Carmichael; Charles E. Golden,Golden; Eli Lilly II,II; and Eugene F. Ratliff (emeritus director). Each of the directors is, either directly or indirectly, a shareholder of the company.
Capital World Investors is a division of Capital Research and Management Company. It has sole voting power with respect to 1,240,0002,042,700 shares (approximately 0.110.18 percent of shares outstanding) and sole investment power with respect to all of its shares.
PRIMECAP Management Company acts as investment advisor to various clients. It has sole voting power with respect to 20,561,812 shares (approximately 1.79 percent of shares outstanding) and sole investment power with respect to all of its shares.
Wellington Management Company, LLP acts as investment advisor to various clients. It has shared voting power with respect to 19,428,43419,155,199 shares (approximately 1.711.67 percent of shares outstanding) and shared investment power with respect to all of its shares.
 PRIMECAP Management Company acts as investment advisor to various clients. It has sole voting power with respect to 17,464,474 shares (approximately 1.54 percent of shares outstanding) and sole investment power with respect to all of its shares.
54

45


 

Items of Business To Be Acted Upon at the Meeting
Item 1. Election of Directors
Under the company’s articles of incorporation, the board is divided into three classes with approximately one-third of the directors standing for election each year. The term for directors elected this year will expire at the annual meeting of shareholders held in 2012.2013. Each of the nominees listed below has agreed to serve that term. If any director is unable to stand for election, the board may, by resolution, provide for a lesser number of directors or designate a substitute. In the latter event, shares represented by proxiesproxy may be voted for a substitute director.
The board recommends that you vote FOR each of the following nominees:
Martin S. Feldstein, Ph. D.
 Ralph Alvarez
J. Erik Fyrwald
 Sir Winfried Bischoff
Ellen R. Marram
 R. David Hoover
 Douglas R. Oberhelman• Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.
• Kathi P. Seifert
Biographical information about these nominees may be found on pages 6-7 of this proxy statement. Information about certain legal matters may be found on page 55.64.
Item 2. Proposal to Ratify the Appointment of Principal Independent Auditor
The audit committee has appointed the firm of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for the company for the year 2009.2010. In accordance with the bylaws, this appointment is being submitted to the shareholders for ratification. Ernst & Young served as the principal independent auditor for the company in 2008.2009. Representatives of Ernst & Young are expected to be present at the annual meeting and will be available to respond to questions. Those representatives will have the opportunity to make a statement if they wish to do so.
The board recommends that you vote FOR ratifying the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for 2009.2010.
Item 3. Proposal to Amend the Company’s Articles of Incorporation to Provide for Annual Election of All Directors
The company’s amended articles of incorporation currently provide that the board of directors is divided into three classes, with each class elected every three years. On the recommendation of the directors and corporate governance committee, the board has approved, and recommends to the shareholders for approval, amendments to provide for the annual election of all directors. This proposal was brought before shareholders in April 2007, 2008, and again in April 2008,2009, and received the vote of more than 75 percent of the outstanding shares at each meeting; however, the proposal requires the vote of 80 percent of the outstanding shares to pass.
If approved, this proposal willwould become effective upon the filing of amended and restated articles of incorporation containing these amendments with the Secretary of State of Indiana, which the company intends towould do promptly after shareholder approval is obtained. Directors elected prior to the effectiveness of the amendments willwould stand for election for one-year terms once their then-current terms expire. This means that directors whose terms expire at the 20102011 and 20112012 annual meetings of shareholders would be elected for one-year terms, and beginning with the 20122013 annual meeting, all directors would be elected for one-year terms at each annual meeting. In addition, in the case of any vacancy on the board occurring after the 20092010 annual meeting, including a vacancy created by an increase in the number of directors, the vacancy would be filled bythrough an interim election ofby the board, with the new director to serve a term ending at the next annual meeting. At all times, directors are elected to serve for their respective terms and until their successors have been elected and qualified. This proposal would not change the present number of directors and it would not changeor the board’s authority to change that number and to fill any vacancies or newly created directorships.
 
Background of Proposal
This proposal is the result of ongoing review of corporate governance matters by the board. The board, assisted by the directors and corporate governance committee, considered the advantages and disadvantages of
55


maintaining the classified board structure and eliminating the supermajority voting provisions of the articles of incorporation (see Item 4 below). The board considered the view of some shareholders who believe that classified boards have the effect of reducing the accountability of directors to shareholders because classified boards limit the ability of shareholders to evaluate and elect all directors on an annual basis. The election of directors is the primary means for shareholders to influence corporate governance. The board gave considerable weight to the approval at the 2006 annual meeting of a shareholder proposal requesting that the board take all necessary steps to elect the directors annually, and to the 77 percent favorable vote for management’s proposal in 2009 and 2008 (75 percent in 2007).
The board also considered benefits of retaining the classified board structure, which has a long history in corporate law. A classified structure may provide continuity and stability in the management of the business and affairs of the company because a majority of directors always have prior experience as directors of the company. In some circumstances classified boards may enhance shareholder value by forcing an entity seeking control of the company to initiate discussions at arm’s-length with the board of the company, because the entity cannot replace the entire board in a single election. The board also considered that even without a classified board (and without the supermajority voting requirements, which the board also recommends eliminating), the company has defenses that work together to discourage a would-be acquirer from proceeding with a proposal that undervalues the company and to assist the board in responding to such proposals. These defenses include other provisions of the company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws (including the prohibition on shareholders calling special meetings as discussed in Item 5), as well as certain provisions of Indiana corporation law.
The board believes it is important to maintain appropriate defenses to inadequate takeover bids, but also important to retain shareholder confidence by demonstrating that it is accountable and responsive to shareholders. After balancing these interests, the board has decided to resubmit this proposal to eliminate the classified board structure.
Text of Amendments
Article 9(b) of the company’s amended articles of incorporation contains the provisions that will be affected if this proposal is adopted. This article, set forth in Appendix A to this proxy statement, shows the proposed changes with deletions indicated by strike-outs and additions indicated by underlining. The board has also adopted conforming amendments to the company’s bylaws, to be effective immediately upon the effectiveness of the amendments to the amended articles of incorporation.

46


Background of ProposalVote Required
The proposal is a result of ongoing review of corporate governance matters by the board. The board, assisted by the directors and corporate governance committee, considered the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the classified board structure. The board considered the view of some shareholders who believe that classified boards have the effect of reducing the accountability of directors to shareholders because classified boards limit the ability of shareholders to evaluate and elect all directors on an annual basis. The election of directors is the primary means for shareholders to influence corporate governance policies. The board gave considerable weight to the approval at the 2006 annual meeting of a shareholder proposal requesting that the board take all necessary steps to elect the directors annually, and to the 77 percent favorable vote for management’s proposal in 2008 (75 percent in 2007).
     The board also considered benefits of retaining the classified board structure, which has a long history in corporate law. Proponents of a classified structure believe it provides continuity and stability in the management of the business and affairs of a company because a majority of directors always have prior experience as directors of the company. Proponents also assert that classified boards may enhance shareholder value by forcing an entity seeking control of a target company to initiate arms-length discussions with the board of that company, because the entity cannot replace the entire board in a single election. While the board recognizes those potential benefits, it also notes that even without a classified board, the company has other means to compel a takeover bidder to negotiate with the board, including certain “supermajority” vote requirements in its amended articles of incorporation (as described in the company’s response to Item 5 on page 50), other provisions of its articles and bylaws, and certain provisions of Indiana law.
     On the recommendation of the directors and corporate governance committee, the board approved the amendments, and now recommends that the shareholders approve them. Although this proposal did not pass in 2008, the board continues to support this change and believes that by taking this action, it can provide shareholders further assurance that the directors are accountable to shareholders while maintaining appropriate defenses to respond to inadequate takeover bids.
Vote Required
The affirmative vote of at least 80 percent of the outstanding common shares is needed to pass this proposal.
The board recommends that you vote FOR amending the company’s articles of incorporation to provide for annual election of all directors.
Item 4. ReapprovalProposal to Amend the Company’s Articles of Material TermsIncorporation to Eliminate All Supermajority Voting Requirements
Under the company’s amended articles of Performance Goals for the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan
Section 162(m)incorporation, nearly all matters submitted to a vote of shareholders can be adopted by a majority of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), limits the amount of compensation expense that the company can deduct for income tax purposes. In general,votes cast. However, our articles require a public corporation cannot deduct compensation in excess of $1 million paidfew fundamental corporate actions to any of the named executive officers in the proxy statement. However, compensation that qualifies as “performance-based” is not subject to this deduction limitation.
     The Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan (the plan) allows the grant of cash bonuses that qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code. One of the conditions to qualify as performance-based is that the material terms of the performance goals must be approved by the holders of 80 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock (a “supermajority vote”; approved by shareholders at least every five years. The last such approval for the plan was when the plan itself was approved in 2004. To preserve the tax status1985). Those actions are:
• amending certain provisions of the articles of incorporation that relate to the number and terms of office of directors:
 —the company’s classified board structure, under which directors serve staggered three-year terms
 —a provision that the number of directors shall be specified solely by resolution of the board of directors
• removing directors prior to the end of their elected term
• entering into mergers, consolidations, recapitalizations, or certain other business combinations with a “related person”—a party who has acquired at least five percent of the company’s stock (other than the Lilly Endowment or a company benefit plan) without the prior approval of the board of directors.
• modifying or eliminating any of the above supermajority voting requirements.
Background of company bonuses as performance-based, and thereby to allow the company to continue to fully deduct the compensation expense related to the awards, we are now asking the shareholders to reapprove the performance goals. We are not amending or altering the plan. If thisProposal
This proposal is not adopted, the committee will continueresult of the board’s ongoing review of corporate governance matters. Each of the past three years, shareholder proposals requesting that the board take action to grant cash bonuses undereliminate the plan, but certain executive officer bonusessupermajority voting requirements have been supported by a majority of votes cast, although by significantly less than the 80 percent of outstanding shares that would no longer be fully tax deductiblerequired to approve a management proposal on the same subject.
Assisted by the company.
Purposedirectors and corporate governance committee and outside advisors, the board considered the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining its prior position of opposing the elimination of the Plan
supermajority voting requirements. The purpose of the plan is to motivate superior performance and teamwork by employees at all levels of the company by linking annual cash bonuses to important corporate performance measures. Bonus payments are linked directly to both individual and corporate performance. Exceptional performance by individuals and the company will lead to increases in bonuses, and shortfalls in performance will lead to bonus reductions.board considered that under certain circumstances, supermajority voting
Principal Features of the Plan56
The following is a summary of the material features of the plan:
Administration. The plan is administered by the compensation committee of the board, which is composed

47


 

entirely of independent directors. The committee has authority to delegate plan administration with respect to employees other than the executive officers.
Eligibility.Plan participants include all executive officers, all management employees worldwide, most U.S. and Puerto Rico nonmanagement employees, and selected employees outside the United States. The committee may include other employees at its discretion. For 2008, approximately 17,500 employees were eligible to participate.
Performance Measures and Bonus Calculation. Prior to the beginning of each year, the committee establishes the following elements necessary for the bonus calculation:
provisions can provide benefits to the company. The provisions can make it more difficult for one or a few large shareholders to take over or restructure the company without negotiating with the board. In the event of an unsolicited bid to take over or restructure the company, the supermajority voting provisions encourage bidders to negotiate with the board and increase the board’s negotiating leverage on behalf of the shareholders. They can also give the board time to consider alternatives that might provide greater value for all shareholders.
The board also considered the potential adverse consequences of continuing to oppose elimination of the supermajority voting requirements. While it is important to the company’s long-term success for the board to maintain appropriate defenses against inadequate takeover bids, it is also important for the board to maintain shareholder confidence by demonstrating that it is responsive and accountable to shareholders and committed to strong corporate governance. This requires the board to carefully balance sometimes competing interests. In this regard, the board gave considerable weight to the fact that for three consecutive years, a substantial majority of shares voted have requested that the board take steps to eliminate the supermajority voting provisions. Many shareholders believe that supermajority voting provisions impede accountability to shareholders and contribute to board and management entrenchment. If the board were to continue to oppose eliminating the supermajority vote, there is a risk that some shareholders would lose confidence in the company’s governance and its board, which could threaten the company’s leadership stability and ability to carry out its long-term strategies for growth and success.
The board also considered that even without the supermajority vote (and without the classified board, which the board also recommends eliminating), the company has defenses that work together to discourage a would-be acquirer from proceeding with a proposal that undervalues the company and to assist the board in responding to such proposals. These defenses include other provisions of the company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws (including the prohibition on shareholders calling special meetings as discussed in Item 5), as well as certain provisions of Indiana corporation law.
Bonus targets
Therefore, the board believes the balance of interests is best served by recommending to shareholders that the articles of incorporation be amended to eliminate the supermajority voting provisions. By recommending these amendments, the board is demonstrating its accountability and willingness to take steps that address shareholder-expressed concerns.
Text of Amendmentsare established for participants based on a schedule that associates job responsibilities with a bonus target amount expressed as a percentage of regular earnings for the year.
Company performance measuresare established for the year. The committee may select one or more from among the following measures: growth in net income or earnings per share; growth in sales; return on assets; return on equity; total shareholder return; economic value added; market value added; or any of the foregoing before the effect of acquisitions, divestitures, accounting changes, changes in corporate capitalization, restructurings, and special charges or gains (determined according to objective criteria established by the committee not later than 90 days after the beginning of the year). Unless the committee chooses otherwise, the company performance measures are based 75 percent on earnings-per-share growth and 25 percent on sales growth. Bonuses for 2009 will be based on this measure.
Abonus multiple is used to adjust the bonus target to account for company performance. The committee establishes performance benchmarks for sales and earnings growth after considering expected peer group performance. If the benchmarks are met exactly, the bonus multiple would be 100 percent of the bonus target. Actual bonus multiples will vary depending on company performance relative to the benchmarks. The maximum bonus multiple is 200 percent of the bonus target and the threshold multiple is 25 percent of the bonus target (zero for executive officers), except that the committee has discretion to reduce the bonus multiple to a lower percentage or to zero. The committee does not have discretion to increase the multiple.
Individual Performance Adjustments. For employees other than executive officers, the committee will establish performance multipliers which correspond to individual performance ratings on an annual basis. Executive officers’ awards may not be adjusted upward.
Payment.Payment will be made following certification by the committee of the company’s actual performance results for the year. No executive officer’s bonus payment may exceed $7 million in any one year. Participants must remain employed until the end of the year to receive a bonus, except in the case of retirement, death, disability, and certain leaves of absence.
Amendment. The plan may be amended at any time by the board or the committee. Shareholder approval of amendments may be sought to the extent the company deems it necessary or advisable to preserve tax-deductibility under Section 162(m) of the Code.
It is not possible to predict with certainty the bonuses that would be payable to the executive officers with respect to 2009 performance. However, if the company were to meet the target performance benchmarks for earnings-per-share growthArticles 9(c), 9(d), and sales growth, and assuming no change in the regular earnings13 of the executive officers forcompany’s amended articles of incorporation contain the year,provisions that will be affected if this proposal is adopted. These articles, set forth in Appendix A to this proxy statement, show the following bonuses would be paid for 2009 (before taxes):
Mr. Taurel—no longer eligible
Dr. Lechleiter—$2,100,000
Dr. Paul—$933,210
Mr. Carmine—$831,600
Mr. Rice—$720,800
Mr. Armitage—$653,120
All executive officers as a group (10 officers): $7,382,020
It is not possible to estimate the aggregate 2009 bonuses that would be payable to all eligible employees as a group.

48


Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table presents information as of December 31, 2008, about our other compensation plans under which shares of Lilly stock have been authorized for issuance.proposed changes with deletions indicated by strike-outs and additions indicated by underlining.
             
          (c) Number of securities remaining 
  (a) Number of securities to be      available for future issuance under 
  issued upon exercise of  (b) Weighted-average exercise  equity compensation plans 
  outstanding options, warrants, and  price of outstanding options,  (excluding securities reflected in 
Plan category rights  warrants, and rights  (a)) 
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders  63,429,738  $68.48   87,996,763 
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders1
  8,594,960  $75.76   02
Total  72,024,698  $69.35   87,996,763 
Vote Required
The affirmative vote of at least 80 percent of the outstanding common shares is needed to pass this proposal.
 
1Represents shares in the Lilly GlobalShares Stock Plan, which permits the company to grant stock options to nonmanagement employees worldwide. The plan is administered by the senior vice president responsible for human resources. The stock options are nonqualified for U.S. tax purposes. The option price cannot be less than the fair market value at the time of grant. The options shall not exceed 11 years in duration and shall be subject to vesting schedules established by the plan administrator. There are provisions for early vesting and early termination of the options in the event of retirement, disability, and death. In the event of stock splits or other recapitalizations, the administrator may adjust the number of shares available for grant, the number of shares subject to outstanding grants, and the exercise price of outstanding grants.
2The Lilly GlobalShares Stock Plan was terminated in February 2009. No more grants can be made under this plan.
The board recommends that you vote FOR reapprovingamending the material termscompany’s articles of performance goals for the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan.incorporation to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements.
Item 5. Shareholder Proposal on Eliminating Supermajority Voting Provisions from the Company’s ArticlesAllowing Shareholders to Call Special Meetings of Incorporation and BylawsShareholders
RAM Trust Services, 45 Exchange Street, Portland, Maine 04101, on behalf of Dana Chatfield Jones, 13541554 Campus Drive, Berkeley, California 94708, beneficial owner of approximately 100 shares, has submitted the following proposal:
Simple Majority Vote StandardSpecial Shareowner Meetings
RESOLVED, Shareholders request thatShareowners ask our board to take the steps necessary soto amend our bylaws and each appropriate governing document to give holders of 10% of our outstanding common stock (or the lowest percentage allowed by law above 10%) the power to call special shareowner meetings. This includes that each shareholder voting requirement in oursuch bylawand/or charter and bylaws,text will not have any exception or exclusion conditions (to the fullest extent permitted by state law) that calls forapply only to shareowners but not to managementand/or the board.
Special meetings allow shareowners to vote on important matters, such as electing new directors, that can arise between annual meetings. If shareowners cannot call special meetings investor returns may suffer. Shareowners should have the ability to call a greater than simple majority vote, be changed tospecial meeting when a majority of the votes cast for and against related proposals in compliance with applicable laws.matter merits prompt attention. This proposal appliesdoes not impact our board in maintaining its current power to each 80% provision in our charter and bylaws.call a special meeting.
Supporting Statement:This proposal is submittedtopic won more than 60% support the following companies in part2009: CVS Caremark (CVS), Sprint Nextel (S), Safeway (SWY), Motorola (MOT) and R. R. Donnelley (RRD).
The merits of this Special Shareowner Meetings proposal should also be considered in the context of other shareholder efforts to supportimprove our Board and management in securingcompany’s corporate governance. In 2009 the necessaryfollowing outstanding shareholder vote to adoptwas achieved:
A 2009 shareowner proposal on the management proposals for annual election of each director, also known as declassifying the board.
     In 2007 and 2008 our management recommended that we vote in favor of management proposals for annual election of each director. But although we responded and management won strong support of 75% and 77% of shares outstanding it still fell disappointingly short of our 80% threshold.
     This Simple Majority Vote proposal will reduce the thresholdtopic won more than 63% support at our annual meeting. This 63%-support also represented 51%-support from 80% to 50% and oneall shares outstanding. The Council of Institutional Investorswww.cii.org recommends that management adopt shareholder proposals upon receiving their first majority vote to adopt annual election of each director. I believe this proposal will enable our management to secure the vote necessary to adopt annual election of each director after these two disappointments.
     Additionally this proposal topic to adopt simple majority voting received 63% of our(based on yes and no votes at our 2008 annual meeting as a shareholder proposal. This proposal topic also won up to 89% support at the following companies in 2008:only).
Whirlpool (WHR)79%
Lear Corp. (LEA)88%
Liz Claiborne (LIZ)89%

49

57


 

The Council of Institutional Investors recommends adoption of simple majority voting. The Council also recommends timely adoption ofabove voting result shows there is strong shareholder proposals upon receiving their first 51% or higher vote.
support to enhance our corporate governance. Please encourage our board to respond positively to this proposal and take the steps necessaryfor a shareowner right to adopt a simple majority voting standard.call Special Shareowner Meetings.
Statement in Opposition to the Proposal on Eliminating Supermajority Voting ProvisionsAllowing Shareholders to Call Special Meetings of Shareholders
The board of directors recommends that you vote against this proposal because we believe it is not in the best long-term interests of the shareholders.
The proposal is not necessary and exposes shareholders to significant risks without any proven benefit.
The company and the board are committed to good corporate governance and accountability to shareholders. The company maintains an open door to discuss matters of concern to shareholders and has taken significant steps to implement strong governance principles and to ensure accountability, including:
• requiring majority voting for the election of directors
• allowing its shareholder rights plan to expire
• seeking shareholder approval to eliminate the classified board, and
• seeking shareholder approval to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements.
The company’s annual meeting of shareholders provides a regular opportunity for shareholders to raise appropriate matters of interest to the company and its shareholders, as demonstrated by proposals such as this. For those extraordinary circumstances where a matter cannot wait until the next annual meeting, a special meeting of shareholders may be called by a majority of the board of directors or the chairman of the board. And, under Indiana law and NYSE regulations, the board must obtain shareholder approval for major corporate actions such as a merger, acceptance of a takeover bid, sale of substantially all assets, or amendments to the articles of incorporation.
We believe the existing governance mechanisms ensure accountability to shareholders and that the proposal should be evaluated in the context of all of the company’s corporate governance practices. The proponent contends that if shareholders cannot call special meetings, investment returns may suffer. She provides no support for this contention, and we are not aware of any support for it. On the contrary, a 2004 study by Lawrence D. Brown and Marcus L. Caylor of Georgia State University (commissioned by the proxy advisory service Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.)1 found that the right of shareholders to call special meetings was associated with a negative effect on returns on equity and had no significant effect on five other measures of company performance. We believe that this proposal would not enhance our governance practices and, as discussed below, would expose the company to costs and actions detrimental to shareholders.
Special meetings are costly and disruptive to the business.
Shareholder meetings are expensive and divert significant resources from the business. We must pay to prepare, print, and distribute legal disclosure documents to over 300,000 shareholders; solicit proxies; and tabulate votes. The board and management must divert time from the business to prepare for and conduct the meeting. We believe these costs and disruptions should be incurred only when the directors, in exercising their fiduciary duties, determine that there is an extraordinary matter or major strategic concern that cannot wait until the next annual meeting, not when a small group of shareholders determines it is in their own self-interest.
Special meetings could be abused by special-interest shareholder groups.
The proposal could subject the company to constant disruption from special-interest shareholder groups with an agenda not in the best interests of the company or the other shareholders. Currently, special meetings of shareholders may be called by a majority of the board of directors or the chairman of the board, who have a fiduciary duty under the law to act in the best interests of the company and the shareholders as a whole when determining whether a matter is so pressing that it must be addressed at a special meeting. The proposal would permit a single large shareholder or a small group of shareholders who have a special interest (and who have no duty to act in the best interests of the company or the shareholders at large) to use the extraordinary measure of a special meeting to serve their narrow self-interest. For example, event-driven hedge funds could use special meetings to disrupt the company’s business or to facilitate their own short-term focused exit strategies. Also, would-be acquirers who seek to take over the company for an inadequate price could use special meetings to avoid negotiating with the board, which has the responsibility to protect the interests of all shareholders. In fact, if this proposal were implemented, a single 10-percent shareholder would have the ability to call a special meeting at its sole discretion, at any time, for any reason.
The board recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.
1Brown, L.D. and M.L. Caylor, 2004. The Correlation between Corporate Governance and Company Performance, Institutional Shareholder Services White Paper.
58


Item 6. Shareholder Proposal on Prohibiting CEOs from Serving on the Compensation Committee
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Reserve Fund (AFL-CIO Reserve Fund), 815 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, beneficial owner of approximately 765 shares, has submitted the following proposal:
RESOLVED,The shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company (the “Company”) request that the Board of Directors (the “Board”) adopt a policy prohibiting any current or former chief executive officers of public companies from serving on the Board’s Compensation Committee. The policy shall be implemented so that it does not affect the unexpired terms of previously elected directors.
Supporting Statement: It is a well-established tenet of corporate governance that a compensation committee must be independent of management to ensure fair and impartial negotiations of pay with individual executives. Indeed, this principle is reflected in the listing standards of the major stock exchanges.
We do not dispute that CEOs can be valuable members of other Board committees. Nonetheless, we believe that shareholder concerns about aligning CEO pay with performance argue strongly in favor of directors who can view senior executive compensation issues objectively. We are particularly concerned about CEOs on the Compensation Committee because of their potential conflicts of interest in setting the compensation of their peers.
We believe that CEOs who benefit from generous pay will view large compensation packages as necessary to retain and motivate other executives. In our view, those who benefit from stock option plans will view them as an efficient form of compensation; those who receive generous “golden parachutes” will regard them as a key element of a compensation package. Consequently, we are concerned that the inclusion of CEOs on the Compensation Committee may result in more generous pay packages for senior executives than that necessary to attract and retain talent.
In their 2004 book “Pay Without Performance,” law professors Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried cite an academic study by Brian Main, Charles O’Reilly and James Wade that found a significant association between the compensation level of outsiders on the compensation committee and CEO pay.
“There are still plenty of CEOs who sit on compensation committees at other companies,” said Carol Bowie, a corporate governance expert at RiskMetrics Group. “They don’t have an interest in seeing CEO pay go down.” (Crain’s Chicago Business, May 26, 2008.)
Executive compensation expert Graef Crystal concurs. “My own research of CEOs who sit on compensation committees shows that the most highly paid executives award the fattest packages to the CEOs whose pay they regulate. Here’s an even better idea: bar CEOs from serving on the comp committee.” (Bloomberg News column, June 22, 2009.)
Moreover, CEOs “indirectly benefit from one another’s pay increases because compensation packages are often based on surveys detailing what their peers are earning.” (The New York Times, May 24, 2006.)
At our Company, CEO John C. Lechleiter received a 6% compensation increase in 2008 to $12.8 million including the grant date fair value of equity-based awards, despite the Company’s Articlespoor performance, both in absolute terms and relative to peers. Two of Incorporation and Bylawsthe four directors on the Compensation Committee are either current or retired CEOs.
Statement in Opposition to the Proposal on Prohibiting CEOs from Serving on the Compensation Committee
The board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best long-term interests of the shareholders and recommends that you vote against it.
The supermajority vote requirements were approved by shareholders and are very limited.
Nearly all proposals submittedboard must be able to a votestaff the compensation committee with the best mix of shareholders can already be adopted by a simple majority vote. However, in 1985directors to do the company’s shareholders voted to increasejob.
Compensation committees do far more than just establish compensation for the approval requirement established inCEO. For example, the articles of incorporation for a few fundamental corporate actions. These actions, which require the approval of at least 80 percent of the outstanding shares, relate to:Lilly compensation committee:
terms of office of directors (i.e., the classified board structure)
 approves the company’s executive pay philosophy
removal of directors prior to the end of their elected term
 approves the amendmentpay of the articles of incorporation’s provisions relating to the terms of office and removal of directorscompany’s executive officers
 oversees the design and administration of the company’s cash incentive bonus program for the majority of the company’s employees and the equity incentive program for more than 5,000 employees
merger, consolidation, recapitalization, or certain other business combinations that are not approved by the board of directors
 oversees senior management succession plans.
To provide effective counsel and oversight on these wide-ranging issues, a committee should bring to the table a diversity of experiences and viewpoints. The board needs the flexibility to staff the compensation committee—and all other committees—with directors who have the right mix of experiences and skills to carry out the committees’ broad fiduciary responsibilities. The board also needs the flexibility to rotate membership of all committees over time to ensure the right blend of continuity and fresh perspectives. Imposing artificial restrictions on who can serve on the compensation committee would prevent the board from staffing committees in a way that best represents the shareholders’ interests.
59


Compensation committees can benefit from the experience of CEOs.
Business executives bring an important perspective to compensation committees: real-world, hands-on experience with executive compensation programs. Seasoned business leaders (including sitting and retired CEOs) are familiar with financial metrics, performance comparisons, and compensation program design and administration. Their experience gives executives unique insights into what makes compensation programs succeed—or fail—in:
 the amendment of the articles of incorporation’s provisions relating to such mergers• attracting and business combinations.retaining highly talented individuals
Under Item 3
• fostering high performance with high integrity
• aligning behaviors with the company’s strategy and motivating long-term value creation without encouraging excessive risk-taking, and
• delivering pay in a cost-effective way.
By virtue of this proxy statementboth temperament and depth of experience, business executives can be very effective serving the board is recommending a vote to provide for annual electiontwin roles of directors. If Item 3 is successful, the only significant matters that would require an 80 percent vote would be (i) removal of directors other than through the annual election processcounseling management and (ii) approval of mergers and business combinations that are opposed by the board. These are rare and dramatic corporate actions thatchallenging management when necessary. The board should not be undertaken withoutprecluded from tapping into this expertise merely because it is held by a person who is or was a CEO.
This proposal is not necessary to align CEO pay with the approvalshareholders’ interests.
Dr. Lechleiter’s pay reflects ourpay-for-performance philosophy and aligns well with shareholder interests. Contrary to the proponent’s claim of “poor performance,” in both 2008 and 2009, the company’s revenue growth and earnings growth placed it in the top tier among peer companies. Accordingly, Dr. Lechleiter and all other participating employees received above-target bonuses and PAs. However, the company’s shareholder return lagged the peer group and other large-cap indices; as a very large majorityresult Dr. Lechleiter, and others who were executive officers at the time of shareholders.
The vote requirements help the board preserve long-termgrant, received no value for shareholdersthe2007-2009 SVA. Even with the relatively strong bonus and PA payouts, Dr. Lechleiter’s pay remains in the face of short-term opportunistic threats.
The board believes that in adopting these supermajority voting provisions, the shareholders intended to preserve and maximize the value of Lilly stock for all shareholders by protecting against short-term, self-interested actions by one or a few large shareholders who would seek to make fundamental changes to the company without the involvementlower tier of the board of directors.
peer group. The board has a fiduciary duty under the law to act in a manner it believescompensation committee’s strong governance processes (described onpages 26-27) ensure that shareholder interests will continue to be inwell-served by the best interests of the company and its shareholders. In the event of an unsolicited bid to take over or restructure the company, these supermajority voting provisions encourage bidders to negotiate with the board and give the board substantial bargaining leverage. The provisions also give the board valuable time to consider alternative proposals that might provide greater value for all shareholders.committee’s CEO pay decisions.
 The board believes that these supermajority voting provisions protect all shareholders by making it more difficult for one or a few large shareholders to restructure the company to further a special interest, or to take control of the company, without negotiating with the board to assure that the best results are achieved for all shareholders.
In today’s troubled markets, takeover defenses are especially important.
In our analysis, the evidence does not support the view that large-scale pharmaceutical mergers have produced sustained operating performance, competitive advantage, or superior returns for shareholders. Thus, under any circumstances — and especially during a period of depressed stock prices — it is important that a board be able to respond to opportunistic takeover bids from a position of strength, ensuring that the outcome is in the best interests of the company and all shareholders.
The board recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.proposal

50


Item 6. Shareholder Proposal on Allowing Shareholders to Amendbecause it is unnecessary and would impact the Company’s Bylaws
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), P.O. Box 942707, Sacramento, California 94229-2707, beneficial ownereffectiveness of approximately 3,488,440 shares, has submitted the following proposal:
RESOLVED, that the shareowners of Eli Lilly & Company (“Company”) urge the Company to take all steps necessary, in compliance with applicable law, to allow its shareowners to amend the Company’s bylaws by a simple majority vote.
Supporting Statement: The most important shareowner power is the power to vote. In most cases, in addition to having the power to vote to elect directors, shareowners are able to vote to amend a company’s bylaws. Approximately 95% of companies in the S&P 500compensation committee and the Russell 1000 allow shareowners to amend the bylaws. The Company is one of the very few companies in the S&P 500 that does not give shareowners this power.
     Bylaws typically contain corporate governance provisions of the utmost importance to shareowners, e.g., the ability to call a special meeting, the ability to remove directors, anti-takeover provisions, director election rules, among other provisions. Without a formal mechanism to impact a company’s governance through bylaw amendments, the shareowners of a company are disenfranchised. In fact, limiting shareowner ability to amend the bylaws has been found to be one of six entrenching mechanisms that are negatively correlated with company performance. See “What Matters in Corporate Governance?” Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen & Allen Ferrell, Harvard Law School, Discussion Paper No. 491 (09/2004, revised 03/2005).
     This proposal asks for a simple majority vote standard to amend the bylaws of the Company since a supermajority vote can be almost impossible to obtain in light of abstentions and broker non-votes. For example, a proposal to declassify the board of directors filed at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company failed to pass by a majority of shares outstanding even though approximately 90 percent of votes cast were in favor of the proposal. While it is often stated by corporations that the purpose of supermajority requirements is to provide corporations the ability to protect minority shareowners, supermajority requirements are most often used, in CalPERS’ opinion, to block initiatives opposed by management and the board of directors but supported by most shareowners. At the Sara Lee Corporation, approximately 81% of shareowners agreed when it passed a proposal identical to this proposal.
     This is why CalPERS is sponsoring this proposal that, if passed and implemented, would make the Company more accountable to shareowners by allowing shareowners to amend the bylaws by majority vote. As a trust fund with more than 1.5 million participants, and as the owner of approximately 3.4 million shares of the Company’s common stock, CalPERS believes that corporate governance procedures and practices, and the level of accountability they impose, are closely related to financial performance. CalPERS also believes that shareowners are willing to pay a premium for shares of corporations that have excellent corporateboard’s overall governance. If the Company were to take steps to implement this proposal, it would be a strong statement that this Company is committed to good corporate governance and its long-term financial performance.
     Please vote FOR this proposal.
Statement in Opposition to the Proposal on Allowing Shareholders to Amend the Company’s Bylaws
The board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best long-term interests of the shareholders and recommends that you vote against it.
The current rules prevent the bylaws from being abused by special interest shareholder groups.
The company’s bylaws establish a number of fundamental corporate governance operating principles, including rules for meetings of directors and shareholders, election and duties of directors and officers, authority to approve transactions, and procedures for stock issuance. Under Indiana law, the bylaws can contain any provision regulating the operation of the business not prohibited by law or the articles of incorporation. Like many other Indiana corporations, Lilly has adopted the default provision under Indiana law, which states that unless the articles of incorporation provide otherwise, the bylaws may be amended only by the directors.
     The board of directors has fiduciary obligations to the company and all its shareholders, including large institutions, small institutions, and individual investors. The board believes that allowing the bylaws to be amended by a majority shareholder vote would expose shareholders to the risk that a relatively small number of large shareholders who wish to advance their own special interests—and who have no duties to the other shareholders—could adopt changes in these operating principles that would be detrimental to minority shareholders. Under the majority vote standard endorsed by the proponent (requiring only a majority of shares voted at the meeting), shareholders holding significantly less than half of the outstanding shares could adopt bylaw amendments to further their

51


own special interests. The board, on the other hand, has fiduciary duties to consider and balance the interests of all shareholders when considering bylaw provisions, and is better positioned to ensure that any bylaw amendments are prudent and are designed to protect and maximize long-term value for all shareholders.
This proposal is not necessary to foster good governance or create growth in shareholder value.
The proponent suggests this proposal is necessary to foster good governance principles and make the directors more accountable to the shareholders. On the contrary, the board has been for many years, and intends to remain, a leader in corporate governance. The company has adopted comprehensive corporate governance principles, consistent with best practices, that ensure the company remains fully transparent and accountable to shareholders. Further, the board has taken significant steps to demonstrate its continuing commitment to good corporate governance and accountability to shareholders:
In this proxy statement, the board is seeking shareholder approval to provide for annual election of all directors (see Item 3).
The board adopted a majority voting standard for uncontested director elections beginning this year.
The board allowed the company’s shareholder rights plan to expire in 2008.
The proponent also suggests that adopting this proposal will enhance company performance. We certainly agree that strong corporate governance practices benefit shareholders, but we do not believe that this proposal will improve the company’s corporate governance or lead to better performance. In fact, a 2004 study by Lawrence D. Brown and Marcus L. Caylor of Georgia State University1 found that companies that permit shareholders to amend the bylaws performed no better or worse than those which reserve that power to the directors. This is consistent with our view that adopting this proposal would not enhance our already strong corporate governance practices and instead would expose minority shareholders to actions detrimental to their best interests.
The board recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.
Item 7. Shareholder Proposal on Shareholder Ratification of Executive Compensation
Gretchen Parrish, 2820 Senour Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46239, beneficial owner of approximately 120128 shares, has submitted the following proposal:
RESOLVED, thatthe shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company requestrecommend that the board of directors to adopt a policy requiring that provides shareholders the opportunity atproxy statement for each annual shareholder meeting to vote oncontain a proposal, submitted by and supported by Company Management, seeking an advisory resolution, proposed by management,vote of shareholders to ratify and approve the board Compensation’s Committee Report and the executive compensation of the named executive officers (“NEOs”)policies and practices set forth in the proxy statement’s Summary Compensation Table (the “SCT”) and the accompanying narrative disclosure of material factors provided to understand the SCT (but not theCompany’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis). The proposal submitted to shareholders should make clear that the vote is non-binding and would not affect any compensation paid or awarded to any NEO.Analysis.
Supporting Statement:Investors are increasingly concerned about mushrooming executive compensation especially when it is insufficiently linked to performance.
In 2008,2009 shareholders filed close to 100 “Say on Pay” resolutions. Votes on these resolutions have averaged 43%more than 46% in favor, with tenand close to 25 companies had votes over 50%, demonstrating strong shareholder support for this reform. Investor, public and legislative concerns about executive compensation have reached new levels of intensity.
An Advisory Vote establishes an annual referendum process for shareholders about senior executive compensation. We believe the results of this vote would provide theour board and management useful information about shareholder viewsfrom shareholders on the company’s senior executive compensation.compensation especially when tied to an innovative investor communication program.
In its 2008 proxy Aflac submitted an Advisory Vote resulting in a 93% vote in favor, indicating strong investor support for good disclosure and a reasonable compensation package. Daniel Amos, Chairman and CEO Daniel Amos said, “An advisory vote on our compensation report is a helpful avenue for our shareholders to provide feedback on ourpay-for-performance compensation philosophy and pay package.”
     To date eight otherOver 30 companies have also agreed to an Advisory Vote, including Apple, Ingersoll Rand, Microsoft, Occidental Petroleum, Pfizer, Prudential, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Verizon, MBIA H&R Block, Ingersoll Rand, Blockbuster, and Tech Data. TIAA-CREF, the country’s largest pension fund, has successfully utilizedPG&E. And nearly 300 TARP participants implemented the Advisory Vote twice.in 2009, providing an opportunity to see it in action.
1Brown, L.D. and M.L. Caylor. 2004. The Correlation between Corporate Governance and Company Performance.Institutional Shareholder Services White Paper.

52


Influential proxy voting service RiskMetrics Group, recommends votes in favor, noting: “RiskMetrics encourages companies to allow shareholders to express their opinions of executive compensation practices by establishing an annual referendum process. An advisory vote on executive compensation is another step forward in enhancing board accountability.”
 The Council of Institutional Investors endorsed advisory votes and a
60


A bill to allowmandating annual advisory votes passed the House of Representatives, by a 2-to-1 margin. and similar legislation is expected to pass in the Senate. However, we believe companies should demonstrate leadership and proactively adopt this reform before the law requires it.
We believe the statement like [sic] approach for company leaders is to adopt an Advisory Vote voluntarily before required by law.
     We believe that existing U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC rules and stock exchange listing standards do not provide shareholders with sufficient mechanisms for providing input to boards on senior executive compensation. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, public companies allow shareholders to cast a vote on the “directors’ remuneration report,” which discloses executive compensation. Such a vote isn’t binding, but gives shareholders a clear voice that could help shape senior executive compensation.
We believe voting against the election of Board members to send a message about executive compensation is a blunt, sledgehammer approach, whereas an Advisory Vote provides shareowners a more effective instrument.
We believe that a company that has a clearly explained compensation philosophy and metrics, reasonably links pay to performance, and communicates effectively to investors would find a management sponsored Advisory Vote a helpful tool.
 We urge our board to allow shareholders to express their opinion about senior executive compensation through an Advisory Vote.
Statement in Opposition to the Proposal on Shareholder Ratification of Executive Compensation
The board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best long-term interests of the shareholders and recommends that you vote against it.
An advisory vote is not a substitute for the informed judgment of independent directors.
The compensation committee, composed of independent directors and assisted by an independent consultant, takes very seriously its fiduciary duties to oversee executive compensation programs that are designed to promote long-term value for the company and its shareholders. The committee’s work is complex and time-consuming; it involves analysis of both public and confidential information, including competitively sensitive strategic and operational information. Any votes by shareholders would necessarily be based on less information and analysis and therefore could not be a substitute for the fully informed judgment of the independent directors.
An advisory vote is an ineffective way to communicate shareholder opinions regarding our executive compensation.
The compensation committee welcomes shareholder input on executive compensation; however, a simple “up or down” advisory vote would give the committee little or no insight into what aspects of the company’s programs should be addressed or how to address them. Further, voting results could be misconstrued. For example, a heavily positive vote could lead the committee to discount legitimate concerns raised by a small minority of shareholders. Likewise, a heavily negative vote could be a reaction to events unrelated to the company’s executive compensation programs and could pressure the committee to make compensation changes that are not in the best long-term interests of the shareholders.
Shareholders already have an efficient and effective way to express their opinions.
The company has established an avenue for shareholders to communicate directly with the board or its committees. See “How do I contact the board of directors?” on page 4 for instructions on how shareholders can communicate with the compensation committee or board. In addition, company representatives periodically meet with large shareholders and shareholder representatives to discuss governance issues and executive compensation. Finally, the committee’s independent consultant routinely consults with shareholder groups and advises the committee of evolving shareholder views on executive compensationexecutive-compensation best practices.
These communications yield results. In recent years, the committee has made a number of changes to our executive compensation programs that were influenced at least in part by shareholder views expressed to us directly:
  eliminated stock options in favor of performance-based shareholder value awardsSVAs
  extended the performance period for performance awardsPAs from one to two years and added additional stock retentionstock-retention periods for executive officers
  substantially reduced benefits under thechange-in-control severance pay program for executives
 
 implemented a• expanded our claw-back provision to recoup performance-based compensation from executives in the case of restatement of results attributable to misconductor error in calculation of performance metrics
  enhanced the transparency and clarity of our disclosures on executive compensation.

53


The committee takes seriously its responsibilities to provide competitively justifiable and defensible pay levels and programs that reflect evolving best practices. Enacting this resolution would be a distraction and not helpful to a process that is already working well.
We should not adopt advisory voting ahead of proposed U.S. legislation that would apply to all companies.
In the U.K., advisory votes are mandated by law. In the U.S., legislation is expected to be introduced
Legislation has been proposed in Congress that would mandate advisory votes, but the nature and scope of the advisory vote isare currently under debate. We do not at all clear at this time. Webelieve we should not adopt advisory voting until the rules are clear and apply to all companies equally.companies.
The board recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.

54

61


 

Item 8. Shareholder Proposal on Executives Holding Equity Awards into Retirement
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Pension Plan (AFSCME Employees Pension Plan), 1625 L Street N.W., Washington, D.C.20036-5687, beneficial owner of approximately 7,120 shares, has submitted the following proposal:
RESOLVED,that shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) urge the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) to adopt a policy requiring that senior executives retain a significant percentage of shares acquired through equity compensation programs until two years following the termination of their employment (through retirement or otherwise), and to report to shareholders regarding the policy before Lilly’s 2011 annual meeting of shareholders. The shareholders recommend that the Committee not adopt a percentage lower than 75% of net after-tax shares. The policy should address the permissibility of transactions such as hedging transactions which are not sales but reduce the risk of loss to the executive.
Supporting Statement: Equity-based compensation is an important component of senior executive compensation at Lilly. According to the Lilly 2009 proxy statement, our company pays a meaningful portion of named executive officers’ total compensation in equity incentives through performance awards and shareholder value awards, aligning the interests of employees and shareholders, providing an ownership stake in the company and delivering equity compensation that is strongly linked to shareholder returns. Since 2004, Lilly named executive officers have realized more than $47 million in reported value through the exercise of 725,176 options and vesting of 521,141 shares. The six NEOs hold 1,504,458 shares outright, but hold another 4,795,270 in stock options.
We believe there is a link between shareholder wealth and executive wealth that correlates to direct stock ownership by executives. According to an analysis conducted by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, companies whose CFOs held more shares generally showed higher stock returns and better operating performance. (Alix Stuart, “Skin in the Game,”CFO Magazine (March 1, 2008)).
Requiring senior executives to hold a significant portion of shares obtained through compensation plans after the termination of employment would focus them on Lilly’s long-term success and would better align their interests with those of Lilly shareholders. In the context of the current financial crisis, we believe it is imperative that companies reshape their compensation policies and practices to discourage excessive risk-taking and promote long-term, sustainable value creation. A 2009 report by the Conference Board Task Force on Executive Compensation stated thathold-to-retirement requirements give executives “an evergrowing incentive to focus on long-term stock price performance.”
(http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/ExecCompensation2009.pdf)
Lilly has a minimum stock ownership guideline requiring executives to own a number of shares of Lilly stock as a multiple of salary. The executives covered by the policy have five years in which to comply. We believe this policy does not go far enough to ensure that equity compensation builds executive ownership. Lilly also requires executives to retain net after-tax shares received from equity programs from one year. We view a more rigorous retention requirement as superior to a stock ownership policy with a one year retention guideline, because a guideline loses effectiveness once it has been satisfied and a one year retention requirement is not sufficiently long-term.
We urge shareholders to vote for this proposal.
Statement in Opposition to the Proposal on Executives Holding Equity Awards into Retirement
The board of directors believes that this proposal is not necessary given current company policies and programs and recommends that you vote against it.
We agree with the proponent’s underlying premise—that meaningful, long-term stock ownership aligns executives’ interests with those of the shareholders and promotes a focus on sustainable value creation. However, we believe our current policies and programs achieve this goal effectively.
Share retention guidelines require significant stock holdings by executives.
The compensation committee has established minimum share-holding requirements as described in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” Executive officers must hold all net shares for at least one year after payout of the award, and until the minimum-share requirements are met, executive officers must retain all existing holdings plus 50 percent of net shares from new payouts. Employees are not permitted to hedge their economic exposure to company stock that they own through short sales or derivative transactions.
The design of benefit and long-term incentive programs ensures an ownership stake in the company post retirement.
Long-term equity incentive awards do not pay out upon retirement but according to the normal payout timing for the award. For PAs, a retiring executive officer will have two awards outstanding, one of which will not pay out for at least one year following retirement. SVAs have a three-year performance period, so a retiring executive officer will have three outstanding awards: (i) one award will pay out in the year following retirement; (ii) one award will pay out in the second year following retirement; (iii) one award will pay out in the third year following retirement. Also, a retiring executive officer will have at least one grant of restricted stock units outstanding that will not vest until the specified vest date.
62


In addition to having an equity stake in the company, executives retiring from the company are eligible to receive a lifetime pension annuity. Lump-sum distributions from the plan are not permitted, and a majority of the benefit is not protected by a funded trust. As a result, the retiring executive has a keen interest in the company’s ongoing success.
Excessive share ownership may encourage excessive risk-taking.
While we support having share ownership extend into retirement, we seek to require a reasonable ownership stake. Compensation experts agree that executives with excessive proportions of their wealth tied directly to the company may take undue risks to maximize stock price. Requiring executive officers to hold 75 percent of net shares from all equity incentive payouts while an executive officer may result in holding a disproportionate ownership stake relative to the individual’s total personal wealth.
Our compensation recovery policy allows the compensation committee to “claw back” compensation paid based upon misstated financial statements up to 2 years post retirement.
Executive officers retain a financial stake in the company’s performance after retirement because the company has the right to repayment of compensation paid to him or her based on materially inaccurate or misstated financial statements.
The board recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.
63


Other Matters
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Under Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC rules, our directors and executive officers are required to file with the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC reports of holdings and changes in beneficial ownership of company stock. We have reviewed copies of reports provided to the company, as well as other records and information. Based on that review, we concluded that all reports were timely filed.filed, except that a stock unit award held by Dr. Susan Mahony, senior vice president of human resources, was inadvertently omitted from a filing. The filing was amended to include this award promptly after the issue was discovered.
Certain Legal Matters
In 2007, the company received two demands from shareholders that the board of directors cause the company to take legal action against current and former directors and others for allegedly causing damage to the company through improper marketing of Evista®, Prozac®, and Zyprexa.Zyprexa®. In accordance with procedures established under the Indiana Business Corporation Law (Ind. Code§ 23-1-32), the board has appointed a committee of independent persons to consider the demands and determine what action, if any, the company should take in response. Since January 2008, we have been served with seven shareholder derivative lawsuits:Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al.,, filed January 17, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana;Staehr, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,filed March 27, 2008, in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana;Waldman, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,, filed February 11, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York;Solomon v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,, filed March 27, 2008, in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana;Robbins v. Taurel, et al.,, filed April 9, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York;City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Taurel, et al.,, filed April 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; andZemprelli v. Taurel, et alal.,., filed June 24, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Two of these lawsuits were filed by the shareholders who served the demands described above. All seven lawsuits are nominally filed on behalf of the company, against various current and former directors and officers and allege that the named officers and directors harmed the company through the improper marketing of Zyprexa, and in certain suits, Evista and Prozac. The Zemprelli suit also claims that certain defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Each of the current directors, other than Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Eskew, Mr. Hoover, and Mr. Oberhelman, are named in the suits. We believe these suitslawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.
Other Information Regarding the Company’s Proxy Solicitation
We will pay all expenses in connection with our solicitation of proxies. We will pay brokers, nominees, fiduciaries, or other custodians their reasonable expenses for sending proxy material to and obtaining instructions from persons for whom they hold stock of the company. We expect to solicit proxies primarily by mail, but directors, officers, and other employees of the company may also solicit in person or by telephone, fax, or electronic mail. We have retained Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. to assist in the distribution and solicitation of proxies. Georgeson may solicit proxies by personal interview, telephone, fax, mail, and electronic mail. We expect that the fee for those services will not exceed $17,500 plus reimbursement of customaryout-of-pocket expenses.
By order of the board of directors,
James B. Lootens
Secretary
March 9, 20098, 2010

55

64


 

Appendix A
Proposed Amendments to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation
The
Proposed changes to the company’s articles of incorporation proposed in Itemare shown below related to Items 3Items and 4, “Items of Business To Be Acted Upon at the MeetingMeeting.” The changes shown to Article 9(b) will be effective if “Item 3. Proposal to Amend the Company’s Articles of Incorporation to Provide for Annual Election of All Directors” (pages 55-56) receives the vote of at least 80 percent of the outstanding shares. The changes to Articles 9(c), are shown below.9(d), and 13 will be effective if “Item 4. Proposal to Amend the Company’s Articles of Incorporation to Eliminate All Supermajority Voting Requirements” (pages 56-57) receives the vote of at least 80 percent of the outstanding shares. Additions are indicated by underlining and deletions are indicated by strike-outs.
. . . . .
9. The following provisions are inserted for the management of the business and for the conduct of the affairs of the Corporation, and it is expressly provided that the same are intended to be in furtherance and not in limitation or exclusion of the powers conferred by statute:
(a) The number of directors of the Corporation, exclusive of directors who may be elected by the holders of any one or more series of Preferred Stock pursuant to Article 7(b) (the “Preferred Stock Directors”), shall not be less than nine, the exact number to be fixed from time to time solely by resolution of the Board of Directors, acting by not less than a majority of the directors then in office.
(b) ThePrior to the 20102011 annual meeting of shareholders, the Board of Directors (exclusive of Preferred Stock Directors) shall be divided into three classes, with the term of office of one class expiring each year.At the annual meeting of shareholders in 1985, five directors of the first class shall be elected to hold office for a term expiring at the 1986 annual meeting, five directors of the second class shall be elected to hold office for a term expiring at the 1987 annual meeting, and six directors of the third class shall be elected to hold office for a term expiring at the 1988 annual meeting. Commencing with the annual meeting of shareholders in198620102011, each class of directors whose term shall then expire shall be elected to hold office for athreeone-year term expiring at the next annual meeting of shareholdersshareholders.. In the case of any vacancy on the Board of Directors occurring after the 20092010 annual meeting of shareholders, including a vacancy created by an increase in the number of directors, the vacancy shall be filled by election of the Board of Directors with the director so elected to servefor the remainder of the term of the director being replaced or, in the case of an additional director, for the remainder of the term of the class to which the director has been assigned.until the next annual meeting of shareholders. All directors shall continue in office until the election and qualification of their respective successors in office.When the number of directors is changed, any newly created directorships or any decrease in directorships shall be so assigned among the classes by a majority of the directors then in office, though less than a quorum, as to make all classes as nearly equal in number as possible. No decrease in the number of directors shall have the effect of shortening the term of any incumbent director. Election of directors need not be by written ballot unless the By-laws so provide.
(c) Any director or directors (exclusive of Preferred Stock Directors) may be removed from office at any time, but only for cause and only by the affirmative vote ofat least 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of all the outstanding sharesthe holdersof Voting Stock (as defined in Article 13 hereof), voting together as a single class.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Amended Articles of Incorporation or of law which might otherwise permit a lesser vote or no vote, but in addition to any affirmative vote of the holders of any particular class of Voting Stock required by law or these Amended Articles of Incorporation, the affirmative vote of at least 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of all the outstanding shares of Voting Stock, voting together as a single class, shall be required to alter, amend or repeal this Article 9.
. . . . .

56

13. In addition to all other requirements imposed by law and these Amended Articles and except as otherwise expressly provided in paragraph (c) of this Article 13, none of the actions or transactions listed below shall be effected by the Corporation, or approved by the Corporation as a shareholder of any majority-owned subsidiary of the Corporation if, as of the record date for the determination of the shareholders entitled to vote thereon, any Related Person (as hereinafter defined) exists, unless the applicable requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (fe) of this Article 13 are satisfied.
(a) The actions or transactions within the scope of this Article 13 are as follows:
(i) any merger or consolidation of the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries into or with such Related Person;
(ii) any sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all or any substantial part of the assets of the Corporation or any of its majority-owned subsidiaries to or with such Related Person;
(iii) the issuance or delivery of any Voting Stock (as hereinafter defined) or of voting securities of any of the Corporation’s majority-owned subsidiaries to such Related Person in exchange for cash, other assets or securities, or a combination thereof;
65


 

(iv) any voluntary dissolution or liquidation of the Corporation;
(v) any reclassification of securities (including any reverse stock split), or recapitalization of the Corporation, or any merger or consolidation of the Corporation with any of its subsidiaries, or any other transaction (whether or not with or otherwise involving a Related Person) that has the effect, directly or indirectly, of increasing the proportionate share of any class or series of capital stock of the Corporation, or any securities convertible into capital stock of the Corporation or into equity securities of any subsidiary, that is beneficially owned by any Related Person; or
(vi) any agreement, contract, or other arrangement providing for any one or more of the actions specified in the foregoing clauses (i) through (v).
(b) The actions and transactions described in paragraph (a) of this Article 13 shall have been authorized by the affirmative vote ofat least 80% of all of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of the outstanding sharesthe holders of Voting Stock, voting together as a single class.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this Article 13, the 80% voting requirement shall not be applicable if any action or transaction specified in paragraph (a) is approved by the Corporation’s Board of Directors and by a majority of the Continuing Directors (as hereinafter defined).
(dc) Unless approved by a majority of the Continuing Directors, after becoming a Related Person and prior to consummation of such action or transaction.
(i) the Related Person shall not have acquired from the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries any newly issued or treasury shares of capital stock or any newly issued securities convertible into capital stock of the Corporation or any of its majority-owned subsidiaries, directly or indirectly (except upon conversion of convertible securities acquired by it prior to becoming a Related Person or as a result of a pro rata stock dividend or stock split or other distribution of stock to all shareholders pro rata);
(ii) such Related Person shall not have received the benefit directly or indirectly (except proportionately as a shareholder) of any loans, advances, guarantees, pledges, or other financial assistance or tax credits provided by the Corporation or any of its majority-owned subsidiaries, or made any major changes in the Corporation’s or any of its majority-owned subsidiaries’ businesses or capital structures or reduced the current rate of dividends payable on the Corporation’s capital stock below the rate in effect immediately prior to the time such Related Person became a Related Person; and
(iii) such Related Person shall have taken all required actions within its power to ensure that the Corporation’s Board of Directors included representation by Continuing Directors at least proportionate to the voting power of the shareholdings of Voting Stock of the Corporation’s Remaining Public Shareholders (as hereinafter defined), with a Continuing Director to occupy an additional Board position if a fractional right to a director results and, in any event, with at least one Continuing Director to serve on the Board so long as there are any Remaining Public Shareholders.
(ed) A proxy statement responsive to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether or not the Corporation is then subject to such requirements, shall be mailed to the shareholders of the Corporation for the purpose of soliciting shareholder approval of such action or transaction and shall contain at the front thereof, in a prominent place, any recommendations as to the advisability or inadvisability of the action or transaction which the Continuing Directors may choose to state and, if deemed advisable by a majority of the Continuing Directors, the opinion of an investment banking firm selected by a majority of the Continuing Directors as to the fairness (or not) of the terms of the action or transaction from a financial point of view to the Remaining Public Shareholders, such investment banking firm to be paid a reasonable fee for its services by the Corporation. The requirements of this paragraph (e) shall not apply to any such action or transaction which is approved by a majority of the Continuing Directors.
(fe) For the purpose of this Article 13
(i) the term “Related Person” shall mean any other corporation, person, or entity which beneficially owns or controls, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of the outstanding shares of Voting Stock, and any Affiliate or Associate (as those terms are defined in the General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) of a Related Person; provided, however, that the term Related Person shall not include (a) the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, (b) any profit-sharing, employee stock ownership or other employee benefit plan of the Corporation or any subsidiary of the Corporation or any trustee of or fiduciary with respect to any such plan when acting in such capacity, or (c) Lilly Endowment, Inc.; and further provided, that no corporation, person, or entity shall be deemed to be a Related Person solely by reason of being an Affiliate or Associate of Lilly Endowment, Inc.;
(ii) a Related Person shall be deemed to own or control, directly or indirectly, any outstanding shares of Voting Stock owned by it or any Affiliate or Associate of record or beneficially, including without limitation shares
a. which it has the right to acquire pursuant to any agreement, or upon exercise of conversion rights, warrants, or options, or otherwise or
b. which are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly (including shares deemed owned through application of clause a. above), by any other corporation, person, or other entity with which it or its Affiliate or Associate has any agreement, arrangement, or understanding for the purpose of
66


acquiring, holding, voting, or disposing of Voting Stock, or which is its Affiliate (other than the Corporation) or Associate (other than the Corporation);
(iii) the term “Voting Stock” shall mean all shares of any class of capital stock of the Corporation which are entitled to vote generally in the election of directors;
(iv) the term “Continuing Director” shall mean a director who is not an Affiliate or Associate or representative of a Related Person and who was a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation immediately prior to the time that any Related Person involved in the proposed action or transaction became a Related Person or a director who is not an Affiliate or Associate or representative of a Related Person and who was nominated by a majority of the remaining Continuing Directors; and
(v) the term “Remaining Public Shareholders” shall mean the holders of the Corporation’s capital stock other than the Related Person.
(gf) A majority of the Continuing Directors of the Corporation shall have the power and duty to determine for the purposes of this Article 13, on the basis of information then known to the Continuing Directors, whether (i) any Related Person exists or is an Affiliate or an Associate of another and (ii) any proposed sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of part of the assets of the Corporation or any majority-owned subsidiary involves a substantial part of the assets of the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries. Any such determination by the Continuing Directors shall be conclusive and binding for all purposes.
(hg) Nothing contained in this Article 13 shall be construed to relieve any Related Person or any Affiliate or Associate of any Related Person from any fiduciary obligation imposed by law.
(ih) The fact that any action or transaction complies with the provisions of this Article 13 shall not be construed to waive or satisfy any other requirement of law or these Amended Articles of Incorporation or to impose any fiduciary duty, obligation, or responsibility on the Board of Directors or any member thereof, to approve such action or transaction or recommend its adoption or approval to the shareholders of the Corporation, nor shall such compliance limit, prohibit, or otherwise restrict in any manner the Board of Directors, or any member thereof, with respect to evaluations of or actions and responses taken with respect to such action or transaction. The Board of Directors of the Corporation, when evaluating any actions or transactions described in paragraph (a) of this Article 13, shall, in connection with the exercise of its judgment in determining what is in the best interests of the Corporation and its shareholders, give due consideration to all relevant factors, including without limitation the social and economic effects on the employees, customers, suppliers, and other constituents of the Corporation and its subsidiaries and on the communities in which the Corporation and its subsidiaries operate or are located.
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Amended Articles of Incorporation or of law which might otherwise permit a lesser vote or no vote, but in addition to any affirmative vote of the holders of any particular class of Voting Stock required by law or these Amended Articles of Incorporation, the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of all the outstanding shares of Voting Stock, voting together as a single class, shall be required to alter, amend, or repeal this Article 13.
. . . . .
67


Annual Meeting Admission Ticket
Eli Lilly and Company 20092010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Monday, April 20, 200919, 2010
11 a.m. EDT
Lilly Center Auditorium
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285
The top portion of this page will be required for admission to the meeting.
Please write your name and address in the space provided below and present this ticket when you enter the Lilly Center.
A reception (beverages only) will be held from 10:0015 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. in the Lilly Center.
   
Name
 
  
Address
 
  
City, State, and Zip Code
 
  
Detach here
   
(GRAPH)(GRAPH) (GRAPH)(GRAPH)
Directions and Parking
From I-70 take Exit 79B; follow signs to McCarty Street. Turn right (east) on McCarty Street; go straight into Lilly Corporate Center. You will be directed to parking.Be sure to take the admission ticket (the top portion of this page) with you to the meeting and leave this parking pass on your dashboard.

57


 

(IMAGE)
(IMAGE)
Take the top portion of this page with you to the meeting. Eli Lilly and Company Annual Meeting of Shareholders April 21, 200819, 2010 Complimentary Parking Lilly Corporate Center Please place this Identifieridentifier on the dashboard of your car as you enter Lilly Corporate Center so it can be clearly seen by security and parking personnel.

58


 

(PROXY CARD)(PROXY CARD)
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149 WILMINGTON, DE 19885-9801VOTE BY INTERNET - www.proxyvote.com Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, April 19, 2009.18, 2010. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions.ELI LILLY AND COMPANYVOTE BY PHONE — (1-800-690-6903(1-800-690-6903))C/O IVS, P.O. Box 17149Use any touch-tone telephone to transmitTransmit your voting instructionsWILMINGTON, DE 19850up by telephone until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, April 19, 2009.18, 2010. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and follow the instructions. VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign, and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return to Eli Lilly and Company, c/o IVS Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington, DE 19885.19885-9801. Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held April 20, 2009:19, 2010: The annual report and proxy statement are available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2008.pdf.lillyar2009.pdf. THANK YOU FOR VOTING TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK; FOLD ALONGINK AS FOLLOWS: M19199-P89422 KEEP THIS LINE AND RETURN IN ACCOMPANYING RETURN ENVELOPE. ELILI1PORTION FOR YOUR THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED. DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ELI LILLY AND COMPANY The boardBoard of directorsDirectors recommends ayou vote FOR the following items (1, 2, 3, and 4):proposals: (1) Election of Directors,directors, each for a three-year term. To withhold authority to vote for any individual nominee(s), mark “For All Except” and write the For Withhold For All number(s) of the nominee(s) on the line below. (01) M. S. Feldstein All All Except (02) J. E. Fyrwald (03) E. R. Marram 0 (04) D. R. Oberhelman 0 0 For Against Abstain For Against Abstain 1a) R. Alvarez (2) Ratification of the appointment by the audit (4) Reapprove the material terms of performance committee of the board of the directors of 0 0 0 goals for the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan 0 0 0 Ernst & Young LLP as principal 1b) W. Bischoff independent auditors for 20092010 (3) Approve amendments to the articles of incorporation to 1c) R. D. Hoover provide for annual election of all 0 0 0 directors 1d) F. G. Prendergast (4) Approve amendments to the articles of incorporation to eliminate all supermajority voting provisions 1e) K. P. Seifert The boardBoard of directorsDirectors recommends ayou vote AGAINST the following items (5, 6, and 7):proposals: For Against Abstain For Against Abstain (5) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 (7) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 board eliminate all supermajority voting board of directors adopt a policy of asking provisions from the company’s articles ofShareholder proposal on allowing shareholders to ratifycall (7) Shareholder proposal on ratification of executive special shareholders’ meetings compensation (6) Shareholder proposal on prohibiting CEOs from serving (8) Shareholder proposal requiring executives to hold equity on the compensation of incorporation and bylaws named executive officers atcommittee awards into retirement NOTE: Such other business as may properly come before the annual meeting of shareholders (6) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 company amend its articles of incorporation to allow shareholders to amend the company’s bylaws by majority voteor any adjournment thereof. Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. One joint owner may sign on behalf of the others. When signing in a representative capacity, please clearly state your capacity. Signature(s)Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX] Date Signature(s)Signature (Joint Owners) Date

 


 

(PROXY CARD)(PROXY CARD)
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held April 20, 2009: The annual report and proxy statement are19, 2010: Combined Document is available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2008.pdflillyar2009.pdf M19200-P89422 The undersigned hereby appoints Messrs. R. A. Armitage, J. C. Lechleiter, and D. W. Rice, and each of them, as proxies, each with full power to act without the others and with full power of substitution, to vote as indicated on the backreverse side of this card all the shares of common stock of ELI LILLY AND COMPANY in this account held in the name of the undersigned at the close of business on February 13, 2009,12, 2010, at the annual meeting of shareholders to be held on April 20, 2009,19, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, and at any adjournment thereof, with all the powers the undersigned would have if personally present. If this card is properly executed and returned, the shares represented thereby will be voted. If a choice is specified by the shareholder, the shares will be voted accordingly. If not otherwise specified, the shares represented by this card will be voted for items 1 through 4, against items 5 through 7,8, and, in the discretion of the proxy holders upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting. This proxy is solicited on behalf of the board of directors. PLEASE MARKYOURVOTESANDMARK YOUR VOTES AND SIGN ONTHEON THE REVERSE SIDE OFTHISOF THIS CARD.

 


 

(PROXY CARD)(PROXY CARD)
NATIONAL CITY BANK, INDIANA, TRUSTEE C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149 WILMINGTON, DE 19850VOTE BY INTERNET — www.proxyvote.com Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, April 19, 2009.18, 2010. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions.NATIONAL CITY BANK, INDIANA, TRUSTEEVOTE BY PHONE - (1-800-690-6903(1-800-690-6903))C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149Use any touch-tone telephone to transmitTransmit your voting instructionsWILMINGTON, DE 19850up by telephone until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, April 19, 2009.18, 2010. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and follow the instructions. VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign, and date your proxythis card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return to IVS Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington, DE 19885. Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held April 20, 2009:19, 2010: The annual report and proxy statement are available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2008.pdf.lillyar2009.pdf. THANK YOU FOR VOTING TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK; FOLD ALONGINK AS FOLLOWS: M19201-P89422 KEEP THIS LINE AND RETURN IN ACCOMPANYING RETURN ENVELOPE. ELILI3 ESOPPORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS THIS VOTING INSTRUCTIONPROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED. DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY ESOP ELI LILLY AND COMPANY The boardBoard of directorsDirectors recommends ayou vote FOR the following items (1, 2, 3, and 4): To withhold authority to vote for any individualproposals: (1) Election of Directors,directors, each for a three-year term. nominee(s), mark “For All Except” and write the For Withhold For All number(s) of the nominee(s) on the line below. (01) M. S. Feldstein All All Except (02) J. E. Fyrwald (03) E. R. Marram 0 0 0 (04) D. R. Oberhelman For Against Abstain For Against Abstain 1a) R. Alvarez (2) Ratification of the appointment by the audit (4) Reapprove the material terms of performance committee of the board of the directors of 0 0 0 goals for the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan 0 0 0 Ernst & Young LLP as principal 1b) W. Bischoff independent auditors for 20092010 (3) Approve amendments to the articles of incorporation to 1c) R. D. Hoover provide for annual election of all 0 0 0 directors 1d) F. G. Prendergast (4) Approve amendments to the articles of incorporation to eliminate all supermajority voting provisions 1e) K. P. Seifert The boardBoard of directorsDirectors recommends ayou vote AGAINST the following items (5, 6, and 7):proposals: For Against Abstain For Against Abstain (5) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 (7) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 board eliminate all supermajority voting board of directors adopt a policy of asking provisions from the company’s articles ofShareholder proposal on allowing shareholders to ratifycall (7) Shareholder proposal on ratification of executive special shareholders’ meetings compensation (6) Shareholder proposal on prohibiting CEOs from serving (8) Shareholder proposal requiring executives to hold equity on the compensation of incorporation and bylaws named executive officers atcommittee awards into retirement NOTE: Such other business as may properly come before the annual meeting of shareholders (6) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 company amend its articles of incorporation to allow shareholders to amend the company’s bylaws by majority voteor any adjournment thereof. Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. One joint owner may sign on behalf of the others. When signing in a representative capacity, please clearly state your capacity. Signature(s)Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX] Date Signature(s)Signature (Joint Owners) Date

 


 

(PROXY CARD)(PROXY CARD)
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held April 20, 2009: The annual report and proxy statement are19, 2010: Combined Document is available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2008.pdflillyar2009.pdf ESOP M19202-P89422 Lilly Employee 401(K) Plan Confidential Voting Instructions To National City Bank, Indiana, Trustee By signing on the reverse side or by voting by phone or Internet, you direct the Trustee to vote (in person or in proxy) as indicated on the frontreverse side of this card, the number of shares of Eli Lilly and Company Common Stock credited to yourthis account under The Lilly Employee Savings Plan or an affiliated plan at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on April 20, 200919, 2010 at 11:00 a.ma.m. EDT, and at any adjournment thereof. Also, unless you decline by checking the box below, you direct the Trustee to apply this voting instructionpro rata(along with all other participants who provide voting instructions and do not decline as provided below) to all shares of Common Stock held in the plans for which the Trustee receives no voting instructions (the “undirected shares”), except that shares formerly held in The Lilly Employee Stock Ownership Plan (PAYSOP) may only be voted upon the express instruction of the participants to whose accounts the shares are credited. For more information on the voting of the undirected shares, see the Proxy Statement. Check here only if you decline to have your vote appliedpro rata to the undirected shares. 0 These confidential voting instructions will be seen only by authorized representatives of the Trustee. PLEASE MARKYOURVOTESANDMARK YOUR VOTES AND SIGN ONTHEON THE REVERSE SIDE OFTHISOF THIS CARD.

 


 

(PROXY CARD)(PROXY CARD)
NATIONAL CITY BANK, INDIANA, TRUSTEE C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149 WILMINGTON, DE 19850VOTE BY INTERNET — www.proxyvote.com Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, April 19, 2009.18, 2010. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions.NATIONAL CITY BANK, INDIANA, TRUSTEEVOTE BY PHONE - (1-800-690-6903(1-800-690-6903))C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149Use any touch-tone telephone to transmitTransmit your voting instructionsWILMINGTON, DE 19850up by telephone until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, April 19, 2009.18, 2010. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and follow the instructions. VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign, and date your proxythis card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return to IVS Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington, DE 19885. Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held April 20, 2009:19, 2010: The annual report and proxy statement are available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2008.pdf.lillyar2009.pdf. THANK YOU FOR VOTING TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK; FOLD ALONGINK AS FOLLOWS: M19203-P89422 KEEP THIS LINE AND RETURN IN ACCOMPANYING RETURN ENVELOPE. ELILI5 PAYSOPPORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS THIS VOTING INSTRUCTIONPROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED. DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY PAYSOP ELI LILLY AND COMPANY The boardBoard of directorsDirectors recommends ayou vote FOR the following items (1, 2, 3, and 4): To withhold authority to vote for any individualproposals: (1) Election of Directors,directors, each for a three-year term. nominee(s), mark “For All Except” and write the For Withhold For All number(s) of the nominee(s) on the line below. (01) M. S. Feldstein All All Except (02) J. E. Fyrwald (03) E. R. Marram 0 0 0 (04) D. R. Oberhelman For Against Abstain For Against Abstain 1a) R. Alvarez (2) Ratification of the appointment by the audit (4) Reapprove the material terms of performance committee of the board of the directors of 0 0 0 goals for the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan 0 0 0 Ernst & Young LLP as principal 1b) W. Bischoff independent auditors for 20092010 (3) Approve amendments to the articles of incorporation to 1c) R. D. Hoover provide for annual election of all 0 0 0 directors 1d) F. G. Prendergast (4) Approve amendments to the articles of incorporation to eliminate all supermajority voting provisions 1e) K. P. Seifert The boardBoard of directorsDirectors recommends ayou vote AGAINST the following items (5, 6, and 7):proposals: For Against Abstain For Against Abstain (5) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 (7) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 board eliminate all supermajority voting board of directors adopt a policy of asking provisions from the company’s articles ofShareholder proposal on allowing shareholders to ratifycall (7) Shareholder proposal on ratification of executive special shareholders’ meetings compensation (6) Shareholder proposal on prohibiting CEOs from serving (8) Shareholder proposal requiring executives to hold equity on the compensation of incorporation and bylaws named executive officers atcommittee awards into retirement NOTE: Such other business as may properly come before the annual meeting of shareholders (6) Proposal by shareholders requesting that the 0 0 0 company amend its articles of incorporation to allow shareholders to amend the company’s bylaws by majority voteor any adjournment thereof. Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. One joint owner may sign on behalf of the others. When signing in a representative capacity, please clearly state your capacity. Signature(s)Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX] Date Signature(s)Signature (Joint Owners) Date

 


 

(PROXY CARD)(PROXY CARD)
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held April 20, 2009: The annual report and proxy statement are19, 2010: Combined Document is available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2008.pdflillyar2009.pdf PAYSOP M19204-P89422 Lilly Employee 401(K) Plan Confidential Voting Instructions To National City Bank, Indiana, Trustee By signing on the reverse side or by voting by phone or Internet, you direct the Trustee to vote (in person or in proxy) as indicated on the frontreverse side of this card, the number of shares of Eli Lilly and Company Common Stock credited to yourthis account under The Lilly Employee Savings Plan or an affiliated plan at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on April 20, 200919, 2010 at 11:00 a.ma.m. EDT, and at any adjournment thereof. Also, unless you decline by checking the box below, you direct the Trustee to apply this voting instructionpro rata(along (along with all other participants who provide voting instructions and do not decline as provided below) to all shares of Common Stock held in the plans for which the Trustee receives no voting instructions (the “undirected shares”), except that shares formerly held in The Lilly Employee Stock Ownership Plan (PAYSOP) may only be voted upon the express instruction of the participants to whose accounts the shares are credited. For more information on the voting of the undirected shares, see the Proxy Statement. Check here only if you decline to have your vote appliedpro rata to the undirected shares. 0 These confidential voting instructions will be seen only by authorized representatives of the Trustee. PLEASE MARKYOURVOTESANDMARK YOUR VOTES AND SIGN ONTHEON THE REVERSE SIDE OFTHISOF THIS CARD.