UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington,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  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Important Notice to Fund Shareholders

October 17, 2013June 13, 2014

Although we recommend that you read the complete Joint Proxy Statement, for your convenience, we have provided a brief overview of the issues to be voted on.

Your Fund’s Board, of Trustees/Directors (“Board”), including your Board’sthe independent members,Board Members, unanimously recommends that you voteFOReach proposal.proposal applicable to your Fund.

Your vote is very important. We encourage you as a shareholder to participate in your Fund’s governance by returning your vote as soon as possible. If enough shareholders don’tdo not cast their votes, your Fund may not be able to hold its meeting or the vote on each issue, and will be required to incur additional solicitation costs may need to be incurred in order to obtain sufficient shareholder participation.

Proposal Regarding New Fundamental Investment Policy Relating to Loans

Nuveen’s municipal bond closed-end funds have been brought to market at different intervals over the course of more than 20 years, and reflect various policies and investment capabilities prevalent at the time of their creation. The investment policies of older funds generally do not reflect subsequent developments in the municipal bond market, including new types of securities and investment strategies. Consequently, many of Nuveen’s more recently offered municipal bond closed-end funds feature investment capabilities not uniformly enjoyed by older municipal bond closed-end funds. The proposal set forth in the Joint Proxy Statement is designed to provide California Dividend Advantage 2 with the same portfolio management tools currently available to Nuveen’s more recently offered funds.

A loanTIAA-CREF is a national financial services organization with approximately $569 billion in assets under management, as of March 31, 2014, and is the leading provider of retirement services in the academic, research, medical and cultural fields. Nuveen will operate as a separate subsidiary within TIAA-CREF’s asset management business. Nuveen’s current leadership and key investment teams are expected to an issuerstay in distress involves risks. In this circumstance, it is possible the Fund could lose its entire investment with an issuer as well as the amount loaned.place.

General

We recognize the inconvenience of the proxy solicitation process and would not impose on you if we did not believe that the matters being proposed were important and in the best interests of the Funds. Once your vote has been registered with the proxy solicitor, your name will be removed from the solicitor’s follow-up contact list.

October 17, 2013

Nuveen Arizona Premium Income MunicipalAll Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund (NAZ, NAZ PrC, NAZ PrD)

Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NVX)

Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 3 (NZH)

Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund, Inc. (NCA)

Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund 2 (NCB)(JMLP)

Nuveen Connecticut Premium Income Municipal Fund (NTC, NTC PrC, NTC PrD, NTC PrE, NTC PrF, NTC PrG)(NTC)

Nuveen Credit Strategies Income Fund (JQC)

Nuveen Flexible Investment Income Fund (JPW)

Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund (JFR)

Nuveen Floating Rate Income Opportunity Fund (JRO)

Nuveen Georgia Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NKG, NKG PrC, NKG PrD, NKG PrE)(NKG)

Nuveen Intermediate Duration Municipal Term Fund (NID)

Nuveen Intermediate Duration Quality Municipal Term Fund (NIQ)

Nuveen Maryland Premium Income Municipal Fund (NMY, NMY PrC, NMY PrD, NMY PrE, NMY PrF, NMY PrG, NMY PrH)

Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUM, NUM PrC)(NMY)

Nuveen Missouri Premium Income Municipal Fund (NOM, NOM PrC)

Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (NXJ)

Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NUJ, NUJ PrC)

Nuveen New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Fund, Inc. (NQJ)

Nuveen New Jersey Municipal Value Fund (NJV)

Nuveen New Jersey Premium Income Municipal Fund, Inc. (NNJ)

Nuveen North Carolina Premium Income Municipal Fund (NNC, NNC PrC, NNC PrD, NNC PrE, NNC PrF, NNC PrG)

Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUO)

Nuveen Pennsylvania Municipal Value Fund (NPN)(NNC)

Nuveen Preferred and Income Term Fund (JPI)

Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities Fund (JPC)

Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund (JTP)

Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 2 (JPS)

Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 3 (JHP)

Nuveen Senior Income Fund (NSL)

Nuveen Short Duration Credit Opportunities Fund (JSD)

Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund (NTX, NTX PrC)

Nuveen Virginia Premium Income Municipal Fund (NPV)

Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NXK)

Nuveen New York Performance Plus Municipal Fund, Inc. (NNP)

June 13, 2014

To the Shareholders of the Above Funds:

Notice is hereby given that the AnnualSpecial Meeting of Shareholders (the “Annual Meeting”“Meeting”) of each of Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund, Inc. (“California Value”), Nuveen New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Fund, Inc. (“New Jersey Investment Quality”) and Nuveen New Jersey Premium Income Municipal Fund, Inc. (“New Jersey Premium Income”),each a Minnesota corporation (each a “Minnesota Fund” and collectively, the “Minnesota Funds”), and Nuveen Arizona Premium Income MunicipalAll Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund (“Arizona Premium Income”), Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“California Dividend Advantage 2”), Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 3 (“California Dividend Advantage 3”), Nuveen California Municipal Value 2 (“California Value 2”JMLP”), Nuveen Connecticut Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Connecticut Premium Income”NTC”), Nuveen Credit Strategies Income Fund (“JQC”), Nuveen Flexible Investment Income Fund (“JPW”), Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund (“Floating Rate Income”JFR”), Nuveen Floating Rate Income Opportunity Fund (“Floating Rate Income Opportunity”JRO”), Nuveen Georgia Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“Georgia Dividend Advantage 2”NKG”), Nuveen Intermediate Duration Municipal Term Fund (“NID”), Nuveen Intermediate Duration Quality Municipal Term Fund (“NIQ”), Nuveen Maryland Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Maryland Premium Income”), Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund (“Michigan Quality Income”NMY”), Nuveen Missouri Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Missouri Premium Income”), Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (“New Jersey Dividend Advantage”), Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“New Jersey Dividend Advantage 2”), Nuveen New Jersey Municipal Value Fund (“New Jersey Value”NOM”), Nuveen North Carolina Premium Income Municipal Fund (“North Carolina Premium Income”), Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund (“Ohio Quality Income”), Nuveen Pennsylvania Municipal Value Fund (“Pennsylvania Value”NNC”), Nuveen Preferred and Income Term Fund (“JPI”), Nuveen Preferred and Income”Income Opportunities Fund (“JPC”), Nuveen Quality Preferred

Income Fund (“JTP”), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 2 (“JPS”), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 3 (“JHP”), Nuveen Senior Income Fund (“Senior Income”NSL”), Nuveen Short Duration Credit Opportunities Fund (“Short Duration Credit Opportunities”JSD”), Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund (“Texas Quality Income”) and Nuveen Virginia Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Virginia Premium Income”NPV”), Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (“NAN”) and Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“NXK”), each a Massachusetts business trust, and Nuveen New York Performance Plus Municipal Fund, Inc. (“NNP”), a Minnesota corporation (each, a “Massachusetts Fund” and collectively, the “Massachusetts Funds”) (the Minnesota Funds and Massachusetts Funds are each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”), will be held (along with meetings of shareholders of several other Nuveen funds) in the offices of Nuveen Investments, 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, on Tuesday, November 26, 2013,August 5, 2014, at 2:10:00 p.m.a.m., Central time, for the following purposes and to transact such other business, if any, as may properly come before the Annual Meeting:

Matters to Be Voted on by Shareholders:

Please see the table contained on page 3 of the enclosed joint proxy statement, which indicates which proposals shareholders of each Fund are being asked to approve.

Shareholders of record at the close of business on October 8, 2013June 6, 2014 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting.

All shareholders are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting. In order to avoid delay and additional expense and to assure that your shares are represented, please vote as promptly as possible, regardless of whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. You may vote by mail, telephone or over the Internet. To vote by mail, please

mark, sign, date and mail the enclosed proxy card. No postage is required if mailed in the United States. To vote by telephone, please call the toll-free number located on your proxy card and follow the recorded instructions, using your proxy card as a guide. To vote over the Internet, go to the Internet address provided on your proxy card and follow the instructions, using your proxy card as a guide.

If you intend to attend the Meeting in person and you are a record holder of a Fund’s shares, in order to gain admission you must show photographic identification, such as your driver’s license. If you intend to attend the Meeting in person and you hold your shares through a bank, broker or other custodian, in order to gain admission you must show photographic identification, such as your driver’s license, and satisfactory proof of ownership of shares of a Fund, such as your voting instruction form (or a copy thereof) or broker’s statement indicating ownership as of a recent date. If you hold your shares in a brokerage account or through a bank or other nominee, you will not be able to vote in person at the Meeting unless you have previously requested and obtained a “legal proxy” from your broker, bank or other nominee and present it at the Meeting.

Kevin J. McCarthy

Vice President and Secretary

October 17, 2013June 13, 2014

This Joint Proxy Statement is first being mailed to shareholders on or about October 22, 2013.June 18, 2014.

Nuveen Arizona Premium Income MunicipalAll Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund (NAZ, NAZ PrC, NAZ PrD)

Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NVX)

Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 3 (NZH)

Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund, Inc. (NCA)

Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund 2 (NCB)(JMLP)

Nuveen Connecticut Premium Income Municipal Fund (NTC, NTC PrC, NTC PrD, NTC PrE, NTC PrF, NTC PrG)(NTC)

Nuveen Credit Strategies Income Fund (JQC)

Nuveen Flexible Investment Income Fund (JPW)

Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund (JFR)

Nuveen Floating Rate Income Opportunity Fund (JRO)

Nuveen Georgia Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NKG, NKG PrC, NKG PrD, NKG PrE)(NKG)

Nuveen Intermediate Duration Municipal Term Fund (NID)

Nuveen Intermediate Duration Quality Municipal Term Fund (NIQ)

Nuveen Maryland Premium Income Municipal Fund (NMY, NMY PrC, NMY PrD, NMY PrE, NMY PrF, NMY PrG, NMY PrH)

Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUM, NUM PrC)(NMY)

Nuveen Missouri Premium Income Municipal Fund (NOM, NOM PrC)

Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (NXJ)

Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NUJ, NUJ PrC)

Nuveen New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Fund, Inc. (NQJ)

Nuveen New Jersey Municipal Value Fund (NJV)

Nuveen New Jersey Premium Income Municipal Fund, Inc. (NNJ)

Nuveen North Carolina Premium Income Municipal Fund (NNC, NNC PrC, NNC PrD, NNC PrE, NNC PrF, NNC PrG)

Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUO)

Nuveen Pennsylvania Municipal Value Fund (NPN)(NNC)

Nuveen Preferred and Income Term Fund (JPI)

Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities Fund (JPC)

Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund (JTP)

Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 2 (JPS)

Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 3 (JHP)

Nuveen Senior Income Fund (NSL)

Nuveen Short Duration Credit Opportunities Fund (JSD)

Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund (NTX, NTX PrC)

Nuveen Virginia Premium Income Municipal Fund (NPV)

1

General Information

This Joint Proxy Statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation by the Boardboard of Directors or Trusteestrustees (each a “Board” and collectively, the “Boards,” and each Director or Trustee,trustee a “Board Member” and collectively, the “Board Members”) of each of Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund, Inc. (“California Value”), Nuveen New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Fund, Inc. (“New Jersey Investment Quality”) and Nuveen New Jersey Premium Income Municipal Fund, Inc. (“New Jersey Premium Income”),each a Minnesota Corporation (each a “Minnesota Fund” and collectively, the “Minnesota Funds”), and Nuveen Arizona Premium Income MunicipalAll Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund (“Arizona Premium Income”), Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“California Dividend Advantage 2”), Nuveen California Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 3 (“California Dividend Advantage 3”), Nuveen California Municipal Value 2 (“California Value 2”JMLP”), Nuveen Connecticut Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Connecticut Premium Income”NTC”), Nuveen Credit Strategies Income Fund (“JQC”), Nuveen Flexible Investment Income Fund (“JPW”), Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund (“Floating Rate Income”JFR”), Nuveen Floating Rate Income Opportunity Fund (“Floating Rate Income Opportunity”JRO”), Nuveen Georgia Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“Georgia Dividend Advantage 2”NKG”), Nuveen Intermediate Duration Municipal Term Fund (“NID”), Nuveen Intermediate Duration Quality Municipal Term Fund (“NIQ”), Nuveen Maryland Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Maryland Premium Income”), Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund (“Michigan Quality Income”NMY”), Nuveen Missouri Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Missouri Premium Income”), Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (“New Jersey Dividend Advantage”), Nuveen New Jersey Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“New Jersey Dividend Advantage 2”), Nuveen New Jersey Municipal Value Fund (“New Jersey Value”NOM”), Nuveen North Carolina Premium Income Municipal Fund (“North Carolina Premium Income”), Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund (“Ohio Quality Income”), Nuveen Pennsylvania Municipal Value Fund (“Pennsylvania Value”NNC”), Nuveen Preferred and Income Term Fund (“JPI”), Nuveen Preferred and Income”Income Opportunities Fund (“JPC”), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund (“JTP”), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 2 (“JPS”), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 3 (“JHP”), Nuveen Senior Income Fund (“Senior Income”NSL”), Nuveen Short Duration Credit Opportunities Fund (“Short Duration Credit Opportunities”JSD”), Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund (“Texas Quality Income”) and

1

Nuveen Virginia Premium Income Municipal Fund (“Virginia Premium Income”NPV”), Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (“NAN”) and Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (“NXK”), each a Massachusetts Business Trustbusiness trust, and Nuveen New York Performance Plus Municipal Fund, Inc. (“NNP”), a Minnesota corporation (each, a “Massachusetts Fund” and collectively, the “Massachusetts Funds”) (the Massachusetts Funds and Minnesota Funds are each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”), of proxies to be voted at the AnnualSpecial Meeting of Shareholders to be held (along with the meeting of shareholders of several other Nuveen funds) in the offices of Nuveen Investments, 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, on Tuesday, November 26, 2013,August 5, 2014, at 2:10:00 p.m.a.m., Central time (for each Fund, an “Annual Meeting”a “Meeting” and collectively, the “Annual Meetings”“Meetings”), and at any and all adjournments, postponements or delays thereof.

This Joint Proxy Statement solicits the holders of common shares of each Fund and holders of Variable Rate Demand Preferred Shares (“VRDP”) of NPV and NNP, Variable Rate Term Preferred Shares (“VRTP”) of JFR, JRO, NSL, NAN and NXK, Variable Rate MuniFund Term Preferred Shares (“VMTP”) of NKG, NMY, NTC, NID, NIQ and NNC and MuniFund Term PreferredShares (“MTP”) of NOM. VRDP Shares, VRTP Shares, VMTP Shares and MTP Shares are collectively referred to herein as “Preferred Shares.” The common shares of each Fund are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, except NOM, which are listed on the NYSE MKT. The MTP Shares of NOM are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “NOM PrC.”

Proposals

2

The following table indicates which Funds’ shareholders are solicited with respect to each proposal:

All shareholders of each Fund will vote on each applicable proposal. With respect to NTC, JFR, JRO, NKG, NID, NIQ, NMY, NOM, NNC, NSL, NPV, NNP, NAN and NXK holders of common shares and holders of Preferred Shares will vote together as a single class on each applicable proposal.

Voting Information

On the mattersproposals coming before each Annual Meeting as to which a choice has been specified by shareholders on the proxy, the shares will be voted accordingly. If a properly executed proxy is returned and no choice is specified, the shares will be votedvoted:

Shareholders of a Fund who execute proxies may revoke them at any time before they are voted by filing with that Fund a written notice of revocation, by delivering a duly executed proxy bearing a later date, or by

3

attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.

The Board of each Fund has determined that A prior proxy can also be revoked by voting again through the use of this Joint Proxy Statement for each Annual Meeting istoll-free number or the Internet address listed in the best interest of each Fund and its shareholders in light ofproxy card. Merely attending the similar matters being considered and voted on by the shareholders.

2

The following table indicates which shareholders are solicited with respect to each matter:

3

A quorum of shareholders is required to take action at each Annual Meeting. A majority of the shares entitled to vote at each Annual Meeting, represented in person or by proxy, will constitute a quorum of shareholders at that Annual Meeting, except that for the election of the two Board Member nominees to be elected by holders of Preferred Shares of each Fund (except California Value 2, Floating Rate Income, Floating Rate Income Opportunity, New Jersey Value, Pennsylvania Value, Preferred and Income, Senior Income and Short Duration Credit Opportunities), 33- ¹/₃% of the Preferred Shares entitled to vote and represented in person or by proxy will constitute a quorum.Meeting. Votes cast by proxy or in person at each Annual Meeting will be tabulated by the inspectors of election appointed for that Annual Meeting. The inspectors of election will determine whether or not a quorum is present at the Annual Meeting. The inspectors of election will treat abstentions and “broker non-votes” (i.e., shares held by brokers or nominees, typically in “street name,” as to which (i) instructions have not been received from the beneficial owners or persons entitled to vote and (ii) the broker or nominee does not have discretionary voting power on a particular matter) as present for purposes of determining a quorum.

For each Fund, the affirmative voteBroker-dealer firms holding shares of a pluralityFund in “street name” for the benefit of their customers and clients will request the instructions of such customers and clients on how to vote their shares before the Meeting. The Funds understand that, under the rules of the shares presentNew York Stock Exchange, such broker-dealer firms may for certain “routine” matters, without instructions from their customers and entitledclients, grant discretionary authority to the proxies designated by the Board to vote atif no instructions have been received prior to the Annual Meeting will be required to elect the Board Members of that Fund. For purposes of determining the approval of the proposal to elect nominees for each Fund, abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the election of Board Members. For purposes of determining the approval of the elimination of the fundamental investment policy and the approval of the new fundamental investment policy for California Dividend Advantage 2, a change will only be consummated if approved by the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of the Fund’s Common Shares and Preferred Shares, voting together as a single class, and by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding Preferred Shares, voting as a separate class. For this purpose, a majority of the outstanding shares means, as defineddate specified in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), (a) 67%broker-dealer firm’s request for voting instructions. Proposal 3 is a “routine” matter and beneficial owners who do not provide proxy instructions or more of the voting securities present at the Annual Meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities are present or represented by proxy; or (b) more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities, whichever is less. For purposes of determining the approval of the elimination of the fundamental investment policy and the approval of the new fundamental investment policy, abstentions and broker non-votes willwho do not return a proxy card may have the same effect astheir shares voted against the proposal.by broker-dealer firms in favor of proposal 3.

Variable Rate Demand PreferredVRDP Shares held in “street name” as to which voting instructions have not been received from the beneficial owners or persons entitled to vote as of one

4

business day before the Annual Meeting, or, if adjourned, one business day before the day to which the Annual Meeting is adjourned, and that would otherwise be treated as “broker non-votes” may, pursuant to Rule 452 of the New York Stock Exchange, be voted by the broker on the proposal in the same proportion as the votes cast by all holders of Variable Rate Demand PreferredVRDP Shares as a class who have voted on the proposal, or in the same proportion as the votes cast by all holders of Preferred Shares of the Fund who have voted on that item. Rule 452 permits proportionate voting of Variable Rate Demand PreferredVRDP Shares with respect to a particular item if, among other things, (i) a minimum of 30% of the Variable Rate Demand PreferredVRDP Shares or shares of a series of Variable Rate Demand PreferredVRDP Shares outstanding has been voted by the holders of such shares with respect to such item, and (ii) less than 10% of the Variable Rate Demand PreferredVRDP Shares or shares of a series of Variable Rate Demand PreferredVRDP Shares outstanding has been voted by the holders of such shares against such item.item and (iii) for any proposal as to which holders of common shares and Preferred Shares vote as a single class, holders of common shares approve the proposal. For the purpose of meeting the 30% test, abstentions will be treated as shares “voted” and, for the purpose of meeting the 10% test, abstentions will not be treated as shares “voted” against the item.

Broker-dealers who are not members of the New York Stock Exchange may be subject to other rules, which may or may not permit them to vote your shares without instruction. We urge you to provide instructions to your broker or nominee so that your votes may be counted.

The details of the proposals to be voted on by the shareholders of each Fund and the vote required for approval of the proposals are set forth under the description of the proposals below.

The Boards have determined that the use of this Joint Proxy Statement for each Meeting is in the best interest of each Fund in light of the similar proposals being considered and voted on by the shareholders. Certain other Nuveen funds, not listed in this Joint Proxy Statement, will

4

also hold meetings of shareholders with similar proposals. If you were also a shareholder of record of one or more of those other funds on the record date established for the meetings of shareholders of such other funds, you will receive a separate proxy statement and proxy card(s) relating to those funds. Shareholders of each Fund will vote separately on the respective proposals relating to their Fund. In any event, an unfavorable vote on any proposal by the shareholders of one Fund will not affect the implementation of such proposal by another Fund if the proposal is approved by the shareholders of that Fund. However, proposals 1 and 2 will only take effect upon the closing of the Transaction (as defined herein), which is conditioned upon obtaining the consent of a specified percentage of Nuveen clients (including through shareholder approval of proposal 1).

Shares Outstanding

Those persons who were shareholders of record at the close of business on October 8, 2013June 6, 2014 (the “Record Date”), will be entitled to one vote for each share held and a proportionate fractional vote for each fractional share held. As of October 8, 2013,the Record Date, the shares of the Funds were issued and outstanding as follows:

5

PROPOSAL 1: APPROVAL OF NEW INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

Background

Under an investment management agreement between Nuveen Fund Advisors and each Fund (each, an “Original Investment Management Agreement” and collectively, the “Original Investment Management Agreements”), Nuveen Fund Advisors serves as each Fund’s investment adviser and is responsible for each Fund’s overall investment strategy and its implementation. The date of each Fund’s Original Investment Management Agreement and the date on which it was last approved by shareholders and approved for continuance by the Board are provided inAppendix A.

Nuveen Fund Advisors is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (“Nuveen”). Nuveen is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windy City Investments, Inc. (“Windy City”), a corporation formed by an investor group led by Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC (“MDP”), a private equity investment firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Windy City is controlled by MDP on behalf of the Madison Dearborn Capital Partner V funds.

On April 14, 2014, TIAA-CREF entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Transaction Agreement”) to acquire Nuveen from the investor group led by MDP. TIAA-CREF is a national financial services organization with approximately $569 billion in assets under management, as of March 31, 2014, and is the leading provider of retirement services in the academic, research, medical and cultural fields. If the Transaction is completed, Nuveen will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of TIAA-CREF. Nuveen will operate as a separate subsidiary within TIAA-CREF’s asset management business. Nuveen’s current leadership and key investment teams are expected to stay in place.

Each Original Investment Management Agreement, as required by Section 15 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), provides for its automatic termination in the event of its “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act). Any change in control of the Adviser is deemed to be an assignment. The consummation of the Transaction will result in a change in control of the Adviser and therefore cause the automatic termination of each Original Investment Management Agreement, as required by the 1940 Act.

Completion of the Transaction is subject to a number of conditions, including obtaining consent to the Transaction by a certain percentage of Nuveen’s clients representing at least 80% of annualized investment advisory, investment management and sub-advisory fees (which includes fund shareholder approval of new investment management agreements with Nuveen Fund Advisors). Nuveen and TIAA-CREF currently expect to complete the Transaction by year-end 2014.

The Transaction has been structured in reliance upon Section 15(f) of the 1940 Act. Section 15(f) provides in substance that when a sale of a controlling interest in an investment adviser occurs, the investment adviser or any of its affiliated persons may receive any amount or benefit in connection with the sale so long as two conditions are satisfied. The first condition of Section 15(f) is that, during the three-year period following the consummation of a transaction, at least 75% of the investment company’s board of directors must not be “interested persons” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the investment adviser or predecessor adviser. Each of the Funds currently meets this test. Second, an “unfair burden” (as defined in the 1940 Act, including any interpretations or no-action letters of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or the staff of the SEC) must not be imposed on the investment company as a re-

6

sult of the transaction relating to the sale of such interest, or any express or implied terms, conditions or understandings applicable thereto. The term “unfair burden” (as defined in the 1940 Act) includes any arrangement, during the two-year period after the transaction, whereby the investment adviser (or predecessor or successor adviser), or any “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of such an adviser, receives or is entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly, from the investment company or its security holders (other than fees for bona fide investment advisory or other services) or from any person in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or other property to, from or on behalf of the investment company (other than bona fide ordinary compensation as principal underwriter for the investment company). Under the Transaction Agreement, TIAA-CREF acknowledges the sellers’ reliance on Section 15(f) of the 1940 Act and has agreed that it will, and will cause its affiliates to, use commercially reasonable efforts to enable the provisions of Section 15(f) to be true in relation to the Funds.

To prevent the occurrence of an “unfair burden” under Section 15(f), Nuveen has committed, for a period of two years from the date of the closing of the Transaction, not to increase contractual management fee rates for any Fund.This commitment shall not limit or otherwise affect mergers or liquidations of any Funds in the ordinary course.

Minnesota FundsIn anticipation of the Transaction, each Fund’s Board met at a series of joint meetings, including meetings of the full Board and meetings of the Independent Board Members (as defined herein) separately, commencing in February 2014 and concluding at the Board’s April 30, 2014 in person meeting, for purposes of, among other things, considering whether it would be in the best interests of each Fund to approve a new investment management agreement between the Fund and Nuveen Fund Advisors in substantially the same form as the Original Investment Management Agreement to take effect immediately after the Transaction or shareholder approval, whichever is later (each a “New Investment Management Agreement” and collectively, the “New Investment Management Agreements”). The form of the New Investment Management Agreement is attached hereto asAppendix M.

The 1940 Act requires that each New Investment Management Agreement be approved by the Fund’s shareholders in order for it to become effective. At the Annual MeetingApril 30, 2014 Board meeting, and for the reasons discussed below (see “Board Considerations” after proposal 2), each Board, including the Board Members who are not parties to the Original Investment Management Agreements, New Investment Management Agreements or any sub-advisory agreement entered into by the Adviser with respect to any Fund or who are not “interested persons” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund, the Adviser or any sub-adviser (the “Independent Board Members”), unanimously approved the continuation of the Original Investment Management Agreement and approved the New Investment Management Agreement on behalf of each Minnesota Fund except California Value,and unanimously recommended approval of the New Investment Management Agreement by shareholders.

In the event shareholders of a Fund do not approve the New Investment Management Agreement at the Meeting or any adjournment, postponement or delay thereof prior to the closing of the Transaction, an interim investment management agreement between the Adviser and each such Fund (each, an “Interim Investment Management Agreement” and collectively, the “Interim Investment Management Agreements”) will take effect upon the closing of the Transaction. At the April 30, 2014 meeting, each Board, including the Independent Board Members, also unanimously approved Interim Investment Management Agreements for each Fund in order to assure continuity of investment advisory services to the Funds after the Transaction. The terms of each Interim Investment Management Agreement are substantially

7

identical to those of the Original Investment Management Agreements and New Investment Management Agreements, except for the term and escrow provisions described below. The Interim Investment Management Agreement will continue in effect for a term ending on the earlier of 150 days from the closing of the Transaction (the “150-day period”) or when shareholders of a Fund approve the New Investment Management Agreement. Pursuant to Rule 15a-4 under the 1940 Act, compensation earned by the Adviser under an Interim Investment Management Agreement will be held in an interest-bearing escrow account. If shareholders of a Fund approve the New Investment Management Agreement prior to the end of the 150-day period, the amount held in the escrow account under the Interim Investment Management Agreement will be paid to the Adviser. If shareholders of a Fund do not approve the New Investment Management Agreement prior to the end of the 150-day period, the Board will take such action as it deems to be electedin the best interests of the Fund, and the Adviser will be paid the lesser of its costs incurred in performing its services under the Interim Investment Management Agreement or the total amount in the escrow account, plus interest earned.

Comparison of Original Investment Management Agreement and New Investment Management Agreement

The terms of each New Investment Management Agreement, including fees payable to serve until the next annual meeting or until their successors have been duly electedAdviser by the Fund thereunder, are substantially identical to those of the Original Investment Management Agreement, except for the date of effectiveness. There is no change in the fee rate payable by each Fund to the Adviser. If approved by shareholders of a Fund, the New Investment Management Agreement for each Fund will expire on August 1, 2015, unless continued. Each New Investment Management Agreement will continue in effect from year to year thereafter if such continuance is approved for the Fund at least annually in the manner required by the 1940 Act and qualified. Underthe rules and regulations thereunder. Below is a comparison of certain terms of the Original Investment Management Agreement to the terms of the New Investment Management Agreement.

Investment Management Services. The investment management services to be provided by the Adviser to each MinnesotaFund under the New Investment Management Agreements will be identical to those services currently provided by the Adviser to each Fund under the Original Investment Management Agreements. Both the Original Investment Management Agreements and New Investment Management Agreements provide that the Adviser shall manage the investment and reinvestment of the Fund’s organizational documents (except California Value)assets in accordance with the Fund’s investment objective and policies and limitations and administer the Fund’s affairs to the extent requested by and subject to the oversight of the Fund’s Board. In addition, the investment management services are expected to be provided by the same Adviser personnel under the New Investment Management Agreements as under the Original Investment Management Agreements. The Adviser does not anticipate that the Transaction will have any adverse effect on the performance of its obligations under the New Investment Management Agreements.

Fees. Under each Original Investment Management Agreement and New Investment Management Agreement, the Fund pays to the Adviser an investment management fee that consists of two components: a fund-level fee, based only on the amount of assets within a Fund, and a complex-level fee, based on the aggregate amount of all eligible fund assets managed by Nuveen Fund Advisors. This pricing structure enables Fund shareholders to benefit from growth in the assets within the Fund as well as from growth in the amount of

8

complex-wide assets managed by the Adviser. Each Fund’s fee schedule under the New Investment Management Agreement for such Fund is identical to the fee schedule under the Original Investment Management Agreement.

Each Fund’s annual fund-level fee, payable monthly, is based upon the average daily managed assets (which includes assets attributable to all types of leverage used in leveraged Funds) of each Fund pursuant to the fee schedule set forth inAppendix B. The fund-level fee schedule is identical under each Fund’s Original Investment Management Agreement and New Investment Management Agreement.

The overall complex-level fee begins at a maximum rate of 0.2000% of each Fund’s average daily managed assets, based upon complex-level assets of $55 billion, with breakpoints for eligible assets above that level pursuant to the complex-level fee schedule set forth onAppendix B. The complex-level fee schedule is identical under each Fund’s Original Investment Management Agreement and New Investment Management Agreement.

Each Fund’s managed assets as of December 31, 2013 and fees paid to the Adviser during the Fund’s last fiscal year are also set forth inAppendix B.

Other Services. Under each Original Investment Management Agreement and each New Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser shall furnish office facilities and equipment and clerical, bookkeeping and administrative services (other than such services, if any, provided by the Fund’s transfer agent) for the Fund.

Limitation on Liability. The Original Investment Management Agreements and New Investment Management Agreements provide that the Adviser will not be liable for any loss sustained by reason of the purchase, sale or retention of any security, whether or not such purchase, sale or retention shall have been based upon the investigation and research made by any other individual, firm or corporation, if such recommendation shall have been selected with due care and in good faith, except loss resulting from willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the Adviser in the performance of its obligations and duties, or by reason of its reckless disregard of its obligations and duties under the agreement.

Continuance. The Original Investment Management Agreement of each Fund originally was in effect for an initial term and could be continued thereafter for successive one-year periods if such continuance was specifically approved at least annually in the manner required by the 1940 Act. If the shareholders of a Fund approve the New Investment Management Agreement for that Fund, the New Investment Management Agreement will expire on August 1, 2015, unless continued. The New Investment Management Agreement may be continued for successive one-year periods if approved at least annually in the manner required by the 1940 Act.

Termination. The Original Investment Management Agreement and New Investment Management Agreement for each Fund provide that the agreement may be terminated at any time without the payment of any penalty by the Fund or Adviser on sixty (60) days’ written notice to the other party, except with respect to NSL, and may be terminated, at any time, without the payment of any penalty, by the Fund, in the event that it shall have been established by a court of competent jurisdiction that the Adviser, or any officer or director of the Adviser, has taken any action which results in a breach of the covenants of the Adviser set forth therein. A Fund may effect termination by action of the Board or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, accompanied by appropriate notice.

9

Information about the Adviser

Nuveen Fund Advisors, a registered investment adviser, is organized as a Delaware limited liability company and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuveen. Founded in 1898, Nuveen and its affiliates had approximately $224.6 billion in assets under management as of March 31, 2014. Nuveen Fund Advisors offers advisory and investment management services to a broad range of mutual fund and closed-end fund clients. Nuveen Fund Advisors is responsible for each Fund’s overall investment strategy and its implementation. Nuveen Fund Advisors also is responsible for managing each Fund’s business affairs and providing certain clerical, bookkeeping and other administrative services. The business address of Nuveen Fund Advisors and Nuveen is 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

Certain information regarding the executive officer and directors of Nuveen Fund Advisors is set forth inAppendix F.

Nuveen Securities, LLC (the “Distributor”), under normal circumstances,333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, an affiliate of the Adviser, has entered into a Distribution Agreement with certain Funds with respect to at-the-market offerings of common shares of each such Fund. During each Fund’s last fiscal year, fees paid to the Distributor by such Funds were: NSL — $449,024; JFR — $882,933; JRO — $927,917; and JSD — $7,388. A portion of such fees are paid by the Distributor to sub-placement agents who have entered into selected dealer agreements with the Distributor.

Shareholder Approval

To become effective with respect to a particular Fund, the New Investment Management Agreement must be approved by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, with the holders of Preferred Shares are entitled to elect two (2) Board Members, and the remaining Board Members are to be elected by holders of Common Sharescommon shares and Preferred Shares voting together as a single class.class for those Funds that have issued and outstanding Preferred Shares. The “vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities” is defined in the 1940 Act as the lesser of the vote of (i) 67% or more of the shares of the Fund entitled to vote thereon present at the meeting if the holders of more than 50% of such outstanding shares are present in person or represented by proxy; or (ii) more than 50% of such outstanding shares of the Fund entitled to vote thereon. For purposes of determining the approval of the New Investment Management Agreement, abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same effect as shares voted against the proposal.

Each New Investment Management Agreement was approved by the Board of the respective Fund after consideration of all factors which it determined to be relevant to its deliberations, including those discussed after proposal 2 below. The Board of each Fund also determined to submit the Fund’s New Investment Management Agreement for consideration by the shareholders of such Fund.

The Board of each Fund unanimously recommends that shareholders of the Fund vote FOR approval of the New Investment Management Agreement.

10

PROPOSAL 2: APPROVAL OF NEW SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENTS

Background

Nuveen Fund Advisors has entered into investment sub-advisory agreements (each, an “Original Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Original Sub-Advisory Agreements”) with respect to each Fund with various sub-advisers (each, a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) as set forth below:

The date of each Original Sub-Advisory Agreement and the date it was last approved by shareholders and approved for continuance by the Board are provided inAppendix C.

As with the Original Investment Management Agreements, each Original Sub-Advisory Agreement, as required by Section 15 of the 1940 Act, provides for its automatic termination in the event of its assignment. The completion of the Transaction will result in a change in control of NAM, Symphony and NWQ, each of which is a subsidiary of Nuveen, and therefore will be deemed an assignment of each Original Sub-Advisory Agreement with such Sub-Adviser. In addition, each Original Sub-Advisory Agreement provides that it will terminate upon the termination of the Original Investment Management Agreement with respect to such Fund. As

11

a result, the completion of the Transaction will result in the termination of each Original Sub-Advisory Agreement.

In anticipation of the Transaction, each Fund’s Board met at a series of joint meetings, including meetings of the full Board and meetings of the Independent Board Members separately, commencing in February 2014 and concluding at the Board’s April 30, 2014 in person meeting, for purposes of, among other things, considering whether it would be in the best interests of each Fund to approve a new sub-advisory agreement between Nuveen Fund Advisors and the respective Sub-Adviser (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). The form of the New Sub-Advisory Agreement is attached hereto asAppendix M.

The 1940 Act requires that each New Sub-Advisory Agreement be approved by the Fund’s shareholders in order for it to become effective. At the April 30, 2014 Board meeting, and for the reasons discussed below (see “Board Considerations” after proposal 2), each Board, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously approved the continuation of the Original Sub-Advisory Agreement and approved the New Sub-Advisory Agreement and unanimously recommended approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreement by shareholders.

Because each New Sub-Advisory Agreement, like each Original Sub-Advisory Agreement, is between the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser, a Fund’s New Sub-Advisory Agreement will not take effect until the New Investment Management Agreement for such Fund has been approved by shareholders.

In the event shareholders of a Fund do not approve the New Investment Management Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement at the Meeting or any adjournment, postponement or delay thereof prior to the closing of the Transaction, an interim sub-advisory agreement between the Adviser and the applicable Sub-Adviser (each an “Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Interim Sub-Advisory Agreements”) will take effect upon the closing of the Transaction. At the April 30, 2014 meeting, each Board, including the Independent Board Members, also unanimously approved Interim Sub-Advisory Agreements in order to assure continuity of advisory services to the Funds after the Transaction. The terms of each Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement are substantially identical to those of the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements and New Sub-Advisory Agreements, except for the term and escrow provisions described below. The Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement will continue in effect for a term ending on the earlier of 150 days from the closing of the Transaction (the “150-day period”) or when shareholders of a Fund approve the New Investment Management Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement. Pursuant to Rule 15a-4 under the 1940 Act, compensation earned by a Sub-Adviser under an Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement will be held in an interest-bearing escrow account. If shareholders of a Fund approve the New Investment Management Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement prior to the end of the 150-day period, the amount held in the escrow account under the Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement will be paid to theSub-Adviser. If shareholders of a Fund do not approve the New Investment Management Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement prior to the end of the 150-day period, the Board will take such action as it deems to be in the best interests of the Fund, and theSub-Adviser will be paid the lesser of its costs incurred in performing its services under the Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement or the total amount in the escrow account, plus interest earned.

12

Comparison of Original Sub-Advisory Agreement and NewSub-Advisory Agreement

The terms of each New Sub-Advisory Agreement, including fees payable to the Sub-Adviser by Nuveen Fund Advisors thereunder, are substantially identical to those of the OriginalSub-Advisory Agreement, except for the date of effectiveness. There is no change in the fee rate payable by Nuveen Fund Advisors to the Sub-Adviser. If approved by shareholders of a Fund, the New Sub-Advisory Agreement for the Fund will expire on August 1, 2015, unless continued. Each New Sub-Advisory Agreement will continue in effect from year to year thereafter if such continuance is approved for the Fund at least annually in the manner required by the 1940 Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Below is a comparison of certain terms of the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements to the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

Advisory Services. The advisory services to be provided by the Sub-Adviser to each Fund under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements will be identical to those advisory services currently provided by the Sub-Adviser to each Fund under the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements. Both the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements and New Sub-Advisory Agreements provide that the Sub-Adviser will furnish an investment program in respect of, make investment decisions for and place all orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the portion of the Fund’s investment portfolio allocated by the Adviser to the Sub-Adviser, all on behalf of the Fund and subject to oversight of the Fund’s Board and the Adviser. In performing its duties under both the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements and the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Sub-Adviser will monitor the Fund’s investments and will comply with the provisions of the Fund’s organizational documents and the stated investment objectives, policies and restrictions of the Fund. It is not anticipated that the Transaction will have any adverse effect on the performance of a Sub-Adviser’s obligations under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

Brokerage. Both the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements and New Sub-Advisory Agreements authorize the Sub-Adviser to select the brokers or dealers that will execute the purchases and sales of portfolio securities for the Funds, subject to its obligation to obtain best execution under the circumstances, which may take account of the overall quality of brokerage and research services provided to the Sub-Adviser.

Fees. Under both the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements and New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Adviser pays the Sub-Adviser a portfolio management fee out of the investment management fee it receives from the Fund. The rate of the portfolio management fees payable by the Adviser to the Sub-Adviser under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements is identical to the rate of the fees paid under the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements. The annual rate of portfolio management fees payable to the Sub-Adviser under the Original Sub-Advisory Agreements and the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees paid by the Adviser to the Sub-Adviser with respect to each Fund during each Fund’s last fiscal year is set forth inAppendix D.

Payment of Expenses. Under each Original Sub-Advisory Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Sub-Adviser will bear all of its expenses in connection with its performance of services under the agreement.

13

Limitation on Liability. The Original Sub-Advisory Agreements and New Sub-Advisory Agreements provide that the Sub-Adviser will not be liable for any error of judgment or mistake of law or for any loss suffered by the Fund or the Adviser in connection with the matters to which the agreement relates, except for a loss resulting from willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the Sub-Adviser in the performance of duties under the agreement, or by reason of its reckless disregard of its obligations and duties under the agreement.

Continuance. The Original Sub-Advisory Agreement of each Fund originally was in effect for an initial term and could be continued thereafter for successive one-year periods if such continuance was specifically approved at least annually in the manner required by the 1940 Act. If the shareholders of a Fund approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreement for that Fund, the New Sub-Advisory Agreement will expire on August 1, 2015, unless continued. Thereafter, the New Sub-Advisory Agreement may be continued for successive one-year periods if approved at least annually in the manner required by the 1940 Act.

Termination. The Original Sub-Advisory Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement for each Fund provide that the agreement may be terminated at any time without the payment of any penalty by the Adviser or, except for JQC, the Sub-Adviser on sixty (60) days’ written notice. The Original Sub-Advisory Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement may also be terminated by action of the Fund’s Board or by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of that Fund, accompanied by 60 days’ written notice.

With respect to JPI, JPC, JTP, JHP, JPS, JFR, JRO, JSD, JPW, JQC, NSL and JMLP, the Original Sub-Advisory Agreement and New Sub-Advisory Agreement for each Fund are also terminable with respect to that Fund at any time without the payment of any penalty, by the Adviser, the Board or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of that Fund in the event that it is established by a court of competent jurisdiction that the Sub-Adviser or any of its officers or directors has taken any action that results in a breach of the representations of the Sub-Adviser set forth in the agreement.

Information About Sub-Advisers

NAM. NAM is an affiliate of Nuveen Fund Advisors and serves as investment sub-adviser to NTC, NKG, NID, NIQ, NMY, NOM, NNC, JPI, JPC, NPV, NAN, NXK and NNP. NAM is organized as a Delaware limited liability company, and its sole managing member is Nuveen Fund Advisors. The business address of NAM is 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

NWQ. NWQ is an affiliate of Nuveen Fund Advisors and serves as investment sub-adviser to JPW and JPC. NWQ is organized as a Delaware limited liability company, and its sole managing member is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuveen. NWQ’s approach to investing is based upon a bottom-up, fundamental approach. NWQ is led by a senior investment team with an average of 19 years of analytical experience. The business address of NWQ is 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1600, Los Angeles, California 90067.

14

Symphony. Symphony is an affiliate of Nuveen Fund Advisors and serves as investment sub-adviser to JQC, JFR, JRO, NSL and JSD. Symphony is organized as a California limited liability company, and its sole managing member is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuveen. Founded in 1994, Symphony invests opportunistically across the capital structure from senior secured debt to common equity, Symphony has the expertise and flexibility to deliver customized investment solutions to its global investor base. Symphony is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices in New York. The business address of Symphony is 555 California Street, San Francisco, California 94104.

ARI. ARI serves as investment sub-adviser to JMLP. ARI’s MLP & Energy Infrastructure team (formerly FAMCO MLP and hereinafter referred to as the “MLP Team”) manages the assets of JMLP. ARI was founded in 1974 and the MLP Team has managed MLP portfolios for clients since 1995, at ARI and its predecessors. ARI is organized as a Delaware corporation. Since March 2010, ARI has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Piper Jaffray Companies, 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. Piper Jaffray Companies is a leading, international middle-market investment bank and institutional securities firm, serving the needs of middle market corporations, private equity groups, public entities, nonprofit clients and institutional investors. Founded in 1895, Piper Jaffray Companies provides a comprehensive set of products and services, including equity and debt capital markets products; public finance services; mergers and acquisitions advisory services; high-yield and structured products; institutional equity and fixed-income sales and trading; and equity and high-yield research. With headquarters in Minneapolis, Piper Jaffray Companies has 44 offices across the United States and international locations in London and Zurich. The MLP Team has approximately $ 5.1 billion in MLP and energy infrastructure assets under management as of March 31, 2014. The business address of the MLP Team is 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 700, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.

Spectrum. Spectrum serves as investment sub-adviser to JTP, JPS and JHP. Spectrum has been in the business of providing investment advice since 1987. Spectrum is organized as a Connecticut corporation and is an independently run, wholly-owned subsidiary of Principal Global Investors, LLC, 711 High Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50392, which is an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Principal Financial Group, a publicly traded, diversified, insurance and financial services company. Spectrum managed over $15.6 billion in assets as of December 31, 2013. The business address of Spectrum is 2 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut 06905

Additional Information.Appendix E includes the advisory fee rates and net assets of registered investment companies, other than funds in the Nuveen fund complex, advised by each Sub-Adviser with similar investment objectives to the Funds the Sub-Adviser sub-advises.

Certain information regarding the executive officer and directors of each Sub-Adviser is set forth inAppendix F.

Affiliated Brokerage and Other Fees

Except as set forth onAppendix G, no Fund paid brokerage commissions within the last fiscal year to (i) any broker that is an affiliated person of such Fund or an affiliated person of such person, or (ii) any broker an affiliated person of which is an affiliated person of such Fund, the Adviser or any Sub-Adviser of such Fund.

15

During each Fund’s last fiscal year, no Fund made any material payments to the Adviser or any Sub-Adviser to such Fund or any affiliated person of the Adviser or anySub-Adviser to such Fund for services provided to the Fund (other than pursuant to the Original Investment Management Agreement or Original Sub-Advisory Agreement, for brokerage commission or to the Distributor as described herein).

Shareholder Approval

To become effective with respect to a particular Fund, the New Sub-Advisory Agreement must be approved by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, with the holders of common shares and Preferred Shares voting together as a single class for those Funds that have issued and outstanding Preferred Shares. The “vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities” is defined in the 1940 Act as the lesser of the vote of (i) 67% or more of the shares of the Fund entitled to vote thereon present at the meeting if the holders of more than 50% of such outstanding shares are present in person or represented by proxy; or (ii) more than 50% of such outstanding shares of the Fund entitled to vote thereon. For purposes of determining the approval of a New Sub-Advisory Agreement, abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same effect as shares voted against the proposal.

Each New Sub-Advisory Agreement was approved by the Board after consideration of all factors which it determined to be relevant to its deliberations, including those discussed below. The Board of each Fund also determined to submit the Fund’s New Sub-Advisory Agreement(s) for consideration by the shareholders of the Fund.

The Board of each Fund unanimously recommends that shareholders of the Fund vote FOR approval of the Fund’s New Sub-Advisory Agreement(s).

16

BOARD CONSIDERATIONS

The Board of each Fund, including the Independent Board Members, is responsible for overseeing the performance of the Adviser andSub-Adviser(s) to the respective Fund and determining whether to approve or continue such Fund’s Original Investment Management Agreement and OriginalSub-Advisory Agreement(s) (collectively, the “Original Advisory Agreements”). Pursuant to the organizational documents of California Value, its1940 Act, each Board is divided into three classes, with each class being electedrequired to serve untilconsider the third succeedingcontinuation of the Original Advisory Agreements on an annual meeting subsequentbasis. In addition, prior to their election or thereafter in each case when their respective successors are duly elected and qualified. For California Value, four (4)its annual review, the Board Members are nominatedwere advised of the potential acquisition of Nuveen byTIAA-CREF. For purposes of this section, references to “Nuveen” herein include all affiliates of Nuveen providing advisory,sub-advisory, distribution or other services to the Funds and references to the “Board” refer to the Board of each Fund. In accordance with the 1940 Act and the terms of the Original Advisory Agreements, the completion of the Transaction would terminate each of the Original Investment Management Agreements and OriginalSub-Advisory Agreements. Accordingly, at anin-person meeting held on April 30, 2014 (the “April Meeting”), the Board, including all of the Independent Board Members, performed its annual review of the Original Advisory Agreements and approved the continuation of the Original Advisory Agreements for the Funds. Furthermore, in anticipation of the termination of the Original Advisory Agreements that would occur upon the consummation of the Transaction, the Board also approved the New Investment Management Agreements and the NewSub-Advisory Agreements (collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) on behalf of the Funds to be elected at this Annual Meeting.effective following the completion of the Transaction and the receipt of the requisite shareholder approval.

Leading up to the April Meeting, the Independent Board Members had several meetings and deliberations, with and without management from Nuveen present and with the advice of legal counsel, regarding the Original Advisory Agreements, the Transaction and its impact and the New Advisory Agreements. At its meeting held on February25-27, 2014 (the “February Meeting”), the Board Members met with a senior executive representative ofTIAA-CREF to discuss the proposed Transaction. At the February Meeting, the Independent Board Members also established an ad hoc committee comprised solely of the Independent Board Members to monitor and evaluate the Transaction and to keep the Independent Board Members updated with developments regarding the Transaction. On March 20, 2014, the ad hoc committee met telephonically to discuss with management of Nuveen, and separately with independent legal counsel, the terms of the proposed Transaction and its impact on, among other things: the governance structure of Nuveen; the strategic plans for Nuveen; the operations of the Funds; the quality or level of services provided to the Funds; key personnel that service the Funds and/or the Board and the compensation or incentive arrangements to retain such personnel; Nuveen’s capital structure; the regulatory requirements applicable to Nuveen or Fund operations; and the Funds’ fees and expenses, including the Funds’complex-wide fee arrangement. Following the meeting of the ad hoc committee, the Board met in person (two Independent Board Members participating telephonically) in executive session on March 26, 2014 to further discuss the proposed Transaction. At the executive session, the Board met privately with independent legal counsel to review its duties with respect to reviewing advisory agreements, particularly in the context of a change of control, and to evaluate further the Transaction and its impact on the Funds, the Adviser andSub-Advisers (collectively, the “Fund Advisers” and each a “Fund Adviser”) and the services provided. Representatives of Nuveen also met with the Board to update the Board Members on developments regarding the Transaction, respond to questions and

617

to discuss, among other things: the governance of the Fund Advisers following the Transaction; the background, culture (including with respect to regulatory and compliance matters) and resources ofTIAA-CREF; the general plans and intentions ofTIAA-CREF for Nuveen; the terms and conditions of the Transaction (including financing terms); any benefits or detriments the Transaction may impose on the Funds,TIAA-CREF or the Fund Advisers; the reaction from Fund Advisers’ employees knowledgeable of the Transaction; the incentive and retention plans for key personnel of Fund Advisers; the potential access to additional distribution platforms and economies of scale; and the impact of any additional regulatory schemes that may be applicable to the Funds given the banking and insurance businesses operated in theTIAA-CREF enterprise. As part of its review, the Board also held a separate meeting on April15-16, 2014 to review the Funds’ investment performance and consider an analysis provided by the Adviser of eachSub-Adviser, the Transaction and its implications to the Funds. During their review of the materials and discussions, the Independent Board Members presented the Adviser with questions and the Adviser responded. Further, the Independent Board Members met in executive session with independent legal counsel on April 29, 2014 and April 30, 2014.

In connection with their review of the Original Advisory Agreements and the New Advisory Agreements, the Independent Board Members received extensive information regarding the Funds and Fund Advisers including, among other things: the nature, extent and quality of services provided by a Fund Adviser; the organization and operations of any Fund Adviser; the expertise and background of relevant personnel of the Fund Adviser; a review of the applicable Fund’s performance (including performance comparisons against the performance of peer groups and appropriate benchmarks); a comparison of Fund fees and expenses relative to peers; a description and assessment of shareholder service levels for the Funds; a summary of the performance of certain service providers; a review of fund initiatives and shareholder communications; and an analysis of the Adviser’s profitability with comparisons to peers in the managed fund business. In light of the proposed Transaction, the Independent Board Members, through their independent legal counsel, also requested in writing and received additional information regarding the proposed Transaction and its impact on the provision of services by the Fund Advisers.

The Independent Board Members received, well in advance of the April Meeting, materials which responded to the request for information regarding the Transaction and its impact on Nuveen and the Funds including, among other things: the structure and terms of the Transaction; the impact of the Transaction on Nuveen, its operations and the nature, quality and level of services provided to the Funds, including, in particular, any changes to those services that the Funds may experience following the Transaction; the strategic plan for Nuveen, including any financing arrangements following the Transaction and anycost-cutting efforts that may impact services; the organizational structure ofTIAA-CREF, including the governance structure of Nuveen following the Transaction; any anticipated effect on each Fund’s expense ratios (including changes to advisory andsub-advisory fees) and economies of scale that may be expected; any benefits or conflicts of interest thatTIAA-CREF, Nuveen or their affiliates can expect from the Transaction; any benefits, or undue burdens or other negative implications that may be imposed on the Funds as a result of the Transaction; the impact on Nuveen or the Funds as a result of being subject to additional regulatory schemes thatTIAA-CREF must comply with in operating its various businesses; and the costs associated with obtaining necessary shareholder approvals and the bearer of such costs. The Independent Board Members also received a memorandum describing the applicable laws, regulations and duties in approving advisory contracts, including in conjunction with a change of control, from their independent legal counsel.

18

The materials and information prepared in connection with the review of the Original Advisory Agreements and New Advisory Agreements supplemented the information and analysis provided to the Board during the year. In this regard, throughout the year, the Board, acting directly or through its committees, regularly reviewed the performance and various services provided by the Adviser and applicableSub-Adviser. The Board met at least quarterly as well as at other times as the need arose. At its quarterly meetings, the Board reviewed reports by the Adviser regarding, among other things, Fund performance, Fund expenses, premium and discount levels ofclosed-end funds, the performance of the investment teams and compliance, regulatory and risk management matters. In addition to regular reports, the Adviser provided special reports to the Board or a committee thereof from time to time to enhance the Board’s understanding of various topics that impact some or all the Nuveen funds (such as distribution channels, oversight of omnibus accounts and leverage management topics), to update the Board on regulatory developments impacting the investment company industry or to update the Board on the business plans or other matters impacting the Adviser. The Board also met with key investment personnel managing certain Nuveen fund portfolios during the year.

In addition, the Board has created several standing committees (the Executive Committee; the Dividend Committee; the Audit Committee; the Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee; the Nominating and Governance Committee; theOpen-End Funds Committee; and theClosed-End Funds Committee). TheOpen-End Funds Committee andClosed-End Funds Committee are intended to assist the full Board in monitoring and gaining a deeper insight into the distinctive business practices ofclosed-end andopen-end funds. These two Committees have met prior to each quarterly Board meeting, and the Adviser provided presentations to these Committees permitting them to delve further into specific matters or initiatives impacting the respective product line.

Further, the Board continued its program of seeking to have the Board Members or a subset thereof visit eachsub-adviser to the Nuveen funds and meet key investment and business personnel at least once over a multiple year rotation. In this regard, the Independent Board Members made site visits to certain NAM equity and fixed income teams in September 2013, certain teams of NWQ in October 2013 and met with the NAM municipal team at the August and November 2013 quarterly meetings. ARI also made presentations to the Board during the year.

The Board considered the information provided and knowledge gained at these meetings and visits during the year when performing its annual review of the Original Advisory Agreements and its review of the New Advisory Agreements. The Independent Board Members also were assisted throughout the process by independent legal counsel. During the course of the year and during their deliberations regarding the review of advisory contracts, the Independent Board Members met with independent legal counsel in executive sessions without management present. In addition, it is important to recognize that the management arrangements for the Funds are the result of many years of review and discussion between the Independent Board Members and Fund management and that the Board Members’ conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of fee arrangements and other factors developed in previous years.

The Board considered all factors it believed relevant with respect to each Fund, including, among other things: (a) the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Fund Advisers, (b) the investment performance of the Funds and Fund Advisers, (c) the advisory fees and costs of the services to be provided to the Funds and the profitability of the Fund Advisers,

19

(d) the extent of any economies of scale, (e) any benefits derived by the Fund Advisers from the relationship with the Funds and (f) other factors. With respect to the New Advisory Agreements, the Board also considered the Transaction and its impact on the foregoing factors. Each Board Member may have accorded different weight to the various factors in reaching his or her conclusions with respect to a Fund’s Original Advisory Agreements and New Advisory Agreements. The Independent Board Members did not identify any single factor as all-important or controlling. The Independent Board Members’ considerations were instead based on a comprehensive consideration of all the information presented. The principal factors considered by the Board and its conclusions are described below.

1. The Original Advisory Agreements

In considering renewal of the Original Advisory Agreements, the Independent Board Members considered the nature, extent and quality of the respective Fund Adviser’s services, including portfolio management services (and the resulting Fund performance) and administrative services. The Independent Board Members further considered the overall reputation and capabilities of the Adviser and its affiliates, the commitment of the Adviser to provide high quality service to the Funds, their overall confidence in the capability and integrity of the Adviser and its staff and the Adviser’s responsiveness to questions and concerns raised by them. The Independent Board Members reviewed materials outlining, among other things: the Fund Adviser’s organization and business; the types of services that the Fund Adviser or its affiliates provide to the Funds; the performance record of the applicable Fund (as described in further detail below); and any initiatives Nuveen had taken for the applicableopen-end orclosed-end fund product line.

In considering the services provided by the Fund Advisers, the Board recognized that the Adviser provides a myriad of investment management, administrative, compliance, oversight and other services for the Funds, and the applicableSub-Advisers generally provide the portfolio advisory services to the Funds under the oversight of the Adviser. The Board considered the wide range of services provided by the Adviser to the Nuveen funds beginning with developing the fund, monitoring and analyzing its performance, to providing or overseeing the services necessary to support a fund’s daily operations. The Board recognized the Adviser, among other things, provides: (a) product management (such as analyzing ways to better position a fund in the marketplace, maintaining relationships to gain access to distribution platforms, and setting dividends); (b) fund administration (such as preparing a fund’s tax returns, regulatory filings and shareholder communications; managing fund budgets and expenses; overseeing the fund’s various service providers and supporting and analyzing new and existing funds); (c) Board administration (such as supporting the Board and its committees, in relevant part, by organizing and administering the Board and committee meetings and preparing the necessary reports to assist the Board in its duties); (d) compliance (such as monitoring adherence to the fund’s investment policies and procedures and applicable law; reviewing the compliance program periodically and developing new policies or updating existing compliance policies and procedures as considered necessary or appropriate; responding to regulatory requests; and overseeing compliance testing of thesub-advisers); (e) legal support (such as preparing or reviewing fund registration statements, proxy statements and other necessary materials; interpreting regulatory requirements and compliance thereof; and maintaining applicable

20

registrations); and (f) investment services (such as overseeing and reviewingsub-advisers and their investment teams; analyzing performance of the funds; overseeing investment and risk management; overseeing the daily valuation process for portfolio securities and developing and recommending valuation policies and methodologies and changes thereto; and participating in fund development, leverage management, and the development of investment policies and parameters). With respect toclosed-end funds, the Adviser also monitors asset coverage levels on leveraged Funds, manages leverage, negotiates the terms of leverage, evaluates alternative forms and types of leverage, promotes an orderly secondary market for common shares and maintains an asset maintenance system for compliance with certain rating agency criteria.

In its review, the Board also considered the new services, initiatives or other changes adopted since the last advisory contract review that were designed to enhance the services and support the Adviser provides to the Nuveen funds. The Board recognized that some initiatives are amulti-year process. In reviewing the activities of 2013, the Board recognized that the year reflected the Adviser’s continued focus on fund rationalization for bothclosed-end andopen-end funds, consolidating certain funds through mergers that were designed to improve efficiencies and economies of scale for shareholders, repositioning various funds through updates in their investment policies and guidelines with the expectation of bringing greater value to shareholders, and liquidating certain funds. As in the past, the Board recognized the Adviser’s significant investment in its technology initiatives, including the continued progress toward a central repository for fund and other Nuveen product data and implementing a data system to support the risk oversight group enabling it to provide more detailed risk analysis for the Funds. The Board noted the new data system has permitted morein-depth analysis of the investment risks of the funds and across the complex providing additional feedback and insights to the investment teams and more comprehensive risk reporting to the Board. The Adviser also conducted several workshops for the Board regarding the new data system, including explaining the risk measures being applied and their purpose. The Board also recognized the enhancements in the valuation group within the Adviser, including centralizing the fund pricing process within the valuation group, trending to more automated and expedient reviews, and continuing to expand its valuation team. The Board further considered the expansion of personnel in the compliance department enhancing the collective expertise of the group, investments in additional compliance systems and the updates of various compliance policies.

In addition to the foregoing actions, the Board also considered other initiatives related to theclosed-end funds, including the continued investment of considerable resources and personnel dedicated to managing and overseeing the various forms of leverage utilized by certain Funds. The Board recognized the results of these efforts included the development of less expensive forms of leverage, expansion of leverage providers, the negotiation of more favorable terms for existing leverage, the enhanced ability to respond to market and regulatory developments and the enhancements to technology systems to manage and track the various forms of leverage. The Board also noted Nuveen’s continued capital management services, including executing share repurchase programs, its implementation of data systems that permit more targeted solicitation strategies for fund mergers and more targeted marketing and promotional efforts and its continued focus and efforts to address the discounts of various Funds. The Board further noted Nuveen’s continued commitment to supporting the secondary market for the common shares of itsclosed-end funds through a comprehensive communication program designed to further educate the investor and analyst aboutclosed-end funds. Nuveen’s

21

support services included, among other things, maintaining and enhancing aclosed-end fund website, creating marketing campaigns and educational materials, communicating with financial advisers, sponsoring and participating in conferences, providing educational seminars and programs and evaluating the results of these marketing efforts.

As noted, the Adviser also oversees theSub-Advisers who provide the portfolio advisory services to the Funds. In reviewing the portfolio advisory services provided to each Fund, the Nuveen Investment Services Oversight Team of the Adviser analyzes the performance of theSub-Advisers and may recommend changes to the investment team or investment strategies as appropriate. In assisting the Board’s review of theSub-Advisers, the Adviser provides a report analyzing, among other things, eachSub-Adviser’s investment team and changes thereto, organization and history, assets under management, the investment team’s philosophy and strategies in managing the Fund, developments affecting theSub-Adviser or Fund and Fund performance (or the portion of the Fund’s portfolio allocated to the respectiveSub-Adviser). In their review of theSub-Advisers, the Independent Board Members considered, among other things, the experience and qualifications of the relevant investment personnel, their investment philosophy and strategies, theSub-Advisers’ organization and stability, their capabilities and any initiatives taken or planned to enhance their current capabilities or support potential growth of business and, as outlined in further detail below, the performance of the Fund for which theSub-Adviser serves as such. The Independent Board Members also reviewed portfolio manager compensation arrangements to evaluate each Fund Adviser’s ability to attract and retain high quality investment personnel, preserve stability, and reward performance while not providing an inappropriate incentive to take undue risks.

Given the importance of compliance, the Independent Board Members also considered Nuveen’s compliance program, including the report of the chief compliance officer regarding the Nuveen funds’ compliance policies and procedures; the resources dedicated to compliance; the record of compliance with the policies and procedures; and its supervision of the Funds’ service providers. The Board recognized Nuveen’s commitment to compliance and strong commitment to a culture of compliance. Given the Adviser’s emphasis on monitoring investment risk, the Board has also appointed two Independent Board Members as point persons to review and keep the Board apprised of developments in this area and work with applicable Fund Adviser personnel.

Based on their review, the Independent Board Members found that, overall, the nature, extent and quality of services provided to the respective Funds under each applicable Original Advisory Agreement were satisfactory.

2. The New Advisory Agreements

In evaluating the nature, quality and extent of the services expected to be provided by the Fund Advisers under the applicable New Investment Management Agreement or NewSub-Advisory Agreement, the Board Members concluded that no diminution in the nature, quality and extent of services provided to the Funds and their shareholders by the respective Fund Advisers is expected as a result of the Transaction. In making their determination, the Independent Board Members considered, among other things: the expected impact, if any, of the Transaction on the operations, facilities, organization and personnel of the respective Fund Adviser; the ability of the Fund Adviser to perform its duties after the Transaction, including any changes to the level or quality of services provided to the Funds; the potential implications

22

of any additional regulatory requirements imposed on the Fund Adviser or Funds following the Transaction; and any anticipated changes to the investment and other practices of the Funds.

The Board noted that the terms of each New Investment Management Agreement, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to those of the Original Investment Management Agreement relating to the same Fund. Similarly, the terms of each NewSub-Advisory Agreement, including fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to those of the OriginalSub-Advisory Agreement relating to the same Fund. The Board considered that the services to be provided and the standard of care under the New Investment Management Agreements and the NewSub-Advisory Agreements are the same as the corresponding original agreements. The Board Members noted the Transaction also does not alter the allocation of responsibilities between the Adviser andSub-Adviser(s). The respectiveSub-Adviser for the applicable Funds will continue to furnish an investment program in respect of, make investment decisions for and place all orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the portion of the Fund’s investment portfolio allocated by the Adviser to the respectiveSub-Adviser, all on behalf of the applicable Fund and subject to oversight of the Board and the Adviser. The Board noted thatTIAA-CREF did not anticipate any material changes to the advisory, sub-advisory or other services provided to the Funds as a result of the Transaction. The Independent Board Members recognized that there were not any planned “cost cutting” measures that could be expected to reduce the nature, extent or quality of services. The Independent Board Members further noted that there were currently no plans for material changes to senior personnel at Nuveen or key personnel who provide services to the Funds and the Board following the Transaction. The key personnel who have responsibility for the Funds in each area, including portfolio management, investment oversight, fund management, fund operations, product management, legal/compliance and board support functions, are expected to be the same following the Transaction, although such personnel may have additional reporting requirements toTIAA-CREF. The Board also considered the anticipated incentive plans designed to retain such key personnel. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board Members recognized that personnel changes may occur in the future as a result of normal business developments or personal career decisions.

The Board Members also considered Nuveen’s proposed governance structure following the Transaction and noted that Nuveen was expected to remain astand-alone business within theTIAA-CREF enterprise and operate relatively autonomously from the otherTIAA-CREF businesses, but would receive the general support and oversight from certainTIAA-CREF functional groups (such as legal, finance, internal audit, compliance, and risk management groups). The Board recognized, however, that Nuveen may be subject to additional reporting requirements as it keepsTIAA-CREF abreast of developments affecting the Nuveen business, may be required to modify certain of its reports, policies and procedures as necessary to conform to the practices followed in theTIAA-CREF enterprise, and may need to collaborate withTIAA-CREF with respect to strategic planning for its business.

In considering the implications of the Transaction, the Board Members also recognized the reputation and size ofTIAA-CREF and the benefits that the Transaction may bring to the Funds and Nuveen. In this regard, the Board recognized, among other things, that the increased resources and support that may be available to Nuveen fromTIAA-CREF and the improved capital structure of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the parent of the Adviser) that would result from the significant reduction in its debt level may reinforce and enhance Nuveen’s ability to provide quality services to the Funds and to invest further into its infrastructure.

23

Further, with the consummation of the Transaction, the Board recognized the enhanced distribution capabilities for the Funds as the Funds may gain access toTIAA-CREF’s distribution network, particularly throughTIAA-CREF’s retirement platform and institutional client base. The Board also considered that investors inTIAA-CREF’s retirement platform may choose to roll their investments as they exit their retirement plans into the Funds. The Independent Board Members recognized the potential cost savings to the benefit of all shareholders of the Funds from reduced expenses as assets in the Nuveen fund complex rise pursuant to thecomplex-wide fee arrangement described in further detail below.

Based on their review, the Independent Board Members found that the expected nature, extent and quality of services to be provided to the respective Funds under each applicable New Advisory Agreement were satisfactory and supported approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

1. The Original Advisory Agreements

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, considered the performance history of each Fund over various time periods. The Board reviewed reports, including an analysis of the Funds’ performance and the applicable investment team. In considering a Fund’s performance, the Board recognized that a Fund’s performance can be reviewed through various measures including the Fund’s absolute return, the Fund’s return compared to the performance of other peer funds, and the Fund’s performance compared to its respective benchmark. Accordingly, the Board reviewed, among other things, each Fund’s historic investment performance as well as information comparing the Fund’s performance information with that of other funds (the “Performance Peer Group”) and with recognized and/or customized benchmarks (i.e., generally benchmarks derived from multiple recognized benchmarks) for the quarter,one-,three- andfive-year periods ending December 31, 2013, as well as performance information reflecting the first quarter of 2014 (or for such shorter periods available for Funds that did not exist for part of the foregoing time frame). With respect to closed-end funds, the Independent Board Members also reviewed historic premium and discount levels, including a summary of actions taken to address or discuss other developments affecting the secondary market discounts of various Nuveen funds. This information supplemented the Fund performance information provided to the Board at each of its quarterly meetings.

In evaluating performance, the Board recognized several factors that may impact the performance data as well as the consideration given to particular performance data.

24

With respect to California Value,any Nuveen funds for which the Board has identified performance concerns, the Board monitors such funds closely until performance improves, discusses with the Adviser the reasons for such results, considers those steps necessary or appropriate to address such issues, and reviews the results of any efforts undertaken. The Board is aware, however, that shareholders chose to invest or remain invested in a fund knowing that the Adviser manages the fund and knowing the fund’s fee structure.

In considering the performance data, the Independent Board Members Hunter, Stockdale, Stonenoted that Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund (JFR), Nuveen Floating Rate Income Opportunity Fund (JRO) and StringerNuveen Senior Income Fund (NSL) had demonstrated generally favorable performance in comparison to peers, performing in the first quartile over various periods, and Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (NAN), Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NXK), Nuveen New York Performance Plus Municipal Fund, Inc. (NNP), Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities Fund (JPC), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 2 (JPS) and Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 3 (JHP) had satisfactory performance compared to their peers, performing in the second and third quartile over various periods subject to the

25

following: although Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities Fund (JPC) performed in the fourth quartile in the three-year period, such Fund performed in the third quartile in the one-year period and the second quartile in the five-year period. The Board further noted that Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund (JTP) lagged its peers somewhat in the shorter periods, but demonstrated more favorable performance in the longer periods. In this regard, although Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund (JTP) performed in the fourth quartile in theone-year period, such Fund performed in the third quartile in thethree-year period and the second quartile in thefive-year period.

With respect to Funds with Performance Peer Groups classified as less relevant noted above, the Board considered the Funds’ performance compared to their respective benchmarks and noted that Nuveen Credit Strategies Income Fund (JQC) outperformed its benchmark over theone-,three- andfive-year periods while other Funds’ performance was satisfactory compared to the performance of their benchmarks. In this regard, although Nuveen Connecticut Premium Income Municipal Fund (NTC) and Maryland Premium Income Municipal Fund (NMY) underperformed their benchmark in the one-year period, they provided generally comparable performance in the three-year period and outperformed their benchmark in the five-year period. Although Missouri Premium Income Municipal Fund (NOM) underperformed its benchmark in the one-year period, it outperformed its benchmark in the three- and five-year periods.

The Board also noted that Nuveen Georgia Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NKG), Nuveen North Carolina Premium Income Municipal Fund (NNC) and Nuveen Virginia Premium Income Municipal Fund (NPV) underperformed their respective benchmarks over the one- and three-year periods; however, such Funds outperformed their benchmarks in the five-year period. With respect to Nuveen Georgia Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NKG) and Nuveen North Carolina Premium Income Municipal Fund (NNC), the Board noted that such Funds’ underperformance compared to their benchmark in 2013 was due to, among other things, Fund-level leverage and an overweight in longer duration bonds. Although the exposure to longer duration bonds was a contributor to the Funds’ underperformance compared to their benchmark in the one-year period, the Board noted that longer duration bonds had been additive to performance in the three-year period. The Board considered the market conditions, the objectives of the Funds and the investment philosophy underlying the emphasis of longer duration bonds and determined that performance of such Funds over time was satisfactory. The Funds also outperformed their benchmark in the first quarter of 2014. With respect to Nuveen Virginia Premium Income Municipal Fund (NPV), the Board observed that the Fund’s underperformance compared to its benchmark in 2013 was due to, among other things, fund-level leverage, exposure to Puerto Rico securities, and an overweight in certain lower rated bonds. The Board further recognized that the Fund’s exposure to Puerto Rico securities was reduced in 2013. The Fund also outperformed its benchmark in the first quarter of 2014.

With respect to Nuveen Short Duration Credit Opportunities Fund (JSD), Nuveen Flexible Investment Income Fund (JPW), Nuveen All Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund (JMLP), Nuveen Intermediate Duration Municipal Term Fund (NID), Nuveen Intermediate Duration Quality Municipal Term Fund (NIQ) and Nuveen Preferred and Income Term Fund (JPI), the Board recognized that such Funds were relatively new with a shorter performance history available thereby limiting the ability to make a meaningful assessment of performance.

Except as otherwise noted above, based on their review, the Independent Board Members determined that each Fund’s investment performance had been satisfactory.

26

2. The New Advisory Agreements

With respect to the performance of the Funds, the Board considered that the portfolio investment personnel responsible for the management of the Funds’ portfolios were expected to continue to manage the portfolios following the completion of the Transaction and the investment strategies of the Funds were not expected to change as a result of the Transaction. Accordingly, the findings regarding performance outlined above for the Original Advisory Agreements are applicable to the review of the New Advisory Agreements.

1. Fees and Expenses

Notwithstanding Nuveen All Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund (JMLP) which is discussed below, the Board evaluated the management fees and expenses of each Fund reviewing, among other things, such Fund’s gross management fees, net management fees and net expense ratios in absolute terms as well as compared to the fees and expenses of a comparable universe of funds provided by an independent fund data provider (the “Peer Universe”) and any expense limitations.

The Independent Board Members further reviewed the methodology regarding the construction of the applicable Peer Universe. In reviewing the comparisons of fee and expense information, the Independent Board Members took into account that in certain instances various factors such as: the limited size and particular composition of the Peer Universe (including the inclusion of other Nuveen funds in the peer set); expense anomalies; changes in the funds comprising the Peer Universe from year to year; levels of reimbursement or fee waivers; the timing of information used; the differences in the type and use of leverage; and differences in the states reflected in the Peer Universe (with respect to state municipal funds) may impact the comparative data thereby limiting somewhat the ability to make a meaningful comparison with peers.

In reviewing the fee schedule for a Fund, the Independent Board Members also considered thefund-level andcomplex-wide breakpoint schedules (described in further detail below) and any fee waivers and reimbursements provided by Nuveen. In reviewing fees and expenses (excluding leverage costs and leveraged assets for theclosed-end funds), the Board considered the expenses and fees to be higher if they were over 10 basis points higher, slightly higher if they were approximately 6 to 10 basis points higher, in line if they were within approximately 5 basis points higher than the peer average and below if they were below the peer average of the Peer Universe. In reviewing the reports, the Board noted that the majority of the Nuveen funds were at, close to or below their peer average based on the net total expense ratio. The Independent Board Members observed that the Funds had net management fees and net expense ratios (including fee waivers and expense reimbursements) below or in line with their peer averages, except as noted below.

The Board considered that Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund (NAN), Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 (NXK), Nuveen New York Performance Plus Municipal Fund, Inc. (NNP), Nuveen Preferred and Income Term Fund (JPI), Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities Fund (JPC), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund (JTP), Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 2 (JPS) and Nuveen Quality Preferred Income Fund 3

27

(JHP) have net management fees slightly higher or higher than the peer average, but net expense ratios below orin-line with the peer average. The Board noted that Missouri Premium Income Municipal Fund (NOM) had a net expense ratio slightly higher than its peer average but a net management fee in line with its peer average. The Board further noted that Nuveen Flexible Investment Income Fund (JPW) had a net management fee higher than its peer average and a net expense ratio slightly higher than its peer average and that the Fund’s higher relative expense ratio was generally due, in part, to the small size of the Fund compared to its peers.

With respect to Nuveen All Cap Energy MLP Opportunities Fund (JMLP), the Board noted that the Original Advisory Agreements of the Fund were recently approved in the latter part of 2013 and therefore would not have been designatedup for review but for the change of control of Nuveen terminating the Original Advisory Agreements upon completion of the Transaction. For administrative convenience, the Board reapproved the Original Advisory Agreements for this Fund. As with all Funds, the Board considered the information concerning the Fund provided at earlier meetings. The Board considered, among other things, the Fund’s management fee structure, the rationale for the fee levels, and its expected expense ratio in absolute terms as Class Iwell as compared with the fees and expense ratios of comparable funds. Accordingly, the Board reviewed, among other things, the gross management fee and estimated gross and net total expense ratio for the new Fund, as well as comparative fee and expense data pertaining to the Fund’s peers in the Lipper category in which it was anticipated to be classified. The Independent Board Members and as nomineesalso considered the sub-advisory fee rate for the Fund. The Independent Board Members further considered the fund-level breakpoint schedule and the complex-wide breakpoint schedule and any applicable fee waivers and expense reimbursements.

Based on their review of the fee and expense information provided, the Independent Board Members determined that each Fund’s management fees (as applicable) to a Fund Adviser were reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of services provided to the Fund.

2. Comparisons with the Fees of Other Clients

The Board recognized that all Nuveen funds have asub-adviser, either affiliated ornon-affiliated, and therefore, the overall Fund management fee can be divided into two components, the fee retained by the Adviser and the fee paid to thesub-adviser. In general terms, the fee to the Adviser reflects the administrative and other services it provides to support the Funds (as described above) and while some administrative services may occur at thesub-adviser level, the fee to thesub-adviser generally reflects the portfolio management services provided by thesub-adviser. The Independent Board Members considered the fees a Fund Adviser assesses to the Funds compared to that of other clients. With respect tonon-municipal funds, such other clients of a Fund Adviser may include: separately managed accounts (both retail and institutional accounts), hedge funds, foreign investment funds offered by Nuveen, collective trust funds, and funds that are not offered by Nuveen but aresub-advised by one of Nuveen’s investment management teams. With respect to municipal funds, such other clients of a Fund Adviser may include: municipal separately managed accounts and passively managed exchange traded funds (ETFs) sub-advised by the Adviser.

The Independent Board Members reviewed the nature of services provided by the Adviser, including through its affiliatedsub-advisers and the average fee the affiliatedsub-advisers

28

assessed such clients as well as the range of fees assessed to the different types of separately managed accounts (such as retail, institutional or wrap accounts) to the extent applicable to the respectivesub-adviser. With respect to Symphony, the Independent Board Members also noted that suchSub-Adviser also advises equity and taxablefixed-income hedge funds and reviewed the average fee and fee range assessed such funds as well as the performance fee. In their review, the Independent Board Members considered the differences in the product types, including, but not limited to: the services provided, the structure and operations, product distribution and costs thereof, portfolio investment policies, investor profiles, account sizes and regulatory requirements. In evaluating the comparisons of fees, the Independent Board Members noted that the fee rates charged to the Funds and other clients vary, among other things, because of the different services involved and the additional regulatory and compliance requirements associated with registered investment companies, such as the Funds. The Independent Board Members noted that as a general matter, higher fee levels reflect higher levels of service, increased investment management complexity, greater product management requirements and higher levels of risk or a combination of the foregoing. The Independent Board Members further noted, in particular, that the range of services provided to the Funds (as discussed above) is generally much more extensive than that provided to separately managed accounts. Many of the additional administrative services provided by the Adviser are not required for institutional clients. The Independent Board Members also recognized that the management fee rates of the foreign funds advised by the Adviser may vary due to, among other things, differences in the client base, governing bodies, operational complexities and services covered by the management fee. Given the inherent differences in the various products, particularly the extensive services provided to the Funds, the Independent Board Members believe such facts justify the different levels of fees.

With respect to Spectrum and ARI, the Independent Board Members also considered the pricing schedule or fees that suchSub-Advisers charge for other clients. The Independent Board Members noted that the fees paid theseSub-Advisers for theirsub-advisory services were at or below the low end of their fee schedule or of their average fees earned. The Independent Board Members also noted that with respect toSub-Advisers unaffiliated with Nuveen, such fees were the result ofarm’s-length negotiations.

3. Profitability of Fund Advisers

In conjunction with their review of fees, the Independent Board Members also considered the profitability of Nuveen for its advisory activities and its financial condition. The Independent Board Members reviewed the revenues and expenses of Nuveen’s advisory activities for the last two calendar years, the allocation methodology used in preparing the profitability data, an analysis of the key drivers behind the changes in revenues and expenses that impacted profitability in 2013 and Nuveen’s consolidated financial statements for 2013. The Independent Board Members noted this information supplemented the profitability information requested and received during the year to help keep them apprised of developments affecting profitability (such as changes in fee waivers and expense reimbursement commitments). In this regard, the Independent Board Members noted that two Independent Board Members served as point persons to review the profitability analysis and methodologies employed, any changes thereto, and to keep the Board apprised of such changes. The Independent Board Members also considered Nuveen’s revenues for advisory activities, expenses, and profit margin compared to that of various unaffiliated management firms.

29

In reviewing profitability, the Independent Board Members noted the Adviser’s continued investment in its business with expenditures to, among other things, upgrade its investment technology and compliance systems, and provide for additional personnel and other resources. The Independent Board Members recognized the Adviser’s continued commitment to its business should enhance the Adviser’s capacity and capabilities in providing the services necessary to meet the needs of the Funds as they grow or change over time. In addition, in evaluating profitability, the Independent Board Members also noted the subjective nature of determining profitability which may be affected by numerous factors including the allocation of expenses and that various allocation methodologies may each be reasonable but yield different results. Further, the Independent Board Members recognized the difficulties in making comparisons as the profitability of other advisers generally is not publicly available, and the profitability information that is available for certain advisers or management firms may not be representative of the industry and may be affected by, among other things, the adviser’s particular business mix, capital costs, size, types of funds managed and expense allocations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Independent Board Members noted the Adviser’s adjusted operating margin appears to be reasonable in relation to other investment advisers and sufficient to operate as a viable investment management firm meeting its obligations to the Funds. Based on their review, the Independent Board Members concluded that the Adviser’s level of profitability for its advisory activities was reasonable in light of the services provided.

With respect tosub-advisers affiliated with Nuveen, including NAM, NWQ, and Symphony, the Independent Board Members reviewed suchsub-advisers’ revenues, expenses and profitability margins(pre- andpost-tax) for their advisory activities and the methodology used for allocating expenses among the internalsub-advisers. In addition, with respect tosub-advisers unaffiliated with Nuveen, the Independent Board Members also considered thesub-advisers’ revenues, expenses and profitability margins for their advisory activities with the applicable Fund(s). Based on their review, the Independent Board Members were satisfied that the respective Fund Adviser’s level of profitability was reasonable in light of the services provided.

In evaluating the reasonableness of the compensation, the Independent Board Members also considered other amounts paid to a Fund Adviser by the Funds as well as indirect benefits (such as soft dollar arrangements), if any, the Fund Adviser and its affiliates receive or are expected to receive that are directly attributable to the management of the Funds. See Section E below for additional information on indirect benefits the Fund Adviser may receive as a result of its relationship with the Funds. Based on their review of the overall fee arrangements of each Fund, the Independent Board Members determined that the advisory fees and expenses of the respective Fund were reasonable.

4. The New Advisory Agreements

As noted above, the terms of the New Advisory Agreements are substantially identical to their corresponding Original Advisory Agreements. The fee schedule, including the breakpoint schedule andcomplex-wide fee schedule, in each New Advisory Agreement is identical to that under the corresponding Original Advisory Agreement. The Board Members also noted that Nuveen has committed for a term expiringperiod of two years from the date of closing the Transaction not to increase contractual management fee rates for any Nuveen fund. This commitment shall not limit or otherwise affect mergers or liquidations of any Funds in the ordinary course. Based on the information provided, the Board Members did not believe that the overall expenses would

30

increase as a result of the Transaction. In addition, the Board Members recognized that the Nuveen funds may gain access to the retirement platform and institutional client base ofTIAA-CREF, and the investors in the retirement platforms may roll their investments into one or more Nuveen funds as they exit their retirement plans. The enhanced distribution access may result in additional sales of the Funds resulting in an increase in total assets under management in the complex and a corresponding decrease in overall management fees if additional breakpoints at the annual meetingfund-level orcomplex-wide level are met. Based on its review, the Board determined that the management fees and expenses under the New Advisory Agreements were reasonable.

Further, other than from a potential reduction in the debt level of shareholders in 2016 or until their successors have been duly elected and qualified.Nuveen Investments, the Board recognized that it is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty the impact of the Transaction on Nuveen’s profitability. Given the fee schedule was not expected to change under the New Advisory Agreements, however, the Independent Board Members Adams, Bremner, Evans, Kundert, Nelson, Schneider, Schreier and Toth are current and continuing Board Members.concluded that the Fund Adviser’s level of profitability for its advisory activities under the New Advisory Agreements would continue to be reasonable in light of the services provided.

1. The Original Advisory Agreements

With respect to economies of scale, the Independent Board Members Adams, Kundert, Nelsonhave recognized the potential benefits resulting from the costs of a fund being spread over a larger asset base, although economies of scale are difficult to measure and Toth have been designated as Class IIpredict with precision, particularly on afund-by-fund basis. One method to help ensure the shareholders share in these benefits is to include breakpoints in the advisory fee schedule. Generally, management fees for funds in the Nuveen complex are comprised of afund-level component and acomplex-level component, subject to certain exceptions. Accordingly, the Independent Board Members reviewed and considered the applicablefund-level breakpoints in the advisory fee schedules that reduce advisory fees as asset levels increase. Further, the Independent Board Members noted that althoughclosed-end funds may fromtime-to-time make additional share offerings, the growth of their assets would occur primarily through the appreciation of such funds’ investment portfolio.

In addition tofund-level advisory fee breakpoints, the Board also considered the Funds’complex-wide fee arrangement. Pursuant to thecomplex-wide fee arrangement, the fees of the funds in the Nuveen complex are reduced as the assets in the fund complex reach certain levels. Thecomplex-wide fee arrangement seeks to provide the benefits of economies of scale to fund shareholders when total fund complex assets increase, even if assets of a particular fund are unchanged or have decreased. The approach reflects the notion that some of Nuveen’s costs are attributable to services provided to all its funds in the complex and therefore all funds benefit if these costs are spread over a larger asset base.

Based on their review, the Independent Board Members concluded that the breakpoint schedules andcomplex-wide fee arrangement (as applicable) were acceptable and reflect economies of scale to be shared with shareholders when assets under management increase.

31

2. The New Advisory Agreements

As noted, the Independent Board Members recognized that thefund-level andcomplex-wide schedules will not change under the New Advisory Agreements. Assets in the funds advised byTIAA-CREF or its current affiliates will not be included in thecomplex-wide fee calculation. Nevertheless, the Nuveen funds may have access toTIAA-CREF’s retirement platform and institutional client base. The access to this distribution network may enhance the distribution of the Nuveen funds which, in turn, may lead to reductions in management andsub-advisory fees if the Nuveen funds reach additionalfund-level andcomplex-wide break point levels. Based on their review, including the considerations in the annual review of the Original Advisory Agreements, the Independent Board Members determined that thefund-level breakpoint schedules andcomplex-wide fee schedule continue to be appropriate and desirable in ensuring that shareholders participate in the benefits derived from economies of scale under the New Advisory Agreements.

1. The Original Advisory Agreements

In evaluating fees, the Independent Board Members received and considered information regarding potential “fall out” or ancillary benefits the respective Fund Adviser or its affiliates may receive as a result of its relationship with each Fund. In this regard, with respect toclosed-end funds, the Independent Board Members considered any revenues received by affiliates of the Adviser for serving asco-manager in initial public offerings of newclosed-end funds as well as revenues received in connection with secondary offerings.

In addition to the above, the Independent Board Members considered whether the Fund Adviser received any benefits from soft dollar arrangements whereby a portion of the commissions paid by a Fund for brokerage may be used to acquire research that may be useful to the Fund Adviser in managing the assets of the Funds and other clients. The Funds’ portfolio transactions are allocated by the applicableSub-Adviser. Accordingly, with respect to NAM, ARI, NWQ and Symphony, the Independent Board Members considered that suchSub-Advisers may benefit from their soft dollar arrangements pursuant to which the respectiveSub-Adviser receives research from brokers that execute the applicable Fund’s portfolio transactions. With respect to any fixed income securities, however, the Board recognized that such securities generally trade on a principal basis that does not generate soft dollar credits. Similarly, the Board recognized that the research received pursuant to soft dollar arrangements by aSub-Adviser may also benefit the applicable Funds and shareholders to the extent the research enhances the ability of theSub-Adviser to manage the respective Fund. For theSub-Advisers with soft dollar arrangements, the Independent Board Members noted that suchSub-Advisers’ profitability may be somewhat lower if they did not receive the research services pursuant to the soft dollar arrangements and had to acquire such services directly.

With respect to Spectrum, the Board noted that Spectrum does not direct Fund trades throughnon-affiliatedbroker-dealers and therefore does not provide any Fund brokerage to broker-dealers in order to receive research or related services on a soft dollar basis. Spectrum, however, may from time to time receive research from various firms with which it transacts client business, but it has no arrangements with these firms. Spectrum also serves as its own broker for portfolio transactions for the Funds it advises and therefore may receive some indirect compensation.

32

Based on their review, the Independent Board Members concluded that any indirect benefits received by a Fund Adviser as a result of its relationship with the Funds were reasonable and within acceptable parameters.

2. The New Advisory Agreements

The Independent Board Members noted that as the applicable policies and operations of the Fund Advisers with respect to the Funds were not anticipated to change significantly after the Transaction, such indirect benefits should remain after the Transaction. The Independent Board Members further noted the benefits the Transaction would provide toTIAA-CREF and Nuveen, including alarger-scale fund complex, certain shared services (noted above) and a broader range of investment capabilities, distribution capabilities and product line. Further, the Independent Board Members noted that Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the parent of the Adviser) would benefit from an improved capital structure through a reduction in its debt level.

In addition to the factors above, the Board Members also considered the following with respect to the Nuveen funds:

33

The Independent Board Members did not identify any single factor discussed previously asall-important or controlling. The Board Members, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously concluded that the terms of each Original Advisory Agreement and New Advisory Agreement are fair and reasonable, that the respective Fund Adviser’s fees are reasonable in light of the services provided to each Fund and that the Original Advisory Agreements be renewed and the New Advisory Agreements be approved.

At the April Meeting, the Board Members, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously approved the Interim Investment Management Agreements and InterimSub-Advisory Agreements. If necessary to assure continuity of advisory services, the Interim Investment Management Agreements and InterimSub-Advisory Agreements will take effect upon the closing of the Transaction if shareholders have not yet approved the New Investment Management Agreements and NewSub-Advisory Agreements. The terms of each Interim Investment Management Agreement and InterimSub-Advisory Agreement are substantially identical to those of the corresponding Original Investment Management Agreement and New Investment Management Agreement and the OriginalSub-Advisory Agreement and NewSub-Advisory Agreement, respectively, except for acertain term expiringand fee escrow provisions. In light of the foregoing, the Board Members, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously determined that the scope and quality of services to be provided to the Funds under the respective Interim Investment Management Agreement and InterimSub-Advisory Agreement are at least equivalent to the annual meetingscope and quality of shareholders in 2015 or until their successors have been duly electedservices provided under the applicable Original Investment Management Agreement and qualified.OriginalSub-Advisory Agreement.

34

PROPOSAL 3: ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS

Massachusetts Funds(ALL FUNDS EXCEPT JMLP AND NNP)

Nominees

Pursuant to the organizational documents of each Massachusetts Fund, each Board is divided into three classes, Class I, Class II and Class III, to be elected by the holders of the outstanding Common Shares and any outstanding Preferred Shares, voting together as a single classall shareholders to serve until the third succeeding annual meeting of shareholders subsequent to their election or thereafter, in each case until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. ForIn addition, for each Massachusetts Fund with Preferred Shares outstanding, under normal circumstances, holders of Preferred Shares are entitled to elect two (2) Board Members. The Board Members elected by holdersat each annual meeting of Preferred Shares will be electedshareholders, to serve until the next annual meeting of shareholders or until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified.

Effective September 1, 2013, Board Members William Adams IV, John K. Nelson and Thomas S. Schreier, Jr. were appointed as Board Members. The Board has determined that each appointed Board Member who has not yet been elected by shareholders shall stand for election at the Meeting. Electing Board Members at this time will facilitate the Funds’ continued compliance with the provisions of the 1940 Act that require that a majority of Board Members to be elected by shareholders and allow the appointment of Board Members to fill vacancies only if, after such appointment, at least two-thirds of the Board Members would have been elected by shareholders.

Each Board Member nominee, if elected at the Meeting, will serve a term commensurate with the remaining term of the class of Board Members to which he has been designated. Each Board Member who is not standing for election at the Meeting will continue to serve the term to which he or she was last elected, in accordance with the term to which he or she has been designated.

Board Members are standing for election at the Meeting as follows:

7

35

Composition of the Board

NTC, JFR, JRO, NKG, NMY, NOM, NNC, NSL and NPV. The composition of the Board of each such Fund is as follows:

Board Members Hunter, Stockdale, Stone and Stringer have been designated as Class I Board Members for a term expiring at the annual meeting of shareholders in 2016 or until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. Board Members Adams, Bremner, Evans, Kundert, Nelson, Schneider, Schreier and Toth are current and continuing Board Members. Board Members Adams, Kundert, Nelson and Toth have been designated Class II Board Members for a term expiring at the annual meeting of shareholders in 2014 or until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. Board Members Bremner, Evans, Schneider and Schreier have been designated as Class III Board Members for a term expiring at the annual meeting of shareholders in 2015 or untilDecember 14, 2012. Class III Board Member Schreier was appointed to the Board of each Fund effective September 1, 2013. The terms of Class III Board Members will expire at the Fund’s second succeeding annual meeting of shareholders following the Meeting or when their successors have been duly elected and qualified.

JSD and JPI. The composition of the Board of JSD and JPI is as follows:

36

NID, NIQ, NAN and NXK. The composition of the Board of NID, NIQ, NAN and NXK is as follows:

JQC, JPW, JPC, JTP, JPS and JHP. The composition of the Board of each such Fund is as follows:

37

It is the intention of the persons named in the enclosed proxy to vote the shares represented thereby for the election of the nominees listed in the table belowabove unless the proxy is marked otherwise. Each of the nominees has agreed to serve as a Board Member of each Fund if elected. However, should any nominee become unable or unwilling to accept nomination for election, the proxies will be voted for substitute nominees, if any, designated by that Fund’s present Board.

For each Minnesota Fund, except for California Value, each Board Member except Board Members Adams, Nelson and Schreier was last elected to each Fund’s Board at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 14, 2012, and adjourned to December 14, 2012.

For California Value, Board Members Bremner, Evans and Schneider were last elected to the Fund’s Board as Class III Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 14, 2012, and adjourned to December 14, 2012. Board Members Kundert and Toth were last elected to the Fund’s Board as Class II Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 15, 2011, and adjourned to December 16, 2011. Board Members Hunter, Stockdale and Stone were last elected to the Fund’s Board as Class I Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 16, 2010.

For each Massachusetts Fund, except Arizona Premium Income, California Dividend Advantage 2, Michigan Quality Income, New Jersey Dividend Advantage 2, Ohio Quality Income and Preferred and Income, Board Members Bremner and Evans were last elected to each Fund’s Board as Class III Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 14, 2012, and adjourned to December 14, 2012. For California Dividend Advantage 2 and New Jersey Dividend

8

Advantage 2, Board Members Bremner and Evans were last elected to each Fund’s Board as Class III Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 14, 2012.

For each Massachusetts Fund, except Arizona Premium Income, California Value 2, Connecticut Premium Income, Floating Rate Income, Floating Rate Income Opportunity, Georgia Dividend Advantage 2, Michigan Quality Income, New Jersey Value, North Carolina Premium Income, Ohio Quality Income, Pennsylvania Value, Preferred and Income, Senior Income and Short Duration Credit Opportunities, Board Members Kundert and Toth were last elected to each Fund’s Board as Class II Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 15, 2011 and adjourned to December 16, 2011. For Connecticut Premium Income, Georgia Dividend Advantage 2 and North Carolina Premium Income, Board Members Kundert and Toth were last elected to each Fund’s Board as Class II Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on December 16, 2011 and adjourned to January 31, 2012.

For each Massachusetts Fund, except Arizona Premium Income, California Value 2, Floating Rate Income, Floating Rate Income Opportunity, Michigan Quality Income, New Jersey Value, Ohio Quality Income, Pennsylvania Value, Preferred and Income, Senior Income and Short Duration Credit Opportunities, Board Members Stockdale and Stone were last elected to the Fund’s Board as Class I Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 16, 2010 and, for Missouri Premium Income and Texas Quality Income, adjourned to January 6, 2011.

For each Massachusetts Fund, except Arizona Premium Income, California Dividend Advantage 2, California Value 2, Floating Rate Income, Floating Rate Income Opportunity, Michigan Quality Income, New Jersey Dividend Advantage 2, New Jersey Value, Ohio Quality Income, Pennsylvania Value, Preferred and Income, Senior Income and Short Duration Credit Opportunities, Board Members Hunter and Schneider were last elected to each Fund’s Board at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 14, 2012, and adjourned to December 14, 2012. For California Dividend Advantage 2 and New Jersey Dividend Advantage 2, Board Members Hunter and Schneider were last elected to each Fund’s Board at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 14, 2012.

For California Value 2, Floating Rate Income, Floating Rate Income Opportunity, New Jersey Value, Pennsylvania Value, Senior Income and Short Duration Credit Opportunities, Board Members Bremner, Evans and Schneider were last elected to each Fund’s Board as Class III Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 14, 2012, and adjourned to December 14, 2012.

For California Value 2, Floating Rate Income, Floating Rate Income Opportunity, New Jersey Value, Pennsylvania Value and Senior Income, Board Members Kundert and Toth were last elected to each Fund’s Board as Class II Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 15, 2011. Board Members Hunter, Stockdale and Stone were last elected to each Fund’s Board as Class I Board Members at the annual meeting of shareholders held on November 16, 2010.

For Short Duration Credit Opportunities, each Board Member except Board Members Adams, Bremner, Evans, Nelson, Schneider and Schreier was approved by the initial shareholder of the Fund, Nuveenall Funds, Advisors, LLC f/k/a Nuveen Fund Advisors, Inc. (the “Adviser”), on May 23, 2011.

9

For Preferred and Income, each Board Member except Board Members Adams, Nelson and Schreier was approved by the initial shareholder of the Fund, the Adviser, on July 26, 2012.

For Michigan Quality Income, each Board Member except Board Members Adams, Nelson and Schreier was elected by the initial shareholder of the Fund, Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund, Inc., on January 7, 2013.

For Arizona Premium Income, each Board Member except Board Members Adams, Nelson and Schreier was elected by the initial shareholder of the Fund, Nuveen Arizona Premium Income Municipal Fund, Inc., on April 8, 2013.

For Ohio Quality Income, each Board Member except Board Members Adams, Nelson and Schreier was elected by the initial shareholder of the Fund, Nuveen Ohio Income Municipal Fund, Inc., on April 8, 2013.

Effective January 1, 2011, Ms. Stringer was appointed as a Board Member for each Fund except Short Duration Credit Opportunities and Preferred and Income, and designated as a Class I Board Member with respect to California Value and each Massachusetts Fund.

Effective September 1, 2013, Mr. Adams and Mr. Nelson were appointed as Board Members for each Fund and designated as Class II Board Members with respect to California Value and each Massachusetts Fund. Effective September 1, 2013, Mr. Schreier was appointed as a Board Member for each Fund and designated as a Class III Board Member with respect to California Value and each Massachusetts Fund.

Otherother than Messrs. Adams and Schreier, (for all Funds), all Board Member nominees are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act, of the Funds or of the Adviser and have never been an employee or director of Nuveen, Investments, Inc. (“Nuveen” or “Nuveen Investments”), the Adviser’s parent company, or any affiliate. Accordingly, such Board Members are deemed “Independent Board Members.”

10

The Board of each Fund unanimously recommends that shareholders of the Fund vote FOR the election of the nominees named below.herein.

38

Board Nominees/Board Members and Nominees

1139

1240

1341

1442

1543

1644

45

Share Ownership

In order to create an appropriate identity of interests between Board Members and shareholders, the boards of directors/trustees of the Nuveen funds have adopted a governance principle pursuant to which each Board Member is expected to invest, either directly or on a deferred basis, at least the equivalent of one year of compensation in the funds in the Nuveen complex.

17

The dollar range of equity securities beneficially owned by each Board Member in each Fund and all Nuveen funds overseen by the Board Member as of December 31, 20122013 is set forth inAppendix A.H. The number of shares of each Fund beneficially owned by each Board Member and by the Board Members and executive officers of the Funds as a group as of December 31, 20122013 is set forth inAppendix A. On December 31, 2012, Board Members and executive officers as a group beneficially owned approximately 1,700,000 shares of all funds managed by the Adviser (including shares held by the Board Members through the Deferred Compensation Plan for Independent Board Members and by executive officers in Nuveen’s 401(k)/profit sharing plan)H. As of October 8, 2013,the Record Date, each Board Member’s and executive officer’s individual beneficial shareholdings of each Fund constituted lessconstitutedless than 1%of the outstanding shares of each Fund. As of October 8, 2013,the Record Date, the Board Members and executive officers as a group beneficially owned lessownedless than 1% of the outstanding shares of each Fund. As of October 8, 2013, no shareholder beneficially owned more than 5% of any class of shares of any Fund, except as provided in Appendix B.

Compensation

Prior to January 1, 2013,2014, each Independent Board Member received a $130,000$140,000 annual retainer plus: (a) a fee of $4,500 per day for attendance in person or by telephone at regularly scheduled meetings of the Board; (b) a fee of $3,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at special, non-regularly scheduled meetings of the Board meetings where in-person attendance was required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required; (c) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Audit Committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required; (d) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required; (e) a fee of $1,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Dividend Committee meetings; (f) a fee of $500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at all other committee meetings ($1,000 for shareholder meetings) where in-person attendance was required and $250 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such committee meetings (excluding shareholder meetings) where in-person attendance was not required, and $100 per meeting when the Executive Committee acted as pricing committee for IPOs, plus, in each case, expenses incurred in attending such meetings, provided that no fees were received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings were held; and (g) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by

46

telephone at Closed-End Funds Committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required, provided that no fees were received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings were held. In addition to the payments described above, the Chairman of the Board received $75,000, the chairpersons of the Audit Committee, the Dividend Committee, the Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee and the Closed-End Funds Committee received $12,500 each and the chairperson of the Nominating and Governance Committee received $5,000 as additional retainers. Independent Board Members also received a fee of $3,000 per day for site visits to entities that provided services to the Nuveen funds on days on which no Board meeting was held. When ad hoc committees

18

were organized, the Nominating and Governance Committee, at the time of formation, determined compensation to be paid to the members of such committees; however, in general, such fees were $1,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at ad hoc committee meetings where in-person attendance was required and $500 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance was not required. The annual retainer, fees and expenses were allocated among the Nuveen funds on the basis of relative net assets, although management might have, in its discretion, established a minimum amount to be allocated to each fund.

Effective January 1, 2013,2014, Independent Board Members receive a $140,000$150,000 annual retainer plus: (a) a fee of $4,500$5,000 per day for attendance in person or by telephone at regularly scheduled meetings of the Board; (b) a fee of $3,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at special, non-regularly scheduled meetings of the Board where in-person attendance is required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance is not required; (c) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Audit Committee meetings where in-person attendance is required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance is not required; (d) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee meetings where in-person attendance is required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance is not required; (e) a fee of $1,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Dividend Committee meetings; (f) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Closed-End Funds Committee meetings where in-person attendance is required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance is not required, provided that no fees are received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings are held; and (g) a fee of $500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at all other committee meetings ($1,000 for shareholder meetings) where in-person attendance is required and $250 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such committee meetings (excluding shareholder meetings) where in-person attendance is not required, and $100 per meeting when the Executive Committee acts as pricing committee for IPOs, plus, in each case, expenses incurred in attending such meetings, provided that no fees are received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings are held; and (g) a fee of $2,500 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at Closed-End Funds Committee meetings where in-person attendance is required and $2,000 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance is not required, provided that no fees are received for meetings held on days on which regularly scheduled Board meetings are held. In addition to the payments described above, the Chairman of the Board receives $75,000, the chairpersons of the Audit Committee, the Dividend Committee, the Compliance, Risk Management and Regulatory Oversight Committee and the Closed-End Funds Committee receive $12,500 each and the chairperson of the Nominating and Governance Committee receives $5,000 as additional annual retainers. Independent Board Members

47

also receive a fee of $3,000 per day for site visits to entities that provide services to the Nuveen funds on days on which no Board meeting is held. When ad hoc committees are organized, the Nominating and Governance Committee will, at the time of formation, determine compensation to be paid to the members of such committees; however, in general, such fees will be $1,000 per meeting for attendance in person or by telephone at ad hoc committee meetings where in-person attendance is required and $500 per meeting for attendance by telephone or in person at such meetings where in-person attendance is not required. The annual retainer, fees and expenses are allocated among the Nuveen funds on the basis of relative net assets, although management may, in its discretion, establish a minimum amount to be allocated to each fund.

19

The boards of certainFunds do not have retirement or pension plans. Certain Nuveen funds (the “Participating Funds”) establishedparticipate in a Deferreddeferred compensation plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan forPlan”) that permits an Independent Board Members (“Deferred Compensation Plan”). Under the Deferred Compensation Plan, Independent Board Members of the Participating Funds mayMember to elect to defer receipt of all or a portion of his or her compensation as an Independent Board Member. The deferred compensation of a participating Independent Board Member is credited to a book reserve account of the Participating Fund when the compensation they earn for their serviceswould otherwise have been paid to such Independent Board Member. The value of the Independent Board Member’s deferral account at any time is equal to the Participating Funds, in lieu of receiving current payments of such compensation. Any deferred amount is treated as though an equivalent dollar amountvalue that the account would have had if contributions to the account had been invested and reinvested in shares of one or more of the eligible Nuveen funds.

Except for JMLP, the Funds have no employees. The officers of the Funds and the Board Members of each Fund who are not Independent Board Members serve without any compensation from the Funds.

20

The table below shows,tables set forth inAppendix I show, for each Independent Board Member, the aggregate compensation paid by each Fund to each Board Member nominee for its last fiscal year:year and the aggregate compensation paid by all Nuveen funds to each Board Member for the calendar year ended December 31, 2013.